The problem is it doesn’t stay in your driveway. Especially if you are spraying it repeatedly. Rain leaches it into the soil or waterways eventually. I admit organic weed control is difficult at times, but my gravel driveway is the easiest place for me to control them. Weed torch! Works on every weed, every time.

So, if it doesn't stay in the driveway, where does it go and about how far away up, down, or sideways does it go?

Glyphosate tends to be chemically stable in water and of low mobility in the soil so it is NOT inclined to leach into groundwater (WHO publication of glyphosate and drinking water). However, care should be exercised when using adjacent any water sources or applying to the point where one is creating any run-off.

And it is degraded by biological activity - faster in the soil (estimated average half life of 47 days) than in water (less biological activity = half life of 91 days).

Since it is actively broken down by soil biology - and that would include the soil bacteria as well - then I don't have excessive concerns that it is "destroying" that same biology. Bacteria reproduce with amazing rapidity!!

If glyphosate tends to be stable in water why are the scientists finding the stuff in out food and drinking water? Why is Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream laden with glyphosate?

From the Organic Consumers Association newsletter, "

Unilever-owned Ben & Jerry’s likes to use the phrase “Peace, Love & Ice Cream.” But if anti-factory farm consumers have anything to say about it, there will be no peace for the ice cream maker until the company goes organic.

So far, over 100 OCA network members have signed up to distribute leaflets in front of Ben & Jerry Scoop Shops or natural food stores such as Whole Foods that sell Ben and Jerry's.

Want to help keep the pressure on Ben & Jerry’s? New to leafleting and not sure how to get started? Our team is ready to help. Sign up here. We'll send you everything you need.

Nearly 90,000 acres of Vermont’s farmland is planted in GMO crops—crops that feed the dairy cows that supply milk and cream to Ben & Jerry’s. Those crops are heavily sprayed with Roundup, atrazine, metolachlor and other poisons.

That makes Ben & Jerry’s one of the largest polluters of Vermont’s waterways. The company also sources cream from factory farm dairies in western states.

It’s time for Ben & Jerry’s to live up to its marketing claims by promising to transition to 100% organic. An organic Ben & Jerry’s supply chain would be better for the environment, better for human and dairy cow health, better for farmers and better for farmworkers.

Consumers are key to getting Ben & Jerry’s to go organic. Sign up here for more information on how to become part of the Consumer Revolution! "

First, I assign very little veracity to what you have copied and pasted from elsewhere, whereas I DO believe what is reported and published by the World Health Organization. One is using scare tactics and fear mongering while the other is reporting scientific studies.

Feeding dairy cows GMO'd fodder, which in Vermont would only be alfalfa, ignores the effect any normal pasture grass grazing they would do (usually at least 50% of a dairy cow's diet) and there is no direct correlation....unless substantiated by scientific data........that growing or spraying the alfalfa has any impact on groundwater or is contaminating waterways.

Unless you can substantiate these claims, I'd consider the above just a bunch of hokum!

And none of this has anything to do with glyphosate "destroying" soil bacteria anyway!!

I’m not sure what the half-life of glyphosate is in Ben and Jerry’s but as long as you don’t eat it too fast you have nothing to worry about.

Done in a lab, in a petri dish. They need to replicate their results in the field, using normal agricultural doses of glyphosate.

And when you supply aromatic amino acids, the bacteria do fine:
"Our
findings suggest that rhizospheric bacteria may be less susceptible to
glyphosate effects due to the high-carbon environment in the rhizosphere
with relatively higher concentration of amino acids and sugars relative
to bulk soils."

Which, BTW is why glyphosate never went anywhere as an antibiotic, despite doing well in the initial studies in petri dishes - if bacteria don't have to make their own, they don't bother making them, so blocking the pathway is ineffective.

(WHO publication of glyphosate and drinking water).?????? There is no link given. When was this written? For example - was it after the cancer report? A lot of the glyphosate problems research is relatively recent so old "reports" are mainly of historical interest.

This is just one recent study of one problem: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28846991

Which cancer report?? The one saying it was a possible carcinogenic or the one statng that it is 'unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet’?

And what exactly does that have to do with any contamination of groundwater or the destruction of soil bacteria?? Or the sperm count in rodents?? You are attempting to compare apples to oranges..........

gardengal48 I am attempting to get contributors to document their statements so that the readers can put the statement into a time perspective. The original post contained links to the documentation. Yours do not. As I explained I feel that the date of something is important. I clearly stated:

" A lot of the glyphosate problems research is relatively recent so old "reports" are mainly of historical interest."

I then gave one example of a recent report. "This is just one recent study of one problem: "

That glyphosate has been found in our drinking water has been well documented for many years. "

What was found?

A total of 154 water samples were collected during the 2002 study in nine Midwestern States. Glyphosate was detected in 36 percent of the samples, while its degradation product, aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA) was detected in 69 percent of the samples. The highest measured concentration of glyphosate was 8.7 micrograms per liter, well below the MCL (700 micrograms per liter). The highest AMPA concentration was 3.6 micrograms per liter (there is no MCL for AMPA). Other herbicides were detected at low levels, below health standards, in most samples. Atrazine was detected at or above the 3 microgram per liter MCL in 30% of the samples. Atrazine concentrations were generally lower, however, than those found in previous USGS studies conducted in the 1990s."

The whole article about this study can be found at:

https://toxics.usgs.gov/highlights/glyphosate02.html

That the manufacturers of this product have lied and obfuscated about it is also well documented.

This is a very recent (June 2017) Mexico study (fortunately the full paper is available to the general public):

Title: "Glyphosate Residues in Groundwater, Drinking Water and Urine of Subsistence Farmers from Intensive Agriculture Localities: A Survey in Hopelchén, Campeche, Mexico"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5486281/

I am just not gonna argue this issue.........it is pretty much pointless. With some careful searching and creative editing, one can find published data that will supprt just about any viewpoint and this is more true of topics dealing with glyphosate than just about anything else.

The point I was attempting to make is that one must primarily consider the source of the data being reported well before any dates involved. The vast majority of the material published on glyphosate is a compendium of cut and paste data carefully selected and discreetly editied to support a specific viewpoint. kimmsr is a master of this method himself as he neglected to report in the groundwater contamination referred to in the previous post that the highest measured concentration of glyphosate was 8.7 micrograms per liter.........well below the MCL (maximum contaminant level) of 700 micrograms per liter considered safe for drinking water. He also neglected to report that the same publication also listed atrazine in groundwater at levels well above its MCL. And atrazine's impact on human health is well documented.

And just to be very clear, the Ben & Jerry's "report" has been totally debunked as fake news and junk science: http://thefederalist.com/2017/07/28/new-york-times-gets-fake-food-news-roundup-ben-jerrys-article/.

I am not trying to convince anyone that glyphosate is a completely benign substance.......you can make up your own minds. But be very careful on what sort of published "evidence" you are basing that decision on and rely primarily on peer-reviewed scientific sources, not the cut and paste junk data that organizations with a specific agenda are inclined to push on you. And what is most often found online and regurgitated ad nauseum as above. It is also critically important to consider the conditions under which the data is gathered - the Mexico report reflects conditions that are not at all common to glyphosate use in the US and so should not be considered an expected or typical result.

gardengal48, stated: "The point I was attempting to make is that one must primarily consider the source of the data being reported well before any dates involved. "

H. Kuska comment. Sorry, the date of a report is important as one cannot base a conclusion on facts that have not yet been determined.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kimmsr did give the link to the paper. The 700 micrograms per liter considered safe for drinking water is in the link.

H. Kuska comment: I do not consider that 700 number to have much real world meaning, please see the data in Table 1 of the following link:

"Table 1. Comparison of glyphosate concentration standards for drinking water between other developed jurisdictions"

https://www.gov.bm/sites/default/files/Glyphosate%20Monitoring%20Study%20Draft%20Report%20Nov%202016.pdf

---------------------------------------------------

Concerning your use of "expected or typical result". Of course no particular pollution test in one area can be extrapolated to another different type of area just as is the case for, say, lead contamination numbers.

--------------------------------------------------------

Regarding your "And just to be very clear, the Ben & Jerry's "report" has been totally debunked as fake news and junk science: "

The author of that article is Julie Kelly, the readers may find this Google search of what is available about her and Monsanto of interest:

https://www.google.com/search?num=100&newwindow=1&source=hp&ei=I2b2Wd_UFqPKjwTF_7yQAg&q=julie+kelly+monsanto&oq=julie+kelly+monsanto&gs_l=psy-ab.12...1817.15602.0.18791.21.20.0.0.0.0.250.2185.9j10j1.20.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..1.12.1533.0..0j46j35i39k1j0i131k1j0i20i263k1j0i20i264k1j0i131i46k1j46i131k1j0i46k1.0._sPxlYQpGAg

Chemicals like that just make soil into something that holds the plant roots instead of a living soil that feeds it. You can just spray vinegar on weeds in gravel or sidewalks. Monsanto controls a lot of the studies and puts their people in regulatory agencies and pushes destructive agriculture that relies on poison. It doesn't really sound that difficult to know that man-made toxins everywhere in all the food and water and air and at every meal isn't going to be good for living things. And there are something like 80,000 chemicals now and not really tested before they were put out and no idea at all about the synergistic toxic effect on most... mix up two fairly harmless chemicals then you're dead. But if they say its just a few tiny particles and you trust in anyone called a scientist... even though looking at history they sure do screw up a lot and resist new theories and a lot of them have no problem lying.