Byron Environment Centre: Readers' forum

Return to home page

Contributions are invited from readers of the Byron Environment Centre web site on topics of general and current interest relevant to the environment.

To submit a contribution, simply click the link below. Contributions can be sent in the body of the email or as an attached Word document. In the 'Subject' field enter the word 'Forum'. Please include your name (or alias) and a suburb or locality.

Send to BEC Readers' forum

Yelgun festival site of high ecological value

The site has been long identified as one of high ecological value. The proposal is inappropriate for the site, and the impacts upon the adjacent Billinudgel NR have been ignored. As a fomer NPWS Area Manager with past responsibility for the managment of the BNR, I am amazed that the site could even be considered.

Posted by Nigel Greenup 19/07/08


GE crops and Roundup - the threats from Monsanto

Thanks BEC for caring. I'm amazed again, by Department of Environment and Climate Change (NSW) who spray roundup onto Brunswick River Reserve swamplands & claim roundup is frog safe.Can the toxic-free Cumbebin wetlands project offer any lessons to managing this rare, tiny littoral rainforest, & it's frogs? Does BSC still spray hundrds of litres of roundup? And what are the chances of Byron Shire remaining GM free? Forget Woolworths, here comes MONSANTO...

Third World Resurgence, No. 176, April 2005
Title: "New Evidence of Dangers of Roundup Weedkiller"
Author: Chee Yoke Heong

Faculty Evaluator: Jennifer While
Student Researchers: Peter McArthur and Lani Ready

New studies from both sides of the Atlantic reveal that Roundup, the most widely used weedkiller in the world, poses serious human health threats. More than 75 percent of genetically modified (GM) crops are engineered to tolerate the absorption of Roundup—it eliminates all plants that are not GM. Monsanto Inc., the major engineer of GM crops, is also the producer of Roundup. Thus, while Roundup was formulated as a weapon against weeds, it has become a prevalent ingredient in most of our food crops.

Three recent studies show that Roundup, which is used by farmers and home gardeners, is not the safe product we have been led to trust.

A group of scientists led by biochemist Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini from the University of Caen in France found that human placental cells are very sensitive to Roundup at concentrations lower than those currently used in agricultural application.

An epidemiological study of Ontario farming populations showed that exposure to glyphosate, the key ingredient in Roundup, nearly doubled the risk of late miscarriages. Seralini and his team decided to research the effects of the herbicide on human placenta cells. Their study confirmed the toxicity of glyphosate, as after eighteen hours of exposure at low concentrations, large proportions of human placenta began to die. Seralini suggests that this may explain the high levels of premature births and miscarriages observed among female farmers using glyphosate.

Seralini's team further compared the toxic effects of the Roundup formula (the most common commercial formulation of glyphosate and chemical additives) to the isolated active ingredient, glyphosate. They found that the toxic effect increases in the presence of Roundup 'adjuvants' or additives. These additives thus have a facilitating role, rendering Roundup twice as toxic as its isolated active ingredient, glyphosate.

Another study, released in April 2005 by the University of Pittsburgh, suggests that Roundup is a danger to other life-forms and non-target organisms. Biologist Rick Relyea found that Roundup is extremely lethal to amphibians. In what is considered one of the most extensive studies on the effects of pesticides on nontarget organisms in a natural setting, Relyea found that Roundup caused a 70 percent decline in amphibian biodiversity and an 86 percent decline in the total mass of tadpoles. Leopard frog tadpoles and gray tree frog tadpoles were nearly eliminated.

In 2002, a scientific team led by Robert Belle of the National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) biological station in Roscoff, France showed that Roundup activates one of the key stages of cellular division that can potentially lead to cancer. Belle and his team have been studying the impact of glyphosate formulations on sea urchin cells for several years. The team has recently demonstrated in Toxicological Science (December 2004) that a "control point" for DNA damage was affected by Roundup, while glyphosate alone had no effect. "We have shown that it's a definite risk factor, but we have not evaluated the number of cancers potentially induced, nor the time frame within which they would declare themselves," Belle acknowledges.

There is, indeed, direct evidence that glyphosate inhibits an important process called RNA transcription in animals, at a concentration well below the level that is recommended for commercial spray application.

There is also new research that shows that brief exposure to commercial glyphosate causes liver damage in rats, as indicated by the leakage of intracellular liver enzymes. The research indicates that glyphosate and its surfactant in Roundup were found to act in synergy to increase damage to the liver.

UPDATE BY CHEE YOKE HEONG
Roundup Ready weedkiller is one of the most widely used weedkillers in the world for crops and backyard gardens. Roundup, with its active ingredient glyphosate, has long been promoted as safe for humans and the environment while effective in killing weeds. It is therefore significant when recent studies show that Roundup is not as safe as its promoters claim.

This has major consequences as the bulk of commercially planted genetically modified crops are designed to tolerate glyphosate (and especially Roundup), and independent field data already shows a trend of increasing use of the herbicide. This goes against industry claims that herbicide use will drop and that these plants will thus be more "environment-friendly." Now it has been found that there are serious health effects, too. My story therefore aimed to highlight these new findings and their implications to health and the environment.

Not surprisingly, Monsanto came out refuting some of the findings of the studies mentioned in the article. What ensued was an open exchange between Dr. Rick Relyea and Monsanto, whereby the former stood his grounds. Otherwise, to my knowledge, no studies have since emerged on Roundup.

For more information look to the following sources:
Professor Gilles-Eric, criigen@ibfa.unicaen.fr
Biosafety Information Center, http://www.biosafety-info.net
Institute of Science in Society, http://www.i-sis.org.uk

Posted by Ian, 18/03/08


Why are the police shooting magpies?

I always fed the magpies on my verandah. Some were so tame that I could pet them. They even walked through my whole house having a good look at everything and did plops on my bed.

They have ALL disappeared since the breeding season started. Now I read in the ECHO that the police in Brunswick Heads have shot them. You may have read the story. You can imagine the outcry if it was published beforehand.

I now have a good idea what has happened to them. Tourism is, indeed, a blessing! Somebody may get a peck on the head, what a terrible thing.

Have you people heard about this? Is there anything I, or you, can do about it? I miss my friends.

Posted by Naval 10/10/07


Why the festival sites are unsuitable

Not many people are objecting to concert events in the Shire per se but they are demanding that such 'cultural' events be held at an appropriate venue. Yelgun, and incidentally Tyagarah, are both environmentally and socially unsuitable. Council seems to be enamoured with any developer who mentions the word green in their proposals and the irony here is that the developers at Yelgun are making a great show of fixing environmental problems that they themselves will have created.
Posted by Nino, 12/09/07


 

(Byron Environment Centre Inc is a non-political organisation. Views expressed in this forum are not necessarily those of the BEC or its members. Contributions that are libellous or offensive will be rejected).