Yes, I use it, but need to stop. Vinegar and salt work just fine too. I think it's safe to say that it's (roundup) bad stuff. It kills anything it touches. There's no way it doesn't eventually kill humans. I don't think a people using it around their yard is the issue though. Roundup ready crops and mass spraying of ditches and farmland are where the problems are in my opinion. Yeah, we could go on and on about the gov't taking money and Monsanto and blah blah blah, but I'm sure there's plenty of products everyone out there buys, uses, etc that Monsanto owns. Plus, this thread could get political.

While A LOT of vegetable seeds and seedlings sold originated from Monsanto, none that are gmo are sold to Homegrowers. And none are roundup ready.

I wish our gov't would put stipulations on the use of it, or ban it altogether, but I'm a dreamer.

Yes, I use it to kill weeds along fence rows and in driveway. It does not move in the soil like salt does nor does it move in the air like 2,4 D. Sunlight is a known cause of cancer like many other things. I do try to avoid gmo foods but for homeowners Roundup is a pretty safe chemical.
It does not do a very good job of killing bermudagrass. Some people spray it over bermuda grass lawns to kill the other weeds and the bermuda grass will green back up in a week or two. You have to remember that WHO has an agenda just like any other political entity.

When I have "oncology research director" in my signature block, then I will feel confident second-guessing the medical scientists at the World Health Organization about the safety of these synthetic pesticides on the human body. And when Monsanto starts making political contributions to the W.H.O., then I will start questioning their impartiality. Until then, for the sake of my kids and my pets and the local wildlife and the groundwater we share, i will pull up weeds with an old-fashioned ingredient called elbow grease.

Yes, I use it and love it because it works and is safe for the yard. Salt is not. Of course, I don't drink it or snort it.

So, a small spoonful of salt per gallon of liquid is bad, where glyphosate is good? Yeah, I'm not drinking that koolaid.

I have never heard of roundup getting into groundwater. It is not mobile in the soil and in fact tends to attach to the soil. Some chemicals such as atrazine are mobile and have been reported in ground water. Glyphosate (roundup) also has a short chemical life. And WHO did not say it caused cancer, just probably. And how does it probably cause cancer, by ingesting or contact.

Currently, only 2% of people in US work in Agriculture. At the start of the last century it was around 50%. We could give up all the modern Ag and just pull weeds. But we would have to give up Engineers, roads, teachers, scientist, schools and all other jobs and businesses that sprung up because 48% of the population could do other things. If you can grow enough food to feed 50 other families by pulling weeds then you may be on to something. I don't like chemicals but in our modern society they are needed. So until they prove Glyphosates cause cancer, how, and at what rate then I will reconsider using it. But by then the Government will probably have already outlawed it.

The problem is not whether you use it or not. It's your neighbor who likes to use it by the bucketful.

I can make my own decision and decide whether or not to use it, but since Monsanto has a documented history of bribing the government to allow its use, there is no opt out. It's in our water supply, our soil, our air. And it's not going to go away. They have produced studies that show that it breaks up in 3 months, but what it breaks up into is simply the molecular structure that composes the product. STILL not healthy.

Everyone who ever tills the land for the rest of human history will be digging up the poison you poured out because you didn't have time to pull some weeds. That's the bottom line.

It doesn't have to be in your groundwater for you to consume it. The fact that glyphosate is immobile in soil seems to be its selling point to most. The question no one in the world seems to be able to answer is whether it's damaging over time. Roundup has on been available since the mid 70s??? And I'm not sure what constitutes as a long term study. Runoff is where it gets into the animals we eat and roundup ready corn (and beets?) is where it's ends up in our bellies.

Is roundup good or bad? - debatable and I seriously doubt there'll be any evidence in our lifetimes to say either one

Are we gonna change our ways? - ehh, probably not

For those of us doing woodland gardening, leaf litter and shade are Mother Nature's natural methods of weed suppression. This spring, I've watched nothing but tree seedlings sprout from acorns and other seeds inside/among the decomposing leaf litter which has already started to become soil a couple inches down. Enough sunlight apparently trickles down an inch or two to encourage the seedlings. The bed stays moist almost all the time, but never soggy, which is exactly what seeds want. Leaf litter isn't as prolific a seeding medium as bare soil by any means, because there is so little sunlight and direct access to mineral soil. But it seems perfectly suited for natural regeneration of woodland species as opposed to meadow/herbaceous species (weeds). When the random clover leaf pops up, I just stomp it, pluck it, or stab it.

It's not an effective strategy for large swaths of weeds that continually re-seed. But I won't use synthetic pesticides to poison my yard if for nothing else other than to set a good example. Even if 100% of residential Roundup sprayings never harm a single hair on the head of the residents that live on those properties, there are still potential cumulative effects on the ecology. When ecologists tell me it's safe, I'll start using it.

I'll never wait for something to be proven safe. If there is risk, even "probable"/"possible"/unclear risk, I say it needs to wait. Chemicals may allow modern Ag to feed 3 times as many people, but if those chemicals cause environmental and public health messes that cost us trillions of dollars to clean up...then the net benefit may be neutral. The only difference is the chemical companies and the big farms shift the true costs off to the citizens. So the chem company owners and execs and the big farm owners and execs get rich...and the public suffers the damage and pays to clean up the mess. So instead of the industries closest to the problem studying and solving it, they focus on maximizing short-term profit and misinforming the public.

I think a better way is to find natural, sustainable, clean methods of improving Ag. I'd much rather a farm spray their crops with manure than with chemical poison. I'm encouraged by a young generation of farmers pioneering in polycultures, agroforestry, permaculture, and other natural methods of pest control.

And I will gladly pay twice as much for food that is healthier for my family and the environment. Right now, the average American household pays only 15% of its income on food. This is an all-time historic low. I wouldn't mind living in a slightly smaller house (I have empty rooms as it is) or driving a slightly older car or making other "sacrifices" to make my family and the planet healthier. We don't always buy organic food, but we always buy it when the price is comparable (within 10% or 20%). That's the only way to encourage organic farmers and help them survive against Big Ag. And it's working. Every year, I see more and more organic food on the shelves of traditional grocery stores. Maybe someday all food will be organic.

Miradus01
The reason I get upset is not that you chose not to use it but that you want to push your beliefs on everyone else with no proof that it is bad. It does break down over time and will not be in the soil for all of human history, unless human history is cut short by the rapture or nuclear war. And how would you answer all the starving children in the USA if we stopped using pesticides. We can not grow enough food organically to feed ourselves, let alone other country's. We also would have more soil erosion without pesticides that is not good for the environment.

Salt is not good for the soil and it takes a long time to move out of the soil. It moves both vertically and horizontally in the soil. Is it worse than Roundup, probably not. I don't think salt in the amounts you would use would be a problem unless it was a salt sensitive plant.

Pulling weeds might be more harmful to the gardener due to the increased chance of snake bites and pulled backs. It is all about risk management.

Glyphosates are a tool that can be used wisely. You can kill someone with a hammer or a saw also, if you don't use them wisely. Those are tools too. There seems to be conflicting evidence on the carcinogenicity of glyphosates and, that being the case, you sure don't want to take a bath in them, or to eat foods that have been doused with them, but it seems inopportune to run screaming from them.

Sorry, but if I squirt a bit of Roundup into the crack in my sidewalk to remove a weed there, I'm not giving anyone cancer. (Well, unless maybe someone comes along afterwards and prys out the weed to eat it!) I'm more likely to give people cancer by driving to work in the morning.

2b carcinogens include some pretty pedestrian stuff, BTW See here. Yep, lead, carbon black, napthalene (mothballs), nickel (coins, stainless steel), titanium dioxide (paint, sunscreen). I'm not trying to justify chugging Roundup with my meals, but just want to point out that it really isn't clear that we need to be deathly scared of it.

Dan, thanks for the information.

But even if Roundup poses no risk to homeowners who use it sparingly on their sidewalk cracks...

1. Why contribute to the financial support of a product that is used in larger applications? If millions of American homeowners stop buying this product, it will open millions of dollars for safer, better innovations in the market. And those can spread to agricultural and commercial use.
2. If you spray it in a sidewalk crack...and a pet or a bird or a bug or a worm gets in that crack...what happens?
3. If a thousand homeowners in a community spray it in their sidewalk cracks on a Saturday morning...and a big rain shower hits Saturday afternoon...and all that poison is washed from the sidewalks past the curbs and down the streets into the gutters...and it all flows into a local retention pond where Canadian Geese drink...or into a lake that serves as a municipal water source...or into a stream where people fish...what happens?

If it takes 15 seconds to stoop down and pluck a weed from a sidewalk crack...is it worth spraying poison? Are we saving lives or feeding starving people with the Roundup that we use on our residential properties? Gary in Beaumont made the point that herbicides in agriculture feed people. But how is Roundup in a sidewalk crack worth the risks?

Have anyone read the label?

Why contribute to the financial support of a product that is used in larger applications?

I'm not contributing any financial support. I buy it to use it.It serves a need, and I pay money to serve that need. I buy a bag or two of concrete too, and look at what our cities do with concrete. I buy some gallons of gasoline, and look at how the petrochemical companies contribute to pollution. Horrors. Am I contributing to those products as well?

If you spray it in a sidewalk crack...and a pet or a bird or a bug or a worm gets in that crack...what happens?

Uh, I don't know. I don't much care about the bug or worm. A pet getting into a sidewalk crack? Get real. My dog sure wouldn't fit. In any case, probably nothing.

If a thousand homeowners in a community spray it in their sidewalk
cracks on a Saturday morning...and a big rain shower hits Saturday
afternoon...and all that poison is washed from the sidewalks past the
curbs and down the streets into the gutters...and it all flows into a
local retention pond where Canadian Geese drink...or into a lake that
serves as a municipal water source...or into a stream where people
fish...what happens?

Actually, probably nothing. Have we seen any major bird kills or fish kills that were found or even suspected to be caused by Roundup? You're reaching, and possibly just making stuff up, like using the word "poison" in the first place. No one else is using that word.

Actually, it doesn't take 15 seconds to stoop down and remove a weed from a crack. You pull out the foliage, and the root stays there, and grows again, and expands the crack. It would take a lot longer if I had to stoop down with a knife and chisel. I'd probably cut myself and scrape my knee and come away with tetanus, no? So much for risks.

Are we saving lives or feeding starving people with the Roundup that we use on our residential properties? ... But how is Roundup in a sidewalk crack worth the risks?

Good heavens. Are we saving lives or feeding starving people with the truckloads of nitrates we dump on our lawns (which get washed into the aquifer and do damage there, as well as pose some health risks)? Are we saving lives or feeding starving people with our lawnmowers, trimming our lawns to look like golf courses? Are we saving lives or feeding starving people by planting lawns in the first place? Or even planting canteloupes? Geez, I could be planting some source of protein instead! Now you're really reaching. Roundup is worth the risk because, quite frankly, the risk appears to be quite small.

I want to be responsible about the environment, but we're not doing anyone any favors by being pseudo-responsible. That's what this argument is about. It's about pretending to be sincerely responsible. I think it is smart to consider glyphosates as a possible low-level (class 2b carcinogen) hazard, and to use them with some care, but it makes no sense, nor does anyone a lot of good, to use glyphosates to distract us from more serious and recognized hazards.

Oh, let me add to miradus01, who may have departed, but who said ...

Why have we discontinued every single chemical that we have ever
developed for use in agriculture? Because time after time they were all
shown to be harmful.

That's positively nuts. Most of what we apply to our crops has never been shown to be harmful. Our phosphate supplements? Our nitrogen supplements? We've stopped using those because they produced "horrific birth defects" and cancer? Really? Sure, there have been some supplements and insecticides that were determined to be harmful, and we fortunately stopped using them. But this comment doesn't address health threats. Rather it addresses the threat posed by that scary word "chemical". If you roll the "ch" it sounds even scarier.

I don't think the Texas Gardening forum is a particularly good place to debate Roundup, and the alleged dishonesty of the US government. So I too will conclude. Apologies to the TG readership who had to endure this.

Miradus1,

I have made my living in "Modern Agriculture" for the last 30 years. I have worked with over 100 organic and conventional farmers. Earlier this year I was talking with an organic farmer and he stated that if everyone farmed organic we could not produce enough food to feed our country. And no, I do not work for or sale pesticides.

Over 50% of the county I live in was covered by a storm surge by Hurricane Ike. Salt water killed all the grass and farmers could not farm for a year. However, in about 2 years salt levels in the soil was leached out to a level that the pasture and range recovered. Salt does leach out.

My understanding in Agriculture is not lacking. Many people who live in the cities or on small areas of land do have a lack of knowledge. Again, if you can feed 50 additional families by not using pesticides you would have something. Even organic farmers use fertilizers and pesticides.

Dan, you make some good points, but I will leave yours with the following.

1. We all "vote with our wallets". It's the only real power we seem to have these days. When consumers by the millions make certain things a priority, change happens in the world. Every purchase we make can be a "vote" for organic farming, natural insect repellents, alternative forms of transportation, solar energy, etc.

2. What happens to one bird or bug may not mean much to you or me. But what happens to a million birds and bugs from a million people makes a difference. The Houston Toad is nearly extinct. The Monarch Butterfly is on the verge of extinction. Tallamy estimates that 95% of North American wildlife species will be one extinct if we continue to develop land as we have been doing and removing habitat. Some 75% of migratory birds in North America pass through the Houston area each year. We could talk about the recent disasters with the Honey Bees. The loss of a keystone species can sometimes cause an entire ecological web to collapse. Seemingly isolated events can sometimes cause far-reaching effects.

3. I think this type of conversation, while it unfortunately risks frustrating and offending folks sometimes, is extremely important for Texas gardeners and all gardeners, if for nothing else than to share information about risks and alternatives. We all make compromises and take risks. Some are more worthwhile than others. Nothing is too small to consider, whether it's a purchase of a bottle of Roundup or a million-dollar reforestation program.

I always enjoy a cordial, thoughtful discussion about a very tough topic. We often learn more from those with opposing viewpoints than from any other way. I know I do.