Skip to main contentSkip to navigationSkip to navigation
Demonstrators march for agroecology and civil resistance against pesticide maker Monsanto in Bordeaux, France last year.
Demonstrators march for agroecology and civil resistance against pesticide maker Monsanto in Bordeaux, France, last year. Photograph: Georges Gobet/AFP/Getty Images
Demonstrators march for agroecology and civil resistance against pesticide maker Monsanto in Bordeaux, France, last year. Photograph: Georges Gobet/AFP/Getty Images

Better safe than sorry on chemicals used in agriculture

This article is more than 5 years old
How can you guarantee that every member of a food production supply chain has used these chemicals ‘according to the label’, asks Craig Sams

Your article (One man’s suffering exposed Monsanto’s secrets to the world, 11 August) is the tip of the iceberg. Glyphosate is considered a “probable carcinogen” by the WHO. The Netherlands banned its use in 2014. This isn’t the first time a “safe” agrichemical has been exposed as potentially dangerous.

The European Food Safety Authority has launched a review into the safety of herbicides, pesticides and fungicides, as so many have been permitted without proper testing. In February iprodione, a fungicide used in professional sports turf, was banned by the EU. Golfers have been unwittingly exposed for decades.

We cannot trust science that was paid for by the manufacturers. Bayer’s statement in glyphosate’s defence illustrates the risk to which we have been exposed: “Bayer is confident … that glyphosate is safe for use and does not cause cancer when used according to the label.”

How can you guarantee that every member of a food production supply chain has used these chemicals “according to the label”? How can you guarantee that, even though you wore gloves as you sprayed fungicides on your turf, a child won’t do a cartwheel on the grass later, or a golfer won’t pick up a ball with their bare hands and unknowingly violate the label’s conditions?

When people buy cigarettes, they know the risks. But when people eat food or sit on grass treated with probable carcinogens, they don’t. That’s why the industry is turning to bio-stimulants, like enriched biochar, which are as effective as chemicals but are natural and pose no risk of being outed as harmful down the line.

When it comes to consumer choice, health and welfare, isn’t it better to be safe than sorry?
Craig Sams
Executive chairman, Carbon Gold; former chairman, Soil Association

Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters

Do you have a photo you’d like to share with other Guardian readers? Click here to upload it and we’ll publish the best submissions in the letters spread in our print edition

Most viewed

Most viewed