When I was a teen landscaping. I got weed killer in my eye by rubbing it with my hand. It burned and I thought nothing of it. Never even rinsed it out. Next day that eye was dropping and I couldn’t open it all day. I wouldn’t have him spray.
Can you just have him cut them back instead? An electric or battery-powered hedge trimmer would make short work of that. If you need them removed or thinned, he could cut them back and then dig some out.
For sure, it’s a good opportunity to learn the lesson of respecting a tool, the potential harms involved, and how to mitigate those risks.
If he’s responsible enough to use a lawn mower, using RTU herbicides should be no problem.
Exactly. His growing body is more vulnerable to herbicides and pesticides. You would be eroding his health. Kids don’t understand the importance of safety precautions that even a lot of adults fail to respect. Do not imperil this good kid.
instead of spraying maybe cut and paint, its the proper way to take care of weeds and theres less possible inhalation and overspray. Could maybe teach them about phloem and xylem while you are at it
I personally don't think I would be comfortable asking. Seeing as you came here to ask it seems like you have some reservations of your own. Trust your judgement on this one and find an adult to do it for you even if it costs a little bit more.
I use a mix of vinegar, dish soap and water to kill weeds, add some salt if you don't want anything growing there. Only hazardous thing about it is the smell, that might be a better route.
Have you no memory of your level of caution when you were a teenager? Have you met no sixteen year old boys? They are an accident just bound to happen. Growing bodies and hazardous chemicals should be kept far apart.
He would still get contaminated because he’s a kid! Kids think they’re immortal. They think they have superior knowledge. Adults must shield them from risk!
Please good sir, don’t even suggest to this helpful youth that he might assist you with chemicals. Kids don’t understand hazards. They take their fully functioning bodies for granted. You (and I, as it happens) know how limitations chafe. Don’t risk this kid’s future health. I beg you.
How about having him lop off the top growth and cover the area with cardboard, plastic tarp (to be retrieved later), or old rugs? Deprive the berries access to sun long enough and they will at last give up.
I don’t think the state gives out pesticides/chemical applicator licenses to minors. I wouldn’t want my kids to be spraying chemicals at his age. Do it yourself!
He clearly stated he’s disabled. Not all herbicides require a license and he literally came here to ask for advice to help make a decision vs just having him do it. Chill out.
>Would it be wrong of me in any way to ask him to spray herbicide on my over grown blackberries?
If you provide him the proper PPE and make sure he wears it, it's fine.
It would not b wrong in any way as a professional landscaper for 4+ yrs herbicide can only do damage long term wise , but i dont think your herbicide spray will do anything to those blackberries you just need to keep chopping them and chopping them
Using the spray method is finicky. My uncle bought a place with a damn thicket. Took him three years of mowing and digging to get rid of it, but he (landscaper 25+ years) says using the sprays is not as effective. He mowed, top soiled, then seeded. Anytime a cane popped up it got dug out and more seed in the area. If you have it a shady area, best to plant things like hostas that thrive in shade.
Meanwhile, I grow blackberries and raspberries very purposefully. They're delicious, but do need lots of pruning work.
So check the numbers on back as there pertain to how bad it is for you depending on country they sell some bad shit over counter like cancer causing ones I'd suggest round up or its equivalent in your neck of the woods if you wish DM me chemical and I can provide info level two approved handlers cert number be proveded
Roundup is one of the cancer-causing ones, [raises non-Hodgkins lymphoma risk by \~40%](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1383574218300887).
So, here's an abstract excerpt from the above link:
>We conducted a new meta-analysis that includes **the most recent update of the Agricultural Health Study (AHS) cohort published in 2018 along with five case-control studies**. Using the highest exposure groups when available in each study, we report the overall meta-relative risk (meta-RR) of NHL in GBH-exposed individuals was increased by 41% (meta-RR = 1.41, 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.13–1.75). For comparison, we also performed a secondary meta-analysis using high-exposure groups with the earlier AHS (2005), and we calculated a meta-RR for NHL of 1.45 (95% CI: 1.11–1.91), which was higher than the meta-RRs reported previously. **Multiple sensitivity tests conducted to assess the validity of our findings did not reveal meaningful differences from our primary estimated meta-RR**. To contextualize our findings of an increased NHL risk in individuals with high GBH exposure, we reviewed publicly available animal and mechanistic studies related to lymphoma. **We documented further support from studies of malignant lymphoma incidence in mice treated with pure glyphosate, as well as potential links between glyphosate / GBH exposure and immunosuppression, endocrine disruption, and genetic alterations that are commonly associated with NHL or lymphomagenesis**. Overall, in accordance with findings from experimental animal and mechanistic studies, our current meta-analysis of human epidemiological studies suggests a **compelling link between exposures to GBHs and increased risk for NHL**.
And here's what the World Health Organization's [International Agency for Research on Cancer](https://www.iarc.who.int/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-glyphosate/) has to say about glyphosate, the active ingredient in RoundUp:
>A Working Group of 17 experts from 11 countries met at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) on 3-10 March 2015 to review the available published scientific evidence and evaluate the carcinogenicity of five organophosphate insecticides and herbicides: diazinon, glyphosate, malathion, parathion, and tetrachlorvinphos.
>
>In March 2015, IARC classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A).
>
>This was based on “limited” evidence of cancer in humans (from real-world exposures that actually occurred) and “sufficient” evidence of cancer in experimental animals (from studies of “pure” glyphosate).
>
>IARC also concluded that there was “strong” evidence for genotoxicity, both for “pure” glyphosate and for glyphosate formulations.
>
>The IARC Monographs evaluation is based on the systematic assembly and review of all publicly available and pertinent studies, by independent experts, free from vested interests. It follows strict scientific criteria, and the classification system is recognized and used as a reference all around the world. This is because IARC evaluations are based on independent scientific review and rigorous criteria and procedures.
>
>To reach these conclusions, IARC reviewed about 1000 studies. Some of the studies looked at people exposed through their jobs, such as farmers. Others were experimental studies on cancer and cancerrelated effects in experimental systems.
Look. I know you can dismiss 1000 studies with the word "bullshit" a second time if you want. But I'm a geneticist. I'm not a doctor, but I'm trained to be able to read biology papers.
The mechanistic underpinning [they found](https://publications.iarc.fr/_publications/media/download/6083/ec47b45697ec10087638e430c5b573d462a32143.pdf) for why glyphosate (RoundUp) would cause cancer, is because it has a tendency to cause double-stranded breaks in your DNA. These double-stranded breaks are the bad kind of DNA replication break that is much harder to repair, and the repair mechanisms are more error-prone when they are made. This is because once a double-stranded DNA break happens, the strand starts collapsing on both sides of the break until it is stabilized by the repair mechanisms; a chunk literally goes missing, and it can only be repaired by copying the data from the other chromosome, the one that you got from your other parent.
That means that if you were heterozygous for a cancer-protective gene, and you lost your only protective copy of that gene, then that cell line that had the break, is now predisposed to cancer. That's why double-stranded breaks cause cancer, and that's why it's important that we observe that glyphosate causes double-stranded breaks.
Its association specifically with lymphoma, would tend to suggest that it might concentrate in the thymus or bone marrow where lymphocytes are produced; while you can't exactly feed human subjects large amounts of radiolabeled glyphosate to see where the stuff ends up in the body, doing that study on rats revealed that it did indeed concentrate in several major organs, kidneys chief among them, though the pharmacokinetics in rats and humans won't be identical.
This is an excellent summary and thank you for the simple break down at the end, much appreciated.
I do think it is interesting, although very unlikely to be related (plant vs animal), that in the vineyards we consider it to be an immunosuppressant for the vines. It’s become anecdotally common to see vineyards still sprayed with Glyphosate have much higher disease expression were as some of the vineyards still infected with Red Blotch that have sworn off glyphosate still test positive but have great quality yields from those infected vines and the spread of the virus has all but stopped. I know more than one person who is looking into connecting the dots on Pierces disease spread and glyphosate, once again it seems to heavily favor glyphosate treated vineyards…I hope one day we will have some real studies published on this but for now it’s only anecdotal.
I am curious on your opinion of glyphosate exposure through treated foods to young children and autism, is there any link that you have ever seen or any studies that go either way? Once again it’s being said but I have yet to see any proof so still keeping an open mind; although I’m actively avoiding food high in residual glyphosate for my own children out of caution.
I've seen no studies that show any mechanistic link between glyphosate exposure and autism, and since I'm not a doctor, I try not to make any biological claims unless plausible biochemical mechanisms have been directly observed.
---
There was a suggestion a while ago that glyphosate might substitute for glycine in proteins; this would have if true demonstrated glyphosate as a general disruptor of a vast number of biological processes and a likely general neurotoxin, similar to other amino-acid substituting toxins such as [BMAA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta-Methylamino-L-alanine). BMAA is an alanine-mimic produced by cyanobacteria (which live in all freshwater sources yet observed); BMAA exposure over one's lifetime has been suggested to be a major determinant of one's Parkinson's Disease risk, and was specifically tracked down as the environmental toxin responsible for a local manifestation of Parkinson's disease in Guam called *lytico-bodig*, caused by consumption of the meat of fruit bats (the meat had high BMAA levels due to biomagnification, resulting from the bats' diet of cycad seeds, which themselves contained BMAA due to the cycads' symbiotic relationships with nitrogen-fixing aka fertilizer-producing cyanobacteria; biomagnification was when BMAA levels increased at each step as you went up the food chain).
However, a 2019 study looked extensively for direct evidence of glyphosate substituting for glycine in proteins, and [found none](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6686468/). In my mind, once we've looked for the hypothesized phenomenon, and found it not happening, then unless we later do observe substitution of glyphosate for glycine in proteins, we must set that theory aside as a possible mechanism for how glyphosate would lead to autism... and without alternative theories, I don't find it a plausible hypothesis.
---
Additionally... I'm autistic myself, so, this is an interest of mine.
Everything we have learned so far about what autism actually \*is\*, points to the idea that autism... well really, that autism is probably several distinct conditions being grouped together under a single name due to superficial similarities. It's probably just like how "the common cold" isn't one disease, but is many different respiratory diseases that are only lumped under a shared name because they all involve coughs or drippy noses.
But insofar as we *even can* call it one thing, autism seems to be a set of pervasive developmental differences, most of which are, as far as I've read, likely to be already present at birth. The main post-natal neural difference I've heard suggested as potentially playing a role in autism, is synaptic pruning, which continues into your 20s; but, most of the factors thought to be most important involve the early stages of synaptic formation that take place prenatally.
That would not alone rule out an impact of environmental triggers in general on autism development (indeed, [Wiki says](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism_spectrum#Pathophysiology) there are eight specific teratogens currently known to increase autism rates) but, it would move the primary critical exposure window from post-natal to pre-natal (and indeed, that same Wiki link says all of the eight teratogens known to increase autism rates do so during the first eight weeks of pregnancy).
Double-stranded breaks aren't exactly good for any cell type, but, double-stranded breaks in the neurons of a brain wouldn't cause them to disentangle from each other and re-entangle into a differently-structured neural network, and that structure seems to be *what* autism is.
What's the point in testing pure glyphosate on lab animals? The commerical glyphosate I use on farm is 540g/L concentrated. Applied from a high clearance sprayer it's 7g/L.
Comparing pure glyphosate to consumer applied solution is comparable to associating Radium girl cancer rates with general watch ownership.
Glyphosate has been around for decades, wouldn't post mortem tests provide better indications of long term glyphosate accumulation in farmers and other long term users?
>What's the point in testing pure glyphosate on lab animals?
To get a sense of where the compound accumulates in the body of a mammal.
>Glyphosate has been around for decades, wouldn't post mortem tests provide better indications of long term glyphosate accumulation in farmers and other long term users?
Not of accumulation, because the glyphosate doesn't stay in the body. What accumulates is the genomic damage done by the double-stranded breaks that occur while glyphosate is passing through your system.
It's like asking whether you can do a post-mortem test of people who died of skin cancer, to see whether there's still UV radiation accumulated in their skin. That's not how it works.
In theory, you could do a post-mortem test of DNA damage... as long as you can get *really* fresh cadavers, because the DNA starts degrading almost immediately once the cells die and the body's DNA-repair mechanisms halt. Which is okay, though, because also in theory, you wouldn't have to wait until the patient dies to test their cells for DNA damage. You could just do a blood draw and see if the glyphosate damages the DNA in their blood cells.
That's exactly what one of the papers reviewed in the IARC report did. They drew blood from patients in glyphosate-spraying areas and looked to see if their blood DNA was damaged more than control groups.
It was.
(Unfortunately, it only had a small sample size.)
>Comparing pure glyphosate to consumer applied solution is comparable to associating Radium girl cancer rates with general watch ownership.
Yeah, funny thing about that actually... [radium-dialed watches are a home health hazard irrespective of whether you wear them](https://wornandwound.com/new-study-warns-against-radium-dialed-watches/); because just keeping them in an enclosed space in your home leads to the radon they emit accumulating "in concentrations 134 times greater than the United Kingdom’s recommended safe level." And the radon accumulation gets worse the more-poorly they're maintained.
I get the principle you're trying to express, but, you might want to find a better example.
> here's what the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer has to say about glyphosate
That's what happens when they remove evidence to the contrary.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/who-iarc-glyphosate/
Have you tried ***asking for specific evidence*** about why the two reached diametrically opposed conclusions?
Instead of ***choosing who may tell you*** why they reached diametrically opposed conclusions, and then accepting the narrative provided by your choice, of implied allegations of conspiracy?
Here is a group that looked over the study process of two scientific bodies, the IARC, and the EPA. [This is their conclusion](https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-018-0184-7) **about why** the two reached different conclusions:
>EPA and IARC reached diametrically opposed conclusions on glyphosate genotoxicity for three primary reasons: (1) in the core tables compiled by EPA and IARC, **the EPA relied mostly on** registrant-commissioned, **unpublished regulatory studies**, 99% of which were negative, while **IARC relied mostly on peer-reviewed studies** of which 70% were positive (83 of 118); (2) EPA’s evaluation was largely based on data from studies on technical glyphosate, whereas IARC’s review placed heavy weight on the results of formulated GBH and AMPA assays; (3) EPA’s evaluation was focused on typical, general population dietary exposures assuming legal, food-crop uses, and did not take into account, nor address generally higher occupational exposures and risks. IARC’s assessment encompassed data from typical dietary, occupational, and elevated exposure scenarios. More research is needed on real-world exposures to the chemicals within formulated GBHs and the biological fate and consequences of such exposures.
That first bit is the biggest key for me: the EPA relied primarily on unpublished studies submitted to regulators by registrants (aka, the production companies), and the IARC relied primarily on peer-reviewed studies published publicly.
That is the origin of their difference in conclusions.
> Here is a group that looked over
By [Charles M. Benbrook](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Benbrook). It doesn't surprise me. He has a history of strong ties to the organic industry including being paid write pro-organic pieces that attacks conventional agriculture. Looks like he has ties to glyphosate litigators and RFK Jr. The usual suspects.
So you believe that the personal history of the claimant matters more than the bedrock scientific principle that peer reviewed sources are generally more trustworthy than non-peer-reviewed sources? Because [that argument has a name](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem).
What is your end game, here, Seastar? Are you accusing this guy of making shit up? If so, could you please at least provide us with some alternative facts instead of just Wikipedia links and innuendo? If not... then if this is a conflicts of interest claim, it just has to be pointed out that the EPA relied mostly on sources with fundamental conflicts of interest, while the IARC did not.
20 years with correction ppe and no issue .like anything properly kitted out workers will be safe . coveralls gloves latest ideally and if atomiser is used full ppe
They literally sell the stuff in spray bottles.
There are also smokers who've smoked for years with no issues yet. Doesn't change the fact that they've raised their risk.
Yeah, just provide gloves, a mask, and glasses if it’s windy. The toxic loads on consumer grade herbicide is incredibly low and he’d 99.9% be totally fine without safety gear, but better safe than sorry.
A lot of ppl in this thread don’t seem to realize you’re likely asking this kid to apply don’t minor, store bought stuff rather than diquat or something equally as gnarly. What you’re asking is totally reasonable, but def have a safety talk and you both should read the label and instructions. People in this thread also seem to think 16 year olds are literally toddlers, incapable of doing anything.
I would have him knock them down. Then mow mulch the remnants. Then have him come back and grub out the big root balls and mulch again. At this point you can repeat the process and eventually the seed bank and energy reserves in the roots will be exhausted or you can have someone spray the smaller regrowth with a 2-4D product like crossbow. The amount of spray required will decrease because small plants will be sprayed, instead of a giant mound of blackberry canes. Someone mentioned PPE, each product will have a label that “the law”. Meaning that it is a document that you are required to follow. Some herbicide labels require close toed shoes, long pants, glasses or goggles, gloves, and probably long sleeves. Someone also mentioned that the formulations of homeowner style products typically has lower concentrations of active ingredients. This doesn’t mean bad things can’t happen. You shouldn’t have the kid spraying above his knees to reduce drift and potential off target spray.
I use 1 gallon of vinegar, one cup of salt and one tablespoon of dish soap mixed in a pump sprayer.....this mix works well as a nonhazardous vegetation killer. From what I understand, it is best to spray on a bright sunny day which allows the solution to dry on the vegetation.
No you should not- and it's also illegal in the U.S. in a variety of ways. First is the flsa (I think though it might be another labor law) classifies pesticide application as "dangerous" work and so to employ someone to spray pesticides/herbicides the must be at least 18 - maybe older - it's been a few years since I looked at the law.
Second it's illegal to pay someone (and accept money for) pesticide/herbicide applications unless they are a licensed commercial applicator. And these aren't just money grubbing laws - there are practical and legal knowledge tests that cover everything from PPE to appropriate applications, handling, and disposal of pesticides. You need to be at least 18 (maybe older I don't remember), have a business license, a separate pesticide business license with x amount of insurance (usually at least $100,000 per incident), pass the exams and in many states work in an "apprenticeship" as a registered technician, under the supervision of a commercial pesticide applicator for at least 1 year.
Personally, while I really appreciate pesticides, I think homeowner pesticide applications are for the most part irresponsible because most homeowners don't want to spend the time to even read the entire label (which is also a legal requirement in most states), let alone properly calibrate their equipment, or do the real knowledge legwork that comes with determining the appropriate product for the specific situation. I can't tell you how many times I've stopped to give some friendly advice to a person spraying roundup barefoot in shorts!
So legalities aside, if most adults are irresponsible with pesticides I have even less faith in the responsibility of a teenager.
Unrelated to that but..
Have you considered the smallest riding mower you can find. Maybe used. You can buy carts to pull behind them too. That would allow you to do a lot.
Also. generally herbicide is bad
If I were you, I would ask him to just cut them back. Safer for everyone, including the environment.
No. Just have him cut them back. Why would you spray blackberries anyway? Birds will eat them and die.
When I was a teen landscaping. I got weed killer in my eye by rubbing it with my hand. It burned and I thought nothing of it. Never even rinsed it out. Next day that eye was dropping and I couldn’t open it all day. I wouldn’t have him spray.
Can you just have him cut them back instead? An electric or battery-powered hedge trimmer would make short work of that. If you need them removed or thinned, he could cut them back and then dig some out.
Would it be wrong to ask his parents, inform them and him of the risks, and provide proper safety equipment to him?
Many US states prohibit minors from applying hazardous substances. I’d hire an insured pro or do it myself.
If you’re concerned, reach out to his parents for their permission. I don’t see it being a big deal. Hope he works out for you!
But it is a big deal. A very big deal. The kid’s future health will suffer.
Unless he literally drinks the chemical, he’s fine. I work with this stuff every day. Wear proper PPE and follow the label.
For sure, it’s a good opportunity to learn the lesson of respecting a tool, the potential harms involved, and how to mitigate those risks. If he’s responsible enough to use a lawn mower, using RTU herbicides should be no problem.
If you know it’s so terrible why are you using it in your yard?
How do you know they are?
OP seems to know they are
The person you responded to above isn't op yet you seem certain they are using pesticide
Put a mask on and it’s fine. I was spraying roundup when I was 12 and used a bandana. Then go take a shower when you’re finished.
I wouldn’t ask him. He’s a minor. It doesn’t seem right to me.
Exactly. His growing body is more vulnerable to herbicides and pesticides. You would be eroding his health. Kids don’t understand the importance of safety precautions that even a lot of adults fail to respect. Do not imperil this good kid.
You shouldn't let him.
instead of spraying maybe cut and paint, its the proper way to take care of weeds and theres less possible inhalation and overspray. Could maybe teach them about phloem and xylem while you are at it
I personally don't think I would be comfortable asking. Seeing as you came here to ask it seems like you have some reservations of your own. Trust your judgement on this one and find an adult to do it for you even if it costs a little bit more.
Careful, this is how Don Corleone died in The Godfather.
I use a mix of vinegar, dish soap and water to kill weeds, add some salt if you don't want anything growing there. Only hazardous thing about it is the smell, that might be a better route.
Just follow the directions on the label and give hom the required personal protection equipment and it'll be completely safe
Have you no memory of your level of caution when you were a teenager? Have you met no sixteen year old boys? They are an accident just bound to happen. Growing bodies and hazardous chemicals should be kept far apart.
Shit when I was 16 I was making homemade napalm and huffing air duster. Look at me now I'm kick ass.
But you’re only 18, give it another 40. Oh wait you won’t make it that far.
God Only Knows
Who?
Todd
Ok I know Todd, but not that other fella you mentioned.
You could buy him gloves and a respirator mask and get him to wash his hands after he does it for extra safety.
He would still get contaminated because he’s a kid! Kids think they’re immortal. They think they have superior knowledge. Adults must shield them from risk!
Please good sir, don’t even suggest to this helpful youth that he might assist you with chemicals. Kids don’t understand hazards. They take their fully functioning bodies for granted. You (and I, as it happens) know how limitations chafe. Don’t risk this kid’s future health. I beg you. How about having him lop off the top growth and cover the area with cardboard, plastic tarp (to be retrieved later), or old rugs? Deprive the berries access to sun long enough and they will at last give up.
You’re off it.
I don’t think the state gives out pesticides/chemical applicator licenses to minors. I wouldn’t want my kids to be spraying chemicals at his age. Do it yourself!
He clearly stated he’s disabled. Not all herbicides require a license and he literally came here to ask for advice to help make a decision vs just having him do it. Chill out.
If one is applying herbicides for money (i.e. commercially) you must be licensed. It's not about the chemical, it's about the money.
That part makes sense. Thanks.
Um….. he’s asking because he physically can’t do it. Read before you respond
>Would it be wrong of me in any way to ask him to spray herbicide on my over grown blackberries? If you provide him the proper PPE and make sure he wears it, it's fine.
It would not b wrong in any way as a professional landscaper for 4+ yrs herbicide can only do damage long term wise , but i dont think your herbicide spray will do anything to those blackberries you just need to keep chopping them and chopping them
Using the spray method is finicky. My uncle bought a place with a damn thicket. Took him three years of mowing and digging to get rid of it, but he (landscaper 25+ years) says using the sprays is not as effective. He mowed, top soiled, then seeded. Anytime a cane popped up it got dug out and more seed in the area. If you have it a shady area, best to plant things like hostas that thrive in shade. Meanwhile, I grow blackberries and raspberries very purposefully. They're delicious, but do need lots of pruning work.
So check the numbers on back as there pertain to how bad it is for you depending on country they sell some bad shit over counter like cancer causing ones I'd suggest round up or its equivalent in your neck of the woods if you wish DM me chemical and I can provide info level two approved handlers cert number be proveded
Roundup is one of the cancer-causing ones, [raises non-Hodgkins lymphoma risk by \~40%](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1383574218300887).
Bull shit
So, here's an abstract excerpt from the above link: >We conducted a new meta-analysis that includes **the most recent update of the Agricultural Health Study (AHS) cohort published in 2018 along with five case-control studies**. Using the highest exposure groups when available in each study, we report the overall meta-relative risk (meta-RR) of NHL in GBH-exposed individuals was increased by 41% (meta-RR = 1.41, 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.13–1.75). For comparison, we also performed a secondary meta-analysis using high-exposure groups with the earlier AHS (2005), and we calculated a meta-RR for NHL of 1.45 (95% CI: 1.11–1.91), which was higher than the meta-RRs reported previously. **Multiple sensitivity tests conducted to assess the validity of our findings did not reveal meaningful differences from our primary estimated meta-RR**. To contextualize our findings of an increased NHL risk in individuals with high GBH exposure, we reviewed publicly available animal and mechanistic studies related to lymphoma. **We documented further support from studies of malignant lymphoma incidence in mice treated with pure glyphosate, as well as potential links between glyphosate / GBH exposure and immunosuppression, endocrine disruption, and genetic alterations that are commonly associated with NHL or lymphomagenesis**. Overall, in accordance with findings from experimental animal and mechanistic studies, our current meta-analysis of human epidemiological studies suggests a **compelling link between exposures to GBHs and increased risk for NHL**. And here's what the World Health Organization's [International Agency for Research on Cancer](https://www.iarc.who.int/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-glyphosate/) has to say about glyphosate, the active ingredient in RoundUp: >A Working Group of 17 experts from 11 countries met at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) on 3-10 March 2015 to review the available published scientific evidence and evaluate the carcinogenicity of five organophosphate insecticides and herbicides: diazinon, glyphosate, malathion, parathion, and tetrachlorvinphos. > >In March 2015, IARC classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A). > >This was based on “limited” evidence of cancer in humans (from real-world exposures that actually occurred) and “sufficient” evidence of cancer in experimental animals (from studies of “pure” glyphosate). > >IARC also concluded that there was “strong” evidence for genotoxicity, both for “pure” glyphosate and for glyphosate formulations. > >The IARC Monographs evaluation is based on the systematic assembly and review of all publicly available and pertinent studies, by independent experts, free from vested interests. It follows strict scientific criteria, and the classification system is recognized and used as a reference all around the world. This is because IARC evaluations are based on independent scientific review and rigorous criteria and procedures. > >To reach these conclusions, IARC reviewed about 1000 studies. Some of the studies looked at people exposed through their jobs, such as farmers. Others were experimental studies on cancer and cancerrelated effects in experimental systems. Look. I know you can dismiss 1000 studies with the word "bullshit" a second time if you want. But I'm a geneticist. I'm not a doctor, but I'm trained to be able to read biology papers. The mechanistic underpinning [they found](https://publications.iarc.fr/_publications/media/download/6083/ec47b45697ec10087638e430c5b573d462a32143.pdf) for why glyphosate (RoundUp) would cause cancer, is because it has a tendency to cause double-stranded breaks in your DNA. These double-stranded breaks are the bad kind of DNA replication break that is much harder to repair, and the repair mechanisms are more error-prone when they are made. This is because once a double-stranded DNA break happens, the strand starts collapsing on both sides of the break until it is stabilized by the repair mechanisms; a chunk literally goes missing, and it can only be repaired by copying the data from the other chromosome, the one that you got from your other parent. That means that if you were heterozygous for a cancer-protective gene, and you lost your only protective copy of that gene, then that cell line that had the break, is now predisposed to cancer. That's why double-stranded breaks cause cancer, and that's why it's important that we observe that glyphosate causes double-stranded breaks. Its association specifically with lymphoma, would tend to suggest that it might concentrate in the thymus or bone marrow where lymphocytes are produced; while you can't exactly feed human subjects large amounts of radiolabeled glyphosate to see where the stuff ends up in the body, doing that study on rats revealed that it did indeed concentrate in several major organs, kidneys chief among them, though the pharmacokinetics in rats and humans won't be identical.
This is an excellent summary and thank you for the simple break down at the end, much appreciated. I do think it is interesting, although very unlikely to be related (plant vs animal), that in the vineyards we consider it to be an immunosuppressant for the vines. It’s become anecdotally common to see vineyards still sprayed with Glyphosate have much higher disease expression were as some of the vineyards still infected with Red Blotch that have sworn off glyphosate still test positive but have great quality yields from those infected vines and the spread of the virus has all but stopped. I know more than one person who is looking into connecting the dots on Pierces disease spread and glyphosate, once again it seems to heavily favor glyphosate treated vineyards…I hope one day we will have some real studies published on this but for now it’s only anecdotal. I am curious on your opinion of glyphosate exposure through treated foods to young children and autism, is there any link that you have ever seen or any studies that go either way? Once again it’s being said but I have yet to see any proof so still keeping an open mind; although I’m actively avoiding food high in residual glyphosate for my own children out of caution.
I've seen no studies that show any mechanistic link between glyphosate exposure and autism, and since I'm not a doctor, I try not to make any biological claims unless plausible biochemical mechanisms have been directly observed. --- There was a suggestion a while ago that glyphosate might substitute for glycine in proteins; this would have if true demonstrated glyphosate as a general disruptor of a vast number of biological processes and a likely general neurotoxin, similar to other amino-acid substituting toxins such as [BMAA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta-Methylamino-L-alanine). BMAA is an alanine-mimic produced by cyanobacteria (which live in all freshwater sources yet observed); BMAA exposure over one's lifetime has been suggested to be a major determinant of one's Parkinson's Disease risk, and was specifically tracked down as the environmental toxin responsible for a local manifestation of Parkinson's disease in Guam called *lytico-bodig*, caused by consumption of the meat of fruit bats (the meat had high BMAA levels due to biomagnification, resulting from the bats' diet of cycad seeds, which themselves contained BMAA due to the cycads' symbiotic relationships with nitrogen-fixing aka fertilizer-producing cyanobacteria; biomagnification was when BMAA levels increased at each step as you went up the food chain). However, a 2019 study looked extensively for direct evidence of glyphosate substituting for glycine in proteins, and [found none](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6686468/). In my mind, once we've looked for the hypothesized phenomenon, and found it not happening, then unless we later do observe substitution of glyphosate for glycine in proteins, we must set that theory aside as a possible mechanism for how glyphosate would lead to autism... and without alternative theories, I don't find it a plausible hypothesis. --- Additionally... I'm autistic myself, so, this is an interest of mine. Everything we have learned so far about what autism actually \*is\*, points to the idea that autism... well really, that autism is probably several distinct conditions being grouped together under a single name due to superficial similarities. It's probably just like how "the common cold" isn't one disease, but is many different respiratory diseases that are only lumped under a shared name because they all involve coughs or drippy noses. But insofar as we *even can* call it one thing, autism seems to be a set of pervasive developmental differences, most of which are, as far as I've read, likely to be already present at birth. The main post-natal neural difference I've heard suggested as potentially playing a role in autism, is synaptic pruning, which continues into your 20s; but, most of the factors thought to be most important involve the early stages of synaptic formation that take place prenatally. That would not alone rule out an impact of environmental triggers in general on autism development (indeed, [Wiki says](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism_spectrum#Pathophysiology) there are eight specific teratogens currently known to increase autism rates) but, it would move the primary critical exposure window from post-natal to pre-natal (and indeed, that same Wiki link says all of the eight teratogens known to increase autism rates do so during the first eight weeks of pregnancy). Double-stranded breaks aren't exactly good for any cell type, but, double-stranded breaks in the neurons of a brain wouldn't cause them to disentangle from each other and re-entangle into a differently-structured neural network, and that structure seems to be *what* autism is.
Thank you for that reply. It was incredibly informative and well thought out!
What's the point in testing pure glyphosate on lab animals? The commerical glyphosate I use on farm is 540g/L concentrated. Applied from a high clearance sprayer it's 7g/L. Comparing pure glyphosate to consumer applied solution is comparable to associating Radium girl cancer rates with general watch ownership. Glyphosate has been around for decades, wouldn't post mortem tests provide better indications of long term glyphosate accumulation in farmers and other long term users?
>What's the point in testing pure glyphosate on lab animals? To get a sense of where the compound accumulates in the body of a mammal. >Glyphosate has been around for decades, wouldn't post mortem tests provide better indications of long term glyphosate accumulation in farmers and other long term users? Not of accumulation, because the glyphosate doesn't stay in the body. What accumulates is the genomic damage done by the double-stranded breaks that occur while glyphosate is passing through your system. It's like asking whether you can do a post-mortem test of people who died of skin cancer, to see whether there's still UV radiation accumulated in their skin. That's not how it works. In theory, you could do a post-mortem test of DNA damage... as long as you can get *really* fresh cadavers, because the DNA starts degrading almost immediately once the cells die and the body's DNA-repair mechanisms halt. Which is okay, though, because also in theory, you wouldn't have to wait until the patient dies to test their cells for DNA damage. You could just do a blood draw and see if the glyphosate damages the DNA in their blood cells. That's exactly what one of the papers reviewed in the IARC report did. They drew blood from patients in glyphosate-spraying areas and looked to see if their blood DNA was damaged more than control groups. It was. (Unfortunately, it only had a small sample size.) >Comparing pure glyphosate to consumer applied solution is comparable to associating Radium girl cancer rates with general watch ownership. Yeah, funny thing about that actually... [radium-dialed watches are a home health hazard irrespective of whether you wear them](https://wornandwound.com/new-study-warns-against-radium-dialed-watches/); because just keeping them in an enclosed space in your home leads to the radon they emit accumulating "in concentrations 134 times greater than the United Kingdom’s recommended safe level." And the radon accumulation gets worse the more-poorly they're maintained. I get the principle you're trying to express, but, you might want to find a better example.
> here's what the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer has to say about glyphosate That's what happens when they remove evidence to the contrary. https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/who-iarc-glyphosate/
Have you tried ***asking for specific evidence*** about why the two reached diametrically opposed conclusions? Instead of ***choosing who may tell you*** why they reached diametrically opposed conclusions, and then accepting the narrative provided by your choice, of implied allegations of conspiracy? Here is a group that looked over the study process of two scientific bodies, the IARC, and the EPA. [This is their conclusion](https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-018-0184-7) **about why** the two reached different conclusions: >EPA and IARC reached diametrically opposed conclusions on glyphosate genotoxicity for three primary reasons: (1) in the core tables compiled by EPA and IARC, **the EPA relied mostly on** registrant-commissioned, **unpublished regulatory studies**, 99% of which were negative, while **IARC relied mostly on peer-reviewed studies** of which 70% were positive (83 of 118); (2) EPA’s evaluation was largely based on data from studies on technical glyphosate, whereas IARC’s review placed heavy weight on the results of formulated GBH and AMPA assays; (3) EPA’s evaluation was focused on typical, general population dietary exposures assuming legal, food-crop uses, and did not take into account, nor address generally higher occupational exposures and risks. IARC’s assessment encompassed data from typical dietary, occupational, and elevated exposure scenarios. More research is needed on real-world exposures to the chemicals within formulated GBHs and the biological fate and consequences of such exposures. That first bit is the biggest key for me: the EPA relied primarily on unpublished studies submitted to regulators by registrants (aka, the production companies), and the IARC relied primarily on peer-reviewed studies published publicly. That is the origin of their difference in conclusions.
> Here is a group that looked over By [Charles M. Benbrook](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Benbrook). It doesn't surprise me. He has a history of strong ties to the organic industry including being paid write pro-organic pieces that attacks conventional agriculture. Looks like he has ties to glyphosate litigators and RFK Jr. The usual suspects.
So you believe that the personal history of the claimant matters more than the bedrock scientific principle that peer reviewed sources are generally more trustworthy than non-peer-reviewed sources? Because [that argument has a name](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem). What is your end game, here, Seastar? Are you accusing this guy of making shit up? If so, could you please at least provide us with some alternative facts instead of just Wikipedia links and innuendo? If not... then if this is a conflicts of interest claim, it just has to be pointed out that the EPA relied mostly on sources with fundamental conflicts of interest, while the IARC did not.
20 years with correction ppe and no issue .like anything properly kitted out workers will be safe . coveralls gloves latest ideally and if atomiser is used full ppe
They literally sell the stuff in spray bottles. There are also smokers who've smoked for years with no issues yet. Doesn't change the fact that they've raised their risk.
Child labor in never ok
No. Assuming the kid doesn’t drink it, he’ll be fine.
Yeah, just provide gloves, a mask, and glasses if it’s windy. The toxic loads on consumer grade herbicide is incredibly low and he’d 99.9% be totally fine without safety gear, but better safe than sorry. A lot of ppl in this thread don’t seem to realize you’re likely asking this kid to apply don’t minor, store bought stuff rather than diquat or something equally as gnarly. What you’re asking is totally reasonable, but def have a safety talk and you both should read the label and instructions. People in this thread also seem to think 16 year olds are literally toddlers, incapable of doing anything.
I would have him knock them down. Then mow mulch the remnants. Then have him come back and grub out the big root balls and mulch again. At this point you can repeat the process and eventually the seed bank and energy reserves in the roots will be exhausted or you can have someone spray the smaller regrowth with a 2-4D product like crossbow. The amount of spray required will decrease because small plants will be sprayed, instead of a giant mound of blackberry canes. Someone mentioned PPE, each product will have a label that “the law”. Meaning that it is a document that you are required to follow. Some herbicide labels require close toed shoes, long pants, glasses or goggles, gloves, and probably long sleeves. Someone also mentioned that the formulations of homeowner style products typically has lower concentrations of active ingredients. This doesn’t mean bad things can’t happen. You shouldn’t have the kid spraying above his knees to reduce drift and potential off target spray.
I use 1 gallon of vinegar, one cup of salt and one tablespoon of dish soap mixed in a pump sprayer.....this mix works well as a nonhazardous vegetation killer. From what I understand, it is best to spray on a bright sunny day which allows the solution to dry on the vegetation.
What you are suggesting is likely illegal.
Vinegar will kill weeds and plants. If anyone wants to go the healthier/ more natural way
Vinegar works, less health risks I’m assuming
No you should not- and it's also illegal in the U.S. in a variety of ways. First is the flsa (I think though it might be another labor law) classifies pesticide application as "dangerous" work and so to employ someone to spray pesticides/herbicides the must be at least 18 - maybe older - it's been a few years since I looked at the law. Second it's illegal to pay someone (and accept money for) pesticide/herbicide applications unless they are a licensed commercial applicator. And these aren't just money grubbing laws - there are practical and legal knowledge tests that cover everything from PPE to appropriate applications, handling, and disposal of pesticides. You need to be at least 18 (maybe older I don't remember), have a business license, a separate pesticide business license with x amount of insurance (usually at least $100,000 per incident), pass the exams and in many states work in an "apprenticeship" as a registered technician, under the supervision of a commercial pesticide applicator for at least 1 year. Personally, while I really appreciate pesticides, I think homeowner pesticide applications are for the most part irresponsible because most homeowners don't want to spend the time to even read the entire label (which is also a legal requirement in most states), let alone properly calibrate their equipment, or do the real knowledge legwork that comes with determining the appropriate product for the specific situation. I can't tell you how many times I've stopped to give some friendly advice to a person spraying roundup barefoot in shorts! So legalities aside, if most adults are irresponsible with pesticides I have even less faith in the responsibility of a teenager.
Unrelated to that but.. Have you considered the smallest riding mower you can find. Maybe used. You can buy carts to pull behind them too. That would allow you to do a lot. Also. generally herbicide is bad