{"id":28117,"date":"2014-06-11T08:00:52","date_gmt":"2014-06-11T14:00:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/dailyimprovisations.com\/?p=28117"},"modified":"2016-03-28T20:03:43","modified_gmt":"2016-03-29T02:03:43","slug":"earth-guide-understanding-using-glyphosate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dailyimprovisations.com\/earth-guide-understanding-using-glyphosate\/","title":{"rendered":"A Down-to-Earth Guide to Understanding and Using Glyphosate"},"content":{"rendered":"

Glyphosate is what<\/b> chemists call an organophosate. It is made up of the elements carbon (C), hydrogen (H), nitrogen (N), oxygen (O), and phosphorus (P) in the ratios C\u2083H\u2088NO\u2085P. So far, it is only known to be produced by humans creating a chemical reaction, which results in a colorless and odorless crystal. It is most well known for being the main ingredient of certain herbicides, the most well known brand name being Roundup\u2122. It was first sold in the early 1970\u2032s, which means people have been using it for a solid 40 years.<\/p>\n

The big question<\/b> on a lot of people\u2019s minds is whether or not it is safe to use glyphosate. Some people claim it is toxic. Other\u2019s say it is quite safe. There are studies that are cited to bolster all conclusions. How can the average person know whom to believe?<\/p>\n

Thinking through<\/b> some vocabulary can help. What do the words \u201ctoxic\u201d and \u201csafe\u201d mean? Many substances can be both toxic and safe, depending on amounts and circumstances. A classic example is table salt. Salt is not only safe in certain concentrations, but necessary for life \u2013 unless, of course, it is used in amounts or situations where it is toxic. A toxic amount to ingest or absorb cannot be strictly defined for each individual. Factors including climate and activity level can make a big difference.<\/p>\n

You might be<\/b> thinking the comparison doesn\u2019t matter because we don\u2019t need any glyphosate in our bodies or the environment. That, however, would be a rather sweeping statement. While I am not advocating ingesting substances willy-nilly, there are many things about our bodies and the earth that we do not know, have not measured, or constantly find are misunderstood. It should come as no surprise that no one has previously thought to go around measuring chemicals that we were not aware could exist. And just because the first known instance of a chemical (in our recollection) was due to manufacture, it does not mean it didn\u2019t or doesn\u2019t already exist in forms somehow beyond our current radar. This is not nitpicky. This is the reality of the limitations of science, which can never 100 percent prove anything.<\/p>\n

I remember learning<\/b> in nursing school, while doing a research report on breast milk versus formula, that for a while doctors were recommending supplements to breastfed babies because scientists could not find any Vitamin D in breast milk. Somewhere along the way, they found a precursor to Vitamin D in the mother\u2019s milk that the baby\u2019s body used to synthesize Vitamin D. The point is that research is very limited by what people expect to find.<\/p>\n

Speaking of<\/b> synthesizing things \u2013 you have to love that word. It is right up there with \u201ctoxic\u201d when it comes to derogatory labels. Such rhetoric is misleading, though. It is not like people can whip up these things out of nothing. Everything is made from the building blocks we find in the world around us, harnessing natural processes. Our human creativity is limited by what we have been supplied with. At what point do we cross over from \u201cnatural\u201d to \u201csynthetic.\u201d Not only that, but is \u201cnatural\u201d always the better choice? What if it is more destructive to the environment to obtain it? What if it is more costly, so that fewer people can reap the benefits? What if it is more harmful overall? Or what if not nearly as much is known about the effect? These are real issues with many substances categorized as natural.<\/p>\n

Synthetic chemicals<\/b> -0h, wait. Chemical is another often misunderstood word. This would be a good time to recall that chemicals are what everything is made out of, \u201cnatural\u201d or \u201csynthetic.\u201d Chemistry is simply the study of trying to understand and use resources on a molecular level. Obviously, not everyone agrees about the best way to use this knowledge. Discussion is generally helpful, because \u201ctwo heads are better than one.\u201d But to demonize any substance because it is a \u201cchemical\u201d is probably due to lack of understanding or using the term for emotional impact.<\/p>\n

The chemicals that<\/b> tend to get made are those considered to be of value. Someone somewhere envisions a use for them. If enough people choose to buy them, there is incentive to produce more of them. If the chemicals or an effective option to them were known or allowed to be found readily, at a decent cost, out in the wild, it is unlikely that anyone would be trying to come up with a particular substance in the lab.<\/p>\n

Plants are made<\/b> of chemicals. They synthesize quite a few substances, some of which we like. Some of the plants are drop-dead poisonous. Other plants are threatening the \u201cnatural\u201d ecological status quo with their prolific growth habits. There are even plant parts that we eat regularly that have \u201cnatural\u201d \u201ctoxins\u201d in them, but we eat them anyway. Almost anything is \u201ctoxic\u201d if eaten exclusively or in extraordinarily high amounts for an extended period of time. We manage plants to provide for our needs and care for our property. There are times when the best option is to kill plants. This could be as benign as thinning your carrots for a better harvest or as stressful as trying to eradicate the stand of water hemlock growing<\/a><\/span> in your irrigation ditch so that small children don\u2019t die from using the stems as blow guns. At some point, an herbicide can be useful.<\/p>\n

The glyphosate based<\/b> herbicides are actually made by converting the glyphosate to a salt, so that it will dissolve in water. Frequently, there are a few other things added. Although these additives are not considered \u201cactive\u201d ingredients, they are there for a reason and affect how the glyphosate works. One of the main additives is usually a soap-like substance, such as is normal in household products. Called \u201csurfactants,\u201d these help the herbicide be effective by breaking down waxy or fatty barriers in the plant leaves. It is these additives that tend to irritate the skin and eyes, if they are bothered. They are also what makes the herbicide dangerous for aquatic life. If the surfactants are not added, the frogs seem to be fine. It is worth noting that vinegar, something frequently suggested as a substitute for glyphosate, is also harmful to frogs.<\/p>\n

The glyphosate herbicide<\/b> works by blocking the plant\u2019s ability to perform vital functions. Specifically, an enzyme action is interfered with so that the plant cannot use it\u2019s metabolic mechanisms to synthesize amino acids it needs to grow. This particular metabolic function is unique to plants, fungi, and bacteria. Humans and animals don\u2019t use it. (click on any photo to enlarge)<\/em><\/p>\n

\"A<\/a>
A dead weed in one of my garden pathways a couple of weeks after being sprayed with glyphosate.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Glyphosate actually<\/b> doesn\u2019t work against all plants. Just like some plants resist cold and frost, some plants are not much affected by glyphosate ever since it has been around. In the dandelion, for example, the higher levels of iron in the leaves can bind with the glyphosate before it can do systemic damage. This also supports the hypothesis that the mineral content of water used for dilution of concentrates can render the herbicide less effective. Such things could lead to false reports of glyphosate resistance and\/or unnecessarily high application rates of the herbicide.<\/p>\n

Similar to antibiotic<\/b> resistance among bacteria, there may also be some of any given plant population that are not as susceptible to the glyphosate. When the weaker plants die, the stronger ones propagate. There are three main ways plants are thought to resist glyphosate:<\/p>\n