Going green v. glyphosate

In recent years, several councils and stakeholders across the UK have taken bold steps to "weed out" the use of glyphosate, reacting to public pressure and citing concerns over its safety as a probably carinogenic. However, as reports of growing weeds and safety hazards mount, some councils ar enot reconsidering these bans, opting to reintroduce glyphosate-based methods, as Daniel Docking from the PCA explains.

The scale of the problem


Simply understanding the scale of the problem when battling invasive non-native plants (INNPs) is often a task underestimated by many. To demonstrate this scale, Plant Atlas 2020 shows a sharp decline in the UK’s natural biodiversity, with a staggering stat of over 50 per cent of flora now being non-native. 2,000 of these non-native plants have become invasive and it’s these invasive invaders which are causing a serious problem. A new study released by CABI, has estimated it costs £4 billion per year to manage invasive non-native species within the UK, with the infamous Japanese Knotweed, costing the UK economy £246.5 million alone. 

Brighton and “Hoe” initiate u-turn

Brighton and Hove City Council, among the first to enact a glyphosate ban in 2019, has faced significant challenges since then. Council leader Bella Sankey acknowledges the chaos caused by uncontrolled weed growth, leading to unsafe pavements. Despite exhaustive efforts to explore alternatives, including manual weeding and community engagement, the council found no effective substitute for glyphosate. Instead, they propose a “controlled droplet method” which reduces the concentration of glyphosate and minimising environmental biodiversity impacts.

Similarly, Cambridgeshire County Council, prompted by overwhelming complaints and safety concerns, reversed its glyphosate ban after just one year of implementation. The decision, fuelled by reports of damaged infrastructure and public dissatisfaction, reflects a broader shift in understanding the practical challenges of weed management without glyphosate. Simon Bywater, a county councillor, criticised the initial ban as short-sighted, emphasising the need for balanced decision-making considering both budgetary concerns and public safety.

The public eye

The reversal of glyphosate bans by councils reflects a previously underestimated understanding of the challenges involved in weed management. Environmental advocacy groups and concerned citizens have played a pivotal role in raising awareness about the potential risks associated with glyphosate use. Their campaigns have spurred public debate and put pressure on policymakers to reassess glyphosate regulations to enforce widespread bans. While their intentions are noble, it is essential to ensure that policy decisions are based on a collective of scientific evidence and comprehensive risk assessments rather than emotive appeals alone backed by a statement produced by the IARC suggesting that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans” yet no more than alcohol or processed meats. These critics also argue that glyphosate poses health risks and harms wildlife, advocating for stricter regulations or outright bans. Yet, regulatory bodies like the World Health Organisation (WHO), the European Union, and the UK Health and Safety Executive consider glyphosate safe when used properly by competent, trained professionals. Even Cancer Research UK have a very clear message on their website which states “There isn’t enough good-quality evidence to be certain that exposure to pesticides at high levels causes cancer.”

Outlining priorities

Although political agendas change, we are still bound to legislation and identifying future priorities is key to ensure long-term global survival. The Climate Change Act 2008 sets targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and provides a system for carbon budgeting to achieve net zero. Yet with such a strong emotive which surrounds the removal of glyphosate-based products, we begin to ignore the facts of “going green” for the sake of it doesn’t always provide the best results. A study conducted by an independent research consultancy, in collaboration with Cardiff City Council and industry experts Complete Weed Control, concluded that glyphosate remains the most effective and sustainable weed control method available. The study compared glyphosate with alternative “eco-friendly” methods and found glyphosate to have a smaller environmental footprint, smaller carbon footprint, lower overall cost, and higher customer satisfaction.

Can a glyphosate ban 
affect weed control?

This question undoubtedly weighs heavily on the minds of many weed control professionals as discussions about widespread bans intensify and political pressures grow. While the ban on glyphosate will undoubtedly create lots of media coverage opportunities, however, to those in the control of invasive or amenity weeds, the impact will be negligible. Currently, glyphosate serves as the primary “cure” 
within weed management strategies and performs extremely effectively. However, removing glyphosate doesn’t eliminate the problem of weeds; rather, it necessitates adaptation and the exploration of new, 
cost-effective remediation methods. Although this may seem an initial hurdle, the root 
cause doesn’t change, which further supports the need for other remediation solutions to be efficient in comparison, less costly and have a lower carbon footprint as highlighted within the Cardiff City County study.

Integrated “weed” management

As drawstring budget councils, key stakeholders and companies navigate the complexities of economic recession, in addition to the social pressure of using glyphosate-based products, the role of integrated weed management (IWM) emerges as crucial component required to meet the needs of all interested parties. IWM emphasises the sustainable use of herbicides alongside non-chemical methods to achieve effective weed control. Examples of this can be road sweeping to prevent the build-up of debris and soil which could harbour plant material. Specifically to Japanese Knotweed, we could consider separating or sifting rhizomes from the soil, reducing the amount required to go to landfill. This type of approach not only minimises the environmental impact but it is a requirement by law for all herbicide practitioners under the Official Control Regulations 2020 to firstly consider other sustainable control methods.

More to come?

The debate over glyphosate reflects the inherent challenges of balancing competing interests and priorities in environmental 
policy-making. While concerns over glyphosate’s safety and environmental impact are legitimate, they must be weighed against the practical considerations of weed management and the economic or environmental implications of using non-glyphosate strategies. 

Unfortunately, there doesn’t appear to be 
any comprehensive solution which can 
ensure all parties involved are satisfied. 
Banning glyphosate shouldn’t be used as tool to gain a few extra votes during election time but we should be engaging in open forum discussions, engaging with organisations like the Invasive Weed Control Group or the Amenity Forum, and embracing evidence-based decision making. Only then can we navigate this complex terrain and implement policies that promote safety, sustainability, and community well-being.