It appears likely that African bureaucrats are smarter than US ones

[RodISHI]

The African Agriculture Bio Centre for diversity denies the fake GMO potatoes because of safety issue for the citizens and the lack of promises made previously concerning GMO products.

"The African Centre for Biodiversity (ACB) welcomes the recent decision made by the Minister of Agriculture, Water Affairs and Fisheries and an Appeal Board rejecting the commercialisation of genetically modified (GM) potatoes in South Africa.

The ACB with the support of the South African public, vigorously campaigned over a number of years against the Agricultural Research Council (ARC’s) bid to bring GM potatoes, also known as “SpuntaG2,” to the South African market. The potatoes were genetically engineered to produce a toxin to kill the potato tuber moth. The ACB has always contended that the GM potato posed unacceptable risks to human and animal health, the environment and the farming community. GM Regulators in SA, the Executive Council: GMO Act, agreed and rejected ARC’s application in 2009, citing a long list of biosafety, health and socio-economic concerns. These were challenged by the ARC in an appeal, which they have now definitively lost.."................continued at link

 

[Crick]

Is there any valid evidence supporting the ACB's contentions of the potato's risk?

The ACB has opposed al GM crops and uses some dubious arguments. The source of this thread is quit anti-GM crops. The article goes on to say:

South Africa was an early adopter of GM crops, commercialising GM cotton, maize and soya more than a decade ago. However, promised results such as addressing hunger and decreasing agrochemical use have not materialised. The South African National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (SANHANES) published by the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) in 2013 found that one in four South Africans go to bed hungry every night. In addition, the advent of GM crops in South Africa has dramatically increased the use of the herbicide glyphosate – recently categorised as a “probable human carcinogenic” by the World Health Organisation (WHO)’s International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC).

That one in four South Africans goes to bed hungry every night is not evidence that GM crops have not alleviated hunger in South Africa. We're left wondering how many went to be hungry before their arrival. Glyphosphate is the herbicie Roundup. It is widely used in the US and many other nations in conjunction with GM crops modified to resist it. The standard regimen is to plant a crop that is resistant to glyphosphate and then apply it regularly to the crops to eliminate all other growth - ie, weeds. It is very effective at doing so.

I am not a fan of the Roundup Routine for crop growth, but not because I believe it poses a direct risk to humans. Glyphosphate breaks down very rapidly in the environment whether on the surface or in the soil. Within 24 hours of application, it is essentially undetectable. It does not lead to bioaccumulation as did DDT and the rest of the organochlorides. However, the introduction of the technology has led to the decimation of a number of wild plant species that fed butterflies and bees as farmers have increased the acreage under cultivation.

DOES GLYPHOSPHATE CAUSE CANCER IN HUMANS?

From Nature

The cancer-research arm of the World Health Organization last week announced that glyphosate, the world’s most widely used herbicide, is probably carcinogenic to humans.1 But the assessment, by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in Lyon, France, has been followed by an immediate backlash from industry groups.

On 23 March, Robb Fraley, chief technology officer at the agrochemical company Monsanto in St Louis, Missouri, which sells much of the world’s glyphosate, accused the IARC of “cherry picking” data. “We are outraged with this assessment,” he said in a statement. Nature explains the controversy.

What does the IARC report say?
The IARC regularly reviews the carcinogenicity of industrial chemicals, foodstuffs and even jobs. On 20 March, a panel of international experts convened by the agency reported the findings of a review of five agricultural chemicals in a class known as organophosphates. A summary of the study was published in The Lancet Oncology1.

Related stories

• Paper claiming GM link with tumours republished
• A growing problem
• Genetically modified crops pass benefits to weeds

More related stories

Two of the pesticides — tetrachlorvinphos and parathion — were rated as “possibly carcinogenic to humans”, or category 2B. Three — malathion, diazinon and glyphosate — were rated as “probably carcinogenic to humans”, labelled category 2A.

Why should I care about glyphosate?
Glyphosate is the world’s most widely produced herbicide, by volume. It is used extensively in agriculture and is also found in garden products in many countries. The chemical is an ingredient in Monsanto's weedkiller product Roundup, and glyphosate has become more popular with the increasing market share of crops that are genetically engineered to be tolerant to the herbicide.

What evidence is there for a link between glyphosate and cancer?
The IARC review notes that there is limited evidence for a link to cancer in humans. Although several studies have shown that people who work with the herbicide seem to be at increased risk of a cancer type called non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the report notes that a separate huge US study, theAgricultural Health Study, found no link to non-Hodgkin lymphomas. That study followed thousands of farmers and looked at whether they had increased risk of cancer.

But other evidence, including from animal studies, led the IARC to its ‘probably carcinogenic’ classification. Glyphosate has been linked to tumours in mice and rats — and there is also what the IARC classifies as ‘mechanistic evidence’, such as DNA damage to human cells from exposure to glyphosate.

Kathryn Guyton, a senior toxicologist in the monographs programme at the IARC and one of the authors of the study, says, “In the case of glyphosate, because the evidence in experimental animals was sufficient and the evidence in humans was limited, that would put the agent into group 2A.”

But not everyone agrees?
An industry group of agrochemical companies called the Glyphosate Task Force said that the agency’s evaluation “demonstrates serious deficiencies in terms of methodological approach and the overall conclusion is inconsistent with the results of all regulatory reviews concerning glyphosate’s safety profile”.

Monsanto — a member of the task force — said that relevant scientific data that showed no risk was excluded from the review, and the IARC “purposefully disregarded dozens of scientific studies”, specifically genetic toxicity studies.

But Guyton strongly defends the IARC process and insists that there is a set of clear rules that lays out which studies can be considered by the experts convened by the IARC. These are broadly limited to peer-reviewed publications and government reports, leading to the rejection of a number of industry-submitted studies.

Some academic scientists have sounded notes of caution over the IARC report. Oliver Jones, an analytical chemist at RMIT University in Melbourne, told the Science Media Centre in London: “IARC evaluations are usually very good, but to me the evidence cited here appears a bit thin.” He added: “From a personal perspective, I am a vegetarian so I eat a lot of vegetables and I’m not worried by this report.”

Doesn’t just about everything cause cancer if you look hard enough?
The IARC classifies compounds on a scale of decreasing certainty: group 1 is for agents that are definitely carcinogenic to humans; 2A, probably carcinogenic to humans; 2B, possibly carcinogenic to humans; 3, not classifiable; and 4, probably not carcinogenic to humans.

Monsanto said in its statement, “IARC has classified numerous everyday items in Category 2 including coffee, cell phones, aloe vera extract and pickled vegetables, as well as professions such as a barber and fry cook.”

But the IARC classified most of these items at the less dangerous 2B level, whereas glyphosate is in the 'probably carcinogenic' 2A category. Of Monsanto's list, only emissions from high-temperature frying and the occupational exposure experienced as a barber are rated as 2A.

What happens next?
It is not part of the IARC’s process to quantify any increased risk of cancer due to a chemical, or to recommend a safe exposure level, although its studies can be influential. Rather, regulatory agencies around the world will have to decide what to do with the agency’s finding. The US Environmental Protection Agency is currently conducting a formal review of the safety of glyphosate (which it does not consider carcinogenic in humans) and said that it would give “full consideration” to the IARC study.

Nature

doi:10.1038/nature.2015.17181

 

[RodISHI]

I don't agree with the assessment that glyphosate breaks down rapidly. It goes into the ground water and ends up in the peoples water supply. I posted the EPA results and concerns on here years ago.

What happens when you mix....... | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Monsanto - birth defects | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Feeding the world, nah.
GM crops myth | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Fallen star
Roundup main ingredient Glyphosate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Help needed | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Corn growing for ethanol is not food and a tragedy for anyone living near or around these mega farms.

Droughts creating famine in Africa cannot be solved by adding chemicals into the mix so why should they allow the land to be poisoned?

concerning cotton;
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/03/201332813553729250.html
Monsanto and now many others Seeds of Suicide and slavery versus seeds of life and freedom

Seven-year glitch: Cornell warns that Chinese GM cotton farmers are losing money due to 'secondary' pests

The fall of the mighty taking countries down with them as these giants have wiped out many small farms over the past fifty years. The hope for the people is their are a few private property owners left who have held out and the people are becoming more aware as each day passes.

Why won't America's leaders and politicians actually protect the people they are suppose to be working for?

Force scientist to retract studies that are not favorable to the commerce of selling the poisoned food?

Personally I'll go back to the lies that were accepted, certified and bound in our court case for a reference on how big money has trampled truth and justice with outright lies and deception for control over those who refuse to go along with their lies or agenda to control and deceive the people. Just because some can be bought and paid for does not mean all can be bought and paid for. And when their money becomes worthless those who sold themselves for not even regret that they did such.

This publication made themselves utterly worthless when they accepted supporting the lie.

J Agric Environ Ethics. 2015 Aug;28(4):621-633.
Retracting Inconclusive Research: Lessons from the Séralini GM Maize Feeding Study.
Resnik DB1.
Author information
Abstract
In September 2012, Gilles-Eric Séralini and seven coauthors published an article in Food and Chemical Toxicology claiming that rats fed Roundup©-resistant genetically modified maize alone, genetically modified maize with Roundup©, or Roundup© for 2 years had a higher percentage of tumors and kidney and liver damage than normal controls. Shortly after this study was published, numerous scientists and several scientific organizations criticized the research as methodologically and ethically flawed. In January 2014, the journal retracted the article without the authors' consent on the grounds that the research was inconclusive. In June 2014, Environmental Sciences Europe published a slightly modified version of the retracted paper. The publication, retraction and subsequent republication of the Séralini study raise important scientific and ethical issues for journal editors. Decisions to retract an article should be made on the basis of well-established policies. Articles should be retracted only for serious errors that undermine the reliability of the data or results, or for serious ethical lapses, such as research misconduct or mistreatment of animal or human subjects. Inconclusiveness, by itself, is not a sufficient reason for retracting an article, though a flawed study design might be. Retracted articles that are submitted for republication should undergo scientific review to ensure that they meet appropriate standards. Republished articles should be linked to the original, retracted publication. Journals that are reviewing studies with significant scientific and social implications should take special care to ensure that peer review is rigorous and fair.

KEYWORDS:
Ethics; Genetically modified foods; Peer review; Retraction; Scientific methodology

 

[flacaltenn]

I don't agree with the assessment that glyphosate breaks down rapidly. It goes into the ground water and ends up in the peoples water supply. I posted the EPA results and concerns on here years ago.

What happens when you mix....... | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Monsanto - birth defects | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Feeding the world, nah.
GM crops myth | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Fallen star
Roundup main ingredient Glyphosate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Help needed | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Corn growing for ethanol is not food and a tragedy for anyone living near or around these mega farms.

Droughts creating famine in Africa cannot be solved by adding chemicals into the mix so why should they allow the land to be poisoned?

concerning cotton;
Monsanto and now many others Seeds of Suicide and slavery versus seeds of life and freedom

Seven-year glitch: Cornell warns that Chinese GM cotton farmers are losing money due to 'secondary' pests

The fall of the mighty taking countries down with them as these giants have wiped out many small farms over the past fifty years. The hope for the people is their are a few private property owners left who have held out and the people are becoming more aware as each day passes.

Why won't America's leaders and politicians actually protect the people they are suppose to be working for?

Force scientist to retract studies that are not favorable to the commerce of selling the poisoned food?

Personally I'll go back to the lies that were accepted, certified and bound in our court case for a reference on how big money has trampled truth and justice with outright lies and deception for control over those who refuse to go along with their lies or agenda to control and deceive the people. Just because some can be bought and paid for does not mean all can be bought and paid for. And when their money becomes worthless those who sold themselves for not even regret that they did such.

This publication made themselves utterly worthless when they accepted supporting the lie.

J Agric Environ Ethics. 2015 Aug;28(4):621-633.
Retracting Inconclusive Research: Lessons from the Séralini GM Maize Feeding Study.
Resnik DB1.
Author information
Abstract
In September 2012, Gilles-Eric Séralini and seven coauthors published an article in Food and Chemical Toxicology claiming that rats fed Roundup©-resistant genetically modified maize alone, genetically modified maize with Roundup©, or Roundup© for 2 years had a higher percentage of tumors and kidney and liver damage than normal controls. Shortly after this study was published, numerous scientists and several scientific organizations criticized the research as methodologically and ethically flawed. In January 2014, the journal retracted the article without the authors' consent on the grounds that the research was inconclusive. In June 2014, Environmental Sciences Europe published a slightly modified version of the retracted paper. The publication, retraction and subsequent republication of the Séralini study raise important scientific and ethical issues for journal editors. Decisions to retract an article should be made on the basis of well-established policies. Articles should be retracted only for serious errors that undermine the reliability of the data or results, or for serious ethical lapses, such as research misconduct or mistreatment of animal or human subjects. Inconclusiveness, by itself, is not a sufficient reason for retracting an article, though a flawed study design might be. Retracted articles that are submitted for republication should undergo scientific review to ensure that they meet appropriate standards. Republished articles should be linked to the original, retracted publication. Journals that are reviewing studies with significant scientific and social implications should take special care to ensure that peer review is rigorous and fair.

KEYWORDS:
Ethics; Genetically modified foods; Peer review; Retraction; Scientific methodology

"""""""

Force scientist to retract studies that are not favorable to the commerce of selling the poisoned food?

In September 2012, Gilles-Eric Séralini and seven coauthors published an article in Food and Chemical Toxicology claiming that rats fed Roundup©-resistant genetically modified maize alone, genetically modified maize with Roundup©, or Roundup© for 2 years had a higher percentage of tumors and kidney and liver damage than normal controls. Shortly after this study was published, numerous scientists and several scientific organizations criticized the research as methodologically and ethically flawed. In January 2014, the journal retracted the article without the authors' consent on the grounds that the research was inconclusive. In June 2014, Environmental Sciences Europe published a slightly modified version of the retracted paper.


"""""""""

You lose the issue when you FORCE science either way.. What is described there is how the science thingy is SUPPOSED to work. Doesn't matter what reason the journal finally gave --- there was an onslaught of CONTROVERSY over the "the research as methodologically and ethically flawed"...

Papers just don't survive with those types of accusations going unresolved. ESPECIALLY "the ethically challenged" accusation is particularly deadly to any published paper. Just was not good pure science..

And what's with this confusion about Round-Up resistant corn? It does not contain RoundUp in IT.. Why would you feed rats the GMO corn WITH ROUND-UP??

Go read a bottle of Round-Up.. It's been around for ages. They give directions for using around edible crops.. Of course Round-up DIRECTLY on any edible plant will likely kill it -- FOR DECADES -- if you follow those directions on NON-GMO gardens --- the science says you're safe.

This is NOT an issue about the GMO corn -- it's about the use of HERBICIDES....

 

[RodISHI]

I don't agree with the assessment that glyphosate breaks down rapidly. It goes into the ground water and ends up in the peoples water supply. I posted the EPA results and concerns on here years ago.

What happens when you mix....... | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Monsanto - birth defects | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Feeding the world, nah.
GM crops myth | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Fallen star
Roundup main ingredient Glyphosate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Help needed | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Corn growing for ethanol is not food and a tragedy for anyone living near or around these mega farms.

Droughts creating famine in Africa cannot be solved by adding chemicals into the mix so why should they allow the land to be poisoned?

concerning cotton;
Monsanto and now many others Seeds of Suicide and slavery versus seeds of life and freedom

Seven-year glitch: Cornell warns that Chinese GM cotton farmers are losing money due to 'secondary' pests

The fall of the mighty taking countries down with them as these giants have wiped out many small farms over the past fifty years. The hope for the people is their are a few private property owners left who have held out and the people are becoming more aware as each day passes.

Why won't America's leaders and politicians actually protect the people they are suppose to be working for?

Force scientist to retract studies that are not favorable to the commerce of selling the poisoned food?

Personally I'll go back to the lies that were accepted, certified and bound in our court case for a reference on how big money has trampled truth and justice with outright lies and deception for control over those who refuse to go along with their lies or agenda to control and deceive the people. Just because some can be bought and paid for does not mean all can be bought and paid for. And when their money becomes worthless those who sold themselves for not even regret that they did such.

This publication made themselves utterly worthless when they accepted supporting the lie.

J Agric Environ Ethics. 2015 Aug;28(4):621-633.
Retracting Inconclusive Research: Lessons from the Séralini GM Maize Feeding Study.
Resnik DB1.
Author information
Abstract
In September 2012, Gilles-Eric Séralini and seven coauthors published an article in Food and Chemical Toxicology claiming that rats fed Roundup©-resistant genetically modified maize alone, genetically modified maize with Roundup©, or Roundup© for 2 years had a higher percentage of tumors and kidney and liver damage than normal controls. Shortly after this study was published, numerous scientists and several scientific organizations criticized the research as methodologically and ethically flawed. In January 2014, the journal retracted the article without the authors' consent on the grounds that the research was inconclusive. In June 2014, Environmental Sciences Europe published a slightly modified version of the retracted paper. The publication, retraction and subsequent republication of the Séralini study raise important scientific and ethical issues for journal editors. Decisions to retract an article should be made on the basis of well-established policies. Articles should be retracted only for serious errors that undermine the reliability of the data or results, or for serious ethical lapses, such as research misconduct or mistreatment of animal or human subjects. Inconclusiveness, by itself, is not a sufficient reason for retracting an article, though a flawed study design might be. Retracted articles that are submitted for republication should undergo scientific review to ensure that they meet appropriate standards. Republished articles should be linked to the original, retracted publication. Journals that are reviewing studies with significant scientific and social implications should take special care to ensure that peer review is rigorous and fair.

KEYWORDS:
Ethics; Genetically modified foods; Peer review; Retraction; Scientific methodology

"""""""

Force scientist to retract studies that are not favorable to the commerce of selling the poisoned food?

In September 2012, Gilles-Eric Séralini and seven coauthors published an article in Food and Chemical Toxicology claiming that rats fed Roundup©-resistant genetically modified maize alone, genetically modified maize with Roundup©, or Roundup© for 2 years had a higher percentage of tumors and kidney and liver damage than normal controls. Shortly after this study was published, numerous scientists and several scientific organizations criticized the research as methodologically and ethically flawed. In January 2014, the journal retracted the article without the authors' consent on the grounds that the research was inconclusive. In June 2014, Environmental Sciences Europe published a slightly modified version of the retracted paper.


"""""""""

You lose the issue when you FORCE science either way.. What is described there is how the science thingy is SUPPOSED to work. Doesn't matter what reason the journal finally gave --- there was an onslaught of CONTROVERSY over the "the research as methodologically and ethically flawed"...

Papers just don't survive with those types of accusations going unresolved. ESPECIALLY "the ethically challenged" accusation is particularly deadly to any published paper. Just was not good pure science..

And what's with this confusion about Round-Up resistant corn? It does not contain RoundUp in IT.. Why would you feed rats the GMO corn WITH ROUND-UP??

Go read a bottle of Round-Up.. It's been around for ages. They give directions for using around edible crops.. Of course Round-up DIRECTLY on any edible plant will likely kill it -- FOR DECADES -- if you follow those directions on NON-GMO gardens --- the science says you're safe.

This is NOT an issue about the GMO corn -- it's about the use of HERBICIDES....

So it appears that it is your contention is that Glysophate does not grow into the food grown that is genetically altered to accept this chemical application?

Do you actually think these herbicides do not absorb into the plants?

If that was or is the case why would quantifying the limits in or residues on the food products be an issue?

Why did Monsanto and all the other applications with the chemical companies need to get the exemptions for the excess of these chemicals limits raised in the food products they are growing with this crap through the years?

I think they have bullied the people that have tried to inform the American public long enough.
Entropy 2013, 15(4), 1416-1463; doi:10.3390/e15041416
Review
Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases†
Anthony Samsel 1 and Stephanie Seneff 2,*
1 Independent Scientist and Consultant, Deerfield, NH 03037, USA 2 Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
† Expression of Concern Note added on 17 September 2015 by the Editors: The editors of the journal have been alerted to concerns over potential bias in opinions and bias in the choice of citation sources used in this article. We note that the authors stand by the content as published. Since the nature of the claims against the paper concern speculation and opinion, and not fraud or academic misconduct, the editors would like to make readers aware that the approach to collating literature citations for this article was likely not systematic and may not reflect the spectrum of opinions on the issues covered by the article. Please refer to our policy regarding possibly controversial articles.
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 15 January 2013 / Revised: 10 April 2013 / Accepted: 10 April 2013 / Published: 18 April 2013
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biosemiotic Entropy: Disorder, Disease, and Mortality)
Download the pdf...at the link Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-05-01/pdf/2013-10316.pdf

Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors. - PubMed - NCBI
Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors.
Thongprakaisang S1, Thiantanawat A, Rangkadilok N, Suriyo T, Satayavivad J.
Author information

• 1Environmental Toxicology Program, Chulabhorn Graduate Institute, Laksi, Bangkok 10210, Thailand.

Abstract
Glyphosate is an active ingredient of the most widely used herbicide and it is believed to be less toxic than other pesticides. However, several recent studies showed its potential adverse health effects to humans as it may be an endocrine disruptor. This study focuses on the effects of pure glyphosate on estrogen receptors (ERs) mediated transcriptional activity and their expressions. Glyphosate exerted proliferative effects only in human hormone-dependent breast cancer, T47D cells, but not in hormone-independent breast cancer, MDA-MB231 cells, at 10⁻¹² to 10⁻⁶M in estrogen withdrawal condition. The proliferative concentrations of glyphosate that induced the activation of estrogen response element (ERE) transcription activity were 5-13 fold of control in T47D-KBluc cells and this activation was inhibited by an estrogen antagonist, ICI 182780, indicating that the estrogenic activity of glyphosate was mediated via ERs. Furthermore, glyphosate also altered both ERα and β expression. These results indicated that low and environmentally relevant concentrations of glyphosate possessed estrogenic activity. Glyphosate-based herbicides are widely used for soybean cultivation, and our results also found that there was an additive estrogenic effect between glyphosate and genistein, a phytoestrogen in soybeans. However, these additive effects of glyphosate contamination in soybeans need further animal study.

Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

KEYWORDS:
Estrogenic effect; Genistein; Glyphosate; Human breast cancer; T47D; T47D-KBluc

PMID:
23756170
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

EPA find it is not safe when it gets into the water;
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/pdfs/factsheets/soc/tech/glyphosa.pdf

 

[flacaltenn]

So at least we've established that the issue is not the GMO corn itself.. As to the study you quoted, are you aware that soybeans THEMSELVES are associated with "additive estrogenic effects"? In fact -- QUITE substantial effects..

 

[RodISHI]

So at least we've established that the issue is not the GMO corn itself.. As to the study you quoted, are you aware that soybeans THEMSELVES are associated with "additive estrogenic effects"? In fact -- QUITE substantial effects..

Along with every other caustic substance that is getting into the food and water supply it's all causing major health breakdowns.

 

[flacaltenn]

So at least we've established that the issue is not the GMO corn itself.. As to the study you quoted, are you aware that soybeans THEMSELVES are associated with "additive estrogenic effects"? In fact -- QUITE substantial effects..

Along with every other caustic substance that is getting into the food and water supply it's all causing major health breakdowns.

I'm certainly not lobbying for stupid uses of herbicides. I probably lost a kidney to herbicides. But I am supporting science and reason over using this glyphosate issue to bash Genetic engineering of plants. I can stay away from Soy milk so that my junk doesn't shrivel up and my breasts dont grow -- but my Hillbilly Hollywood mini-estate NEEDS herbicides..

My 86 yr old father in law now thinks gardening means walking around his house with a spray bottle of Round-Up.. I TRIED to lecture him --- he sat me down and we read the label together and I lost TWO arguments with him.

1) About not using it near lawns and ornamentals.
2) About the residual effects in the soil..

You'll KNOW who's lying to you if you can REPEATEDLY dose a section of yard with the stuff for years -- And then -- you can turn it into a flourishing garden pretty much anytime you want -- 3 months after the last dose...

PS -- I lost that bet to my in-law as well...