Homemade weed killer – vinegar and saltVinegar, Homemade Weed KillerI’ve discussed vinegar before in. It is effective against small weed seedlings, and it does destroy the green leaves above ground. It has very little effect on roots.In this post vinegar refers to the stuff you can buy in a grocery store.

2013-5-31  Rock salt and blackberry bushes does it work. Round up on the other hand worked like a charm when I had to kill the grass that over took my garden area this year. 'Redneck, white socks and blue ribbon beer' Last edited by Copenhagen; at.

It does not include 20% acetic acid which is a dangerous chemical that does kill some weeds. Salt, Homemade Weed KillerSalt, usually in the form of sodium chloride, the table salt, is recommended quite a bit for killing weeds. It can be used in water, as a solid or even mixed with vinegar.Salt does kill weeds, as well as all other plants. Sodium is a toxic metal ion which dissolves easily in water.

It moves through soil along with the water. If the amount of sodium is high enough it kills plants, so it should be no surprise that it kills weeds.Unlike synthetic or organic pesticides which break down over time, the sodium ion does not break down. It might be washed away by water to another location, like the soil where you grow favorite plants, or into local rivers and lakes, but it will always be somewhere. Someone on a social network group said they kill weeds by applying salt, and nothing grows in the spot for at least 2 years. Great – the weeds are gone because the soil has been contaminated so much nothing will grow there until water leeches the excess sodium away. That does not sound like good gardening to me.

Roundup Weed KillerThe active ingredient in Roundup is a chemical called glyphosate. Contrary to popular belief, this is a safe chemical (ref 1) and it works very well on most plants.Glyphosate is absorbed by the leaves of growing plants and is transported to the roots. There, it slowly kills the roots and in turn the whole plant dies. This process is fairly slow, and usually takes 10 – 14 days for the plant to die.

Homemade Weed Killer – Roundup vs Salt vs Vinegar, August 16 Does Salt Kill Weeds?You can see from the above picture that the salt sprayed on the plant was not enough to kill it. Things might have been different if the plant had been in the ground. Salt is very soluble in water, and more watering means that it is washed away quicker. The plant would not have been watered as much if it was in the ground and so the salt might have stuck around longer, in turn killing the plant. But that is just a guess.The salt treated plant is not nearly as large as the vinegar treated plant.

So salt certainly affected the dandelion more than the vinegar spray.Salt may be better at getting rid of weeds, but it is just not a good idea for treating weeds in the garden. Adding salt to your garden is not good for your plants or the environment. Does Vinegar Kill Weeds?The pickling vinegar did do some initial damage to the leaves, but it clearly did not kill the plant. This is consistent with scientific reports that say vinegar at 5% or 7% have very little effect on weeds that have well established root systems.

See for more details.Vinegar will not kill most weeds in the garden. 20% Acetic Acid does kill some weeds, but is not effective on all types. In my next post I test vinegar’s ability to kill other types of weeds.

Will Vinegar + Salt Kill Weeds?Some recipes recommend a mixture of both vinegar and salt. This is probably more effective than just vinegar alone, but again salt is just no good for the garden. I would not use it.Many of you will have trouble believing me when I say Roundup is less damaging to the environment than salt.

Roundup degrades fairly quickly as bacteria and is converted to water and CO2. Salt stays in the environment for ever.references:1): All photos by Robert Pavlis.

If you wanna kill any plant weed or otherwise just over feed it burn it right up yes it will come back but weeds come back no matter what you do because they are parasites they want to take over. Salt kills for sure just look at the dead sea aint much growing around it, the word “Dead” should be a hint. If you wanna see the best stand of Bermuda grass just look where a diesel tank sat for 20 years on a farm / ranch yes its brown and dead for awile just like over fertilizing a garden but when it starts to break down the plants come back with a vengeance. “The active ingredient in Roundup is a chemical called glyphosate. Contrary to popular belief, this is a safe chemical and it works very well on most plants.”The active ingredient is called glyphosate but it’s not glyphosate that’s the active ingredient in these products.That’s what the article the Toxicology Reports journal published found. Glyphosate barely whitened the tomato plants treated but the “glyphosate” products truly did the “burn-down” on them!They did it with all sorts of “inert” chemicals like POEA. Funny how nothing here mentions that one.

The article tested POEA and found it to be 3,000 times more toxic than “active” ingredient glyphosate on human cells. Only 3,000 times nothing to be concerned about. Oh, yeah and arsenic, too.Bait and switch at its finest.

Perhaps most humorous was their finding that Syngenta sold a vastly safer glyphosate mixture in Hungary (Medallon) but only the super-toxic formulations in the USA. Syngenta clearly understands the US market, where countries like Hungary are better-managed (facepalm).You really need to read that Toxicology Reports article and write a new post about so-called glyphosate (a Trojan horse). As it stands now, this article and your comments are erroneous marketing for the companies selling highly-toxic products, using glyphosate as a ruse. Trojan horse products are all the rage, like the “bentonite” bags filled with any amount of carcinogenic ultra-fine silica that companies want to dump into them.Oh, and glyphosate products aren’t the only Trojan Horse herbicides.

Look at clethodim, for instance. Diesel fuel and other petroleum distillates are a huge percentage of the formulation but all the safety exposure stuff is about the clethodim chemical itself. Clethodim can be used with a much less toxic solvent like ethanol, according to the scientific literature, but no one does that. Glyphosate binds with one form of soil phosphate and causes another to leach into groundwater.

I haven’t found any research that tests this problem to determine how much it contributes to things like the algae bloom problem in Lake Erie but it seems clear enough to correlate the two.There is also the matter of polluting agricultural soil more by having to replenish the phosphate with “rock phosphate”. That is high in at least one heavy metal if not more than one. So, toxifying the soil by adding more heavy metal can be another bonus toxicity from glyphosate, a chemical that, according to an article published in the Toxicology Reports journal, isn’t even the true active ingredient and barely puts a dent in small tomato plants (for instance).No one seems interested in connecting all the dots. I’m from Canada where use of residential pesticides and herbicides have been banned now since last 10 years. We have weeds growing all around on public areas but studies show the water quality has improved significantly. I will use Double strength Vinegar, Salt, and dish washing soap as weed killing liquid on my yard even if I have to apply twice a month, at least I know there is no dangerous chemicals in there which big companies always lie about. I also use propane burner to kill weeds on my patio stone and interlock bricks.

Both are environmentally friendly and super easy to use. If your farm has 4000 acres of soy beans and a thousand acres of corn in weed and bug infested southeastern USA. How much salt and vinegar would it take to kill the weeds and how would you control the crop destroying pests? Got a solution, That would be cost efficient enough to enable a profit, if not no more farmer, less food and more expensive food. Which would effect the amount of food lower income people could buy. This also applies to veggies and fruit crops. Would also impact the USA and the world as a whole.What’s a better solution for Agri-business?

Anecdotal experience does not qualify one to so quickly dismiss independently sourced scientific research that demonstrates Roundup’s dangers. I spent many years developing pesticides for Dow Chemical (chlorpyrifos and 24-D/245-T) and Velsicol Chemical (chlordane) and I can attest to the fact that Roundup’s risks have been well known within the agricultural community for decades.It’s no oversimplification to state that pesticides are designed for a single purpose, to kill the target pest be it weed or bug. Pesticides act by disrupting key metabolic, endocrine or chemical reactions within the target pest thereby killing it. It is only human hubris that leads us to cling to the belief that the human body is immune to effects of chemical compounds specifically designed to be toxic to lower order species.Used according to labeled instructions, we’re led to believe pesticides are safe, they are not. Little research, beyond LD50 is performed by manufacturers to determine the impact of long term, low dose exposures to the casual consumer end-user. The majority of weekend gardeners fail in using even basic protective measures like gloves or dust masks.

Dermal absorption and inhalation are primary routes of exposure for all pesticides.And, every individual will react differently to a chemical exposure. Some will have no reaction while others will experience severe reactions. These are usually transitory reactions however, we know the human body stores some small portion of everything that enters into it. The cumulative toxicity of pesticides is not fiction but fact. A individual with an impaired immune response due to an underlying health condition, viral or bacterial exposure or recent physical trauma, will have a lowered immune response that impairs the body’s capacity to metabolize and excrete toxins.Few would dispute Roundup is an excellent non-selective herbicide. Its herbicidal performance however does not diminish its toxicity or preclude the compound’s carcinogenic potential.

Science will ultimately settle the issue, in the interim consumers should be highly skeptical of any industry studies that history teaches us, are always biased in favor of the company paying for the studies. Regarding Roundup the author wrote, and I quote, “Contrary to popular belief, this is a safe chemical.”In early April, Monsanto was ordered to pay damages to a Sonoma County man after Roundup was found to be a substantial factor in the development of the plaintiffs cancer.

A similiar verdict was reached last year in San Francisco. Over two dozen countries have banned or restricted the use of glyphosate.And you are wrong about the WHO. They came to the conclusion that it “probably” causes cancer. The court case I watched here, about said a man who developed cancer was using Roundup since the 80’s and was diagnosed with cancer in 2015.

She's not much of a warrior, more of a support unit who encourages peace and positivism for her allies on the battlefield. Master x master vita. She is a support class and a cheerful soul who just loves to sing and dance and is known for her hit song ‘upside down'.

That’s 35 years of spraying this stuff around and probably getting it on his skin and inside his lungs. Obviously, with that kind of continuous exposure, it certainly played a role with his health problems but as consumers, we need to be mindful and use moderation and safe practices with everything we use. I don’t think the occasional household use and exposure to pesticides and pollutants is equal to someone who works in with pollutants all the time. The man in the original lawsuit only used it for a couple of years – not enough time to cause a cancer.But that is not the main point. Just because someone uses the product and gets cancer does not provide the product causes cancer. Lots of people get the same cancer and have never used the product.

That is why we have scientific studies that look at large pools of people.When a large group of farm works were reviewed after using glyphosate for years, there was no increase in cancer rates compared to the general public. Why did Bayer loose the court cases concerning Roundup? They lied and had ghost writers help them.

Just google Monsanto Ghost Writers. Or look at “Spinning Science & Silencing Scientists”, a study done by Congress that shows how Monsanto has been lying to us for years. 16 scientists from 4 independent panels signed their names to published works that Roundup was safe. They signed papers that they were independent from Monsanto. Through the disclose of Monsanto’s documents It was shown that the research was conceptualized as a deceptive strategy. One of Monsanto’s top scientists not only reviewed the studies but had a hand in drafting and editing them.

In one internal email, Monsanto’s chief of regulatory science, William Heydens, said, “I have gone through the entire document and indicated what I think should stay, what can go, and in a couple spots I did a little editing.” The EPA used this bad science for research on glyphosate.Why did Tufts Vet. School find that cancer in dogs has gone up 70%. Dogs have 5000% more glyphosate in them than humans. Tufts blames the cancer in dogs from herbicides (Roundup). In 2015 the EPA said that because of unacceptable levels of the insecticide in food and drinking water it planned to ban the pesticide from agricultural use. But pressure from chemical industry lobbyists have kept the chemical in wide use on American farms. In 1993, for example, the EPA had a tolerance for glyphosate in oats at 0.1 parts per million (ppm) but in 1996 Monsanto asked EPA to raise the tolerance to 20 ppm and the EPA did as asked.

In 2008, at Monsanto’s suggestion, the EPA again looked to raise the tolerance for glyphosate in oats, this time to 30 ppm. Money talks, Bayer spends 8 million a year for lobbyists. Check on your childre’s cereal. The highest level of glyphosate found by the lab was 2,837 ppb in Quaker Oatmeal Squares breakfast cereal, nearly 18 times higher than EWG’s children’s health benchmark. Please do your homework, read the trial reports.

Roundup will be the new asbestos. Yellow archangel has become very invasive on my property. It’s destroyed the amount of space for native wildflowers.

I read that glyphosate is about the only thing that will kill it, and it has helped. I’ll be out again this spring spraying. It isn’t near anywhere that food is grown, nor adjacent to a body of water. And I don’t make my living going around spraying the stuff.I’m glad there’s a way to combat invasive species. (I’m in my late 60’s, and I’d say that spread over our not quite 2 acre property there are multiple large patches of the stuff – in the woods, etc, so digging it up by the roots just isn’t an option for me.). Mmm, Monsantos paid research shows it as safe, too many reports refer to this research and go,on to rubber stamp its conclusions. Took a long time and some big compensation cases for the system to accept that there was a link between cigarettes and cancer.

Huge thanks for this link Robert, really good lot of information 😀 I’m still having difficulty digging down to the evidence of consensus though – although the articles are very detailed, they don’t seem to be complete and thorough surveys of.every. study on every subtopic around glyphosate (well, the 3 I looked at aren’t anyway – I’ll have a look at the rest over the weekend!). There’s a lot of unreferenced assertions, and where he does provide links to studies it’s difficult to say whether he’s just cherry-picking to support his own opinions because a full list of relevant studies isn’t provided. Herein lies the problem I think- outside the particular scientific community on this (any) subject it’s very difficult to say what the consensus is, and it’s very difficult for outsiders to actually get a reliable handle on the full picture so we need to rely on “insiders” to guide us, but then there are all the issues of trust around that But this guy doesn’t sound like an insider.

I suspect his judgement might be as problematic as the soil association’s. That’s not to say I’m giving up on seeking knowledge, just that I tend to think we all just need to keep a totally open mind and always be mindful of the shaky foundations of what we think we know, given how mediated it all is through sources other than our own experience and experiment.

Scientists themselves are very wary of stating anything as categorical fact. Im also very aware my own thinking and assessment of evidence is often flawed because I never took very well to critical thinking exercises at school 🙄 so Im totally open to being persuaded that my assessment here is wrong, if you feel so inclined 🙂 Thanks again- this is really useful stuff for me (I’m a newly qualified gardener) x. Thanks for your reply, and apologies – this is a more detailed summary of the research they’re referring to:I am very keen to get to the bottom of the situation because as you rightly say, the Soil Association is an organisation coming from a particular angle, so I wonder if you could point me to the source of your information about the scientific consensus? As I understand it, glyphosate environmental effects is an area of research that hasn’t yet been studied enough for a solid scientific consensus to be reached so it’d be interesting to see what you’ve seen 🙂 Thanks. Hi thereI read your article on vinegar/salt vs roundup.

I am an organic gardner and I agree that the only way that killing weeds will work with vinegar/ salt (and I use dawn detergent too) is applying it over and over again. I have a lot of Bermuda grass which is almost impossible to kill so I do use this mixture often to some success.My argument with you is RoundUp. Glyphosates are NOT good for us. They kill not only weeds but are harmful to pollinators, like bees, and are responsible for killing them in droves as well as other factors that bees have to contend with. Also, this chemical has been proven to cause cancer. It shows up everywhere ( in honey for example and breast milk) and in California we are making Monsanto label this chemical as cancer causing.So please do not suggest to people that RoundUp is safe because even though it is successful in killing weeds it is also successful in killing beneficial insects and possibly causing cancer in all of us.Thanks. Glyphosate doesn’t kill bees(in concentrations used to spray weeds), your older generation nicotine-based ones (aka “natural”) kill bees.Also, applying a little bit of salt at a time over a period of time, that eventually become toxic to your plant, is the same as dumping a lot of salt over a short period of time, your end result is unhealthy, salty soil.I think Monsanto is a terrible company, so don’t think for a second there is any loyalty to them.

However, my opinion aside, their product is not something evil even if they might be. When it comes to a patch of poor quality chalk land covered with a few inches of willow leaf mould, which seems to be a perfect ground for stinging nettles 3ft-5 ft (c.1m) height and a lot of thistles up to 2m high, repetitive applications of glyphosate 360mg/l twice a year to newly formed leaves (after mechanised trimming) has been unsuccessful except under the trees, where lower light levels may have been a factor. It seemed likely that sodium chlorate powdered crystals might be more successful, and may have been but only for half a year. Root-pulling of sections – back-breaking – with various rakes and sowing grass seeds was unsuccesful because it didn’t stop the nettle roots spreading while away and those thistles! It only takes one survivor to blow seeds! Conclusion is 10cm (6″) of concrete could be the longer term answer; but maybe not the final one. Thank you for the simple, straightforward demonstration and comparison of these weed treatments.And thanks for the rational discussion of glyphosate.

So many people simply abandon their ability to evaluate differing situations and relevant factors, and the credibility of sources. Words like “Monsanto” or “natural” take on super-meanings that cannot be overcome.

I’ve tried, on this same topic as it happens, but not with your hands-on authority. Had I known of this web page I could have steered my friend here.

Though they still wouldn’t have listened.“Don’t confuse me with the facts! My mind is made up!”I hope you can keep up the good work. A lot of old posts here. I am investigating inexpensive and home-made weed killers. It seems there are a lot of things to consider.Salt vs Epsom salt.

One comment mentioned what the Romans did. This also works BUT as was pointed out NaCl stays around a long time.

Epsom salt breaks down into something more useful to plants after a while. This sounds very much more environmentally agreeable to me.You didn’t use soap of any sort. The soap helps break surface tension, allowing easier absorption by the plant.

I think there are other things the soap does, but I’m not that much of an expert.I don’t really mind doing something like spraying weeds a few times a year. I DO mind killing somebody else’s land by putting something in mine that will “leach” into theirs.I can see there is some more investigating and experimentation in store.Thank you for your help. I am looking for alternatives to chemicals to use on my weeds – and just to throw my 2 cents in on the vinegar/round up discussion I thought I would share my views.

I eat vinegar so if some ended up on my good plants I would be happy to eat the vinegar (chemical or not), however I would not be happy to eat any amount of round-up. This is just simple commonsense to me and why I would not use RoundUp.However my question relates to using coconut oil as a weed deterrent. Down the side of my house I have a gravel path infested with all sorts of weeds (sigh) and I noticed outside my bedroom window a round circle of gravel with absolutely no weeds. When I do coconut pulling – I spit out the window (to prevent my drains from clogging) and where I do this there are no weeds. I think I last did coconut pulling over 6 weeks ago maybe longer. Could coconut oil be a good weed deterrent? Thank you for pointing out that glyphosate is relatively harmless in the home garden.

After avoiding any chemicals in my garden, I finally resorted to Roundup as one of several tools in battling goutweed, which I used after much research on its effects. From what I understand, it basically stays limited to only the plant you spray it on, and deteriorates afterwards, as you point out.

I get “looks” from people when I say that I occasionally use Roundup on especially stubborn weeds. This is not to say, however, that excessive or near-harvest, commercial use by the farming industry on Round-up ready edible crops is safe, advisable or acceptable. Certainly didn’t expect the comments to be so heated, but damn if they aren’t entertaining!

I’ve done the vinegar/salt/soap mix for years, using it every couple weeks on the same spots because yes, it just kills the tops. I’ve used Roundup in the past and there’s just no comparison. (I’m not a shill for Monsanto, though if I was I’d probably deny it) Having said that, I opt for the vinegar mix because I can mix it up in the kitchen with my toddler underfoot, I don’t have to wear gloves or freak put if it back-sprays on me, I can have said toddler and cats running around the rocks as I spray it, and we’re outside all the freaking time anyway. When my situation changes, I might switch it up, but the vinegar is actually easier for me – despite the frequency – as a stay-at-home mom.

I would like to comment after reading your Aug. 26th 2016 post about organic food (plants) that are “naturally resistant” to pests. This by the respected physicists at Cal Berkeley Richard A Muller who says in his book The Instant Physicist this: “Typically, the natural pesticides in organic food are thousands of times more carcinogenic then the artificial pesticides approved by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture. And since they are part of the food, they can not be rinsed off”.Thought your readers would like to know this. The statement “natural pesticides in organic food are thousands of times more carcinogenic then the artificial pesticides approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture” is simply not correct.1) natural pesticides occur in both organic and non-organic food – there is no evidence that those in organic are any worse or better than non-organic.2) Plants make thousands of natural pesticides.

There are hundreds of synthetic ones. Any blanket statement that says one group is more carcinogenic than the other group is not only incorrect – but its a stupid statement. Each chemical needs to assessed on its own merits. Besides, most of the natural pesticides are still being studied – we don’t even know what they all are, let alone how they affect animal cells. This is a website for normal people at home who need advice on killing weeds, not a science lab or college study. Give the man a break! I found this site because I was going to try to save some cash and use the vinegar.

Thanks to this article I know to just go ahead and get the round up. I’m sure your comments are appreciated, but they are really long winded and boring for someone trying to have a nice yard. Thanks for the advice and unfortunately I’m sure there are some 8th graders failing science because their teachers were to busy on here trying to sound smart rather than working😁.

Hello, really enjoyed your gardening experiment and all the comments.I too have tried and failed to kill weeds with typical white vinegar 5% acetic acid So I decided to try Muriatic (i.e. Hydrochloric acid) acid from my pool supplies, full strength on a few weeds on my rocky walkway beside my house. Not to worry.

Muriatic acid will react with all the limestone and river rock and not linger in the soil. However it is a much stronger acid than vinegarAt first it appeared that the muriatic acid did the trick, as it burned all the organic material However within a month or so, the weeds returned.My conclusion is that using acid does not kill the roots of weeds or invasive plants.I am interested in any homemade mix that is effective and less toxic than Roundup. Yet to see one.

There are various theories as to why Sodium Chloride kills, but the toxicity of Sodium is not one of them. Toxicity has been identified as the increase in cellular levels of chloride, the displacement of other cations in the soil by sodium, and by lowering the availability of water and thereby dehydrating plants, or through hypertonicity which will cause cells to shrivel as water is drawn out of a cell All cells have very active sodium pumps that keep sodium levels low within the cell. Even salt tolerant archaea survive by pumping sodium out, and so it is unlikely that any toxic effect can be exerted in an otherwise healthy cell. Moreover Sodium is ubiquitous in the environment and an indispensable component of living systems.

Sodium ion is not “washed away,” but is highly soluble in water and will diffuse through the environment, especially if you are watering your plants. “Washing away” is what happens to particulates, and sodium chloride is not a particulate when dissolved in water. When the concentration drops below highly concentrated levels, it won’t affect anything. You have made it sound like Sodium is a toxic metal which stays around doing damage. Remove all sodium from an environment and nothing will survive.You have also tested common vinegar which is not recommended as an herbicide by any source I have seen.

The 20% form is recommended as an herbicide. The precautions would be similar to that used for Roundup.

Moreover, if you do get some on you, just hit it with water and it will dilute down to vinegar strength quickly. Wear eye protection and long sleeves.

It is no big deal.You approach to addressing the concerns about Roundup typically involve ad hominem attacks against authorship which makes you sound like a virulent Roundup salesman. Monsanto sues people who grow crops using their seeds without paying royalties. The one case in which pollen was implicated was a lawsuit in the other direction – the farmer sued Monsanto for contaminating his crops, but failed to prove it. The commercial use of glyphosate lessens the overall application of herbicides to crops. In addition, there are overall economic benefits to farmers who use it.

If you are not an organic farmer, it seems to be the way to go. However, is it necessary in a home garden? And your blithe dismissal of its suspected carcinogenicity is disingenuous. Having worked in chemical carcinogenesis research and watched its progress over decades, I will say this. Synthetic organic compounds, that are not natural products, are suspect from the start. If they are identified as a suspected carcinogen, that usually means they have a chemical structure similar to known carcinogens, and there is not enough data to address the hypothesis.

Using Roundup on a garden exposes someone to such a compound, unnecessarily. When the data come back in twenty years, and there is or is not a statistical correlation, ask yourself if you want to be one of the test bunnies for Monsanto.Organic farming is labor intensive and there is little evidence that it produces safer or more nutritious food, The produce is more expensive.

Yet I buy it whenever I can, because I reject the assertion that increasing efficiency in the mass production of food has created a better world. It has collapsed the economic base of farming and concentrated control of it into the hands of a very few.

It has created a world where food is so cheap it is wasted, and makes the soil and water sewers for every new experiment that comes down the pike. The GMO that increasingly dominates our crops is creating a monoculture world dependent on corporate control. The current state of affairs will also not last, as Roundup resistant weeds are being selected for and that will create a spiraling competition with natural selection that people will lose. And because some apocalyptic genetic accident has not yet occurred, there is clear evidence of the escape of these modified genes into the wild, and we are merely waiting for the extinction of some species because we want cheap popcorn or cotton T-shirts. In other words, 20% acetic acid, saturate it with table salt, and a few drops of dish soap and you will likely have something just as effective as roundup.

And you can use it long after Monsanto goes belly up like Johns Mansville did for asbestos. Keep in mind that this website is targeted to gardeners and not chemists. The actual mechanism of sodium toxicity is not that important, and maybe the term is used incorrectly, but it is the term best understood by the gardening community. Also, even the scientific community uses the term, as for example in “Uptake of ubiquitous sodium ions is desirable as a way to build osmotic potential, absorb water and sustain turgor, but excess sodium ions may be toxic” inThe reason for discussing common vinegar instead of horticultural vinegar is that the majority of gardeners using acetic acid are using common vinegar. I never said ti was recommended as a herbicide – but it is what is being used and what is being constantly promoted in social media.When WHO.

The world health organization looked for evidence that glyphosate causes cancer they found none and labeled it as ‘possible cancer causing’. They looked at 50 years of testing.

In the past year they have now stated that it does not cause cancer. After being regularly exposed to Roundup, two men who used Roundup for yrs have both developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a blood cancer that starts in the lymph cells. Both are plaintiffs in a suit filed against Monsanto that marks a turning point in the pitched battle over the most widely used agricultural chemical in history.Until recently, the fight over Roundup has mostly focused on its active ingredient, glyphosate.

But mounting evidence, including one study published in February, shows it’s not only glyphosate that’s dangerous, but also chemicals listed as “inert ingredients” in some formulations of Roundup and other glyphosate-based weed killers. Though they have been in herbicides — and our environment — for decades, these chemicals have evaded scientific scrutiny and regulation in large part because the companies that make and use them have concealed their identity as trade secrets.Now, as environmental scientists have begun to puzzle out the mysterious chemicals sold along with glyphosate, evidence that these so-called inert ingredients are harmful has begun to hit U.S. Courts.So you see it’s not just glyphosate as you have failed to mention.Roundup and Monsanto soon to be owned by Bayer are true detriments to safely and optimally grow agriculture. And since organic foods don’t have these from the get go toxins in them even though their nutritional value “may” be equal, makes them obviously less desirable. The EPA and the World Health Organization have now both determined that there is no scientific evidence that Roundup causes any form of cancer. Just because someone is suing Monsanto proves nothing.It is true the ‘inert ingredients’ have been studied less, but most cancer studies in field conditions used the whole Roundup product, not just glyphosate.Organic food may not have these chemicals, but they contain lots of other natural pesticides.

In fact in North America we eat up to 1,500 mg per day of these pesticides. Since we know almost nothing about these chemicals I would wory about them more. It is not my “glib attitude”. I am simply reporting on information approved and verified by just about every organization including the EPA and the World Health Organization.When people first starting smoking we did not know about the hazards – that was over 100 years ago. Science had proof about the hazards more than 50 ago – people just did not believe the scientists – they preferred to keep smoking.What people seem to forget is that the herbicides that proceeded Roundup were much more toxic. Sure it would be better not to use any herbicides – but people won’t pay for that option – food prices would skyrocket. I have to jump in, I can’t stand it.

You are clearly pushing roundup as the safest way to go for killing weeds and it’s not toxic. I could care less about your research and trials that it does not cause cancer.

Try talking to real people. I used roundup as a landscaper both at work and at home. It kills beneficial insects and I have advanced stage kidney cancer. I had dogs die of cancer. As far as using salt, vinager, and dawn it works!!!! I don’t spray it all over the property, I use it in areas where there is no need for weeds or plants and where my dogs go out to lay in the sun or do their business.

I HATE roundup. You also mention that you spray it directly on the plant, we know that, but this gets very costly as other weeds pop up next to in in just a few days.

AND for those of us that are getting too old to pull weeds every stinking day and have pets as our only companionsNO WAY IM GOING TO POISON MYSELF OR MY DOGS! I appreciate your test of vinegar. I am planning to try my own comparison on a gravel walk.I agree that Round-up works well in killing weed roots and has not been ruled a human carcinogen. But is inhaling Round-up safe? No, I am not ignoring directions. I live right next to a 50+ acre soybean/corn field that uses it generously at least 3 times a year. Even when the applicator is spraying on a still day (not that often) I smell it in the air for hours.

I was told by an Ag Dept. Rep that it can volatilize and drift up to a mile in hot still air. Trying other plants after using salt would be an interesting experiment.

I was quite sure the salt would kill the dandelion but it didn’t. I suspect that in pots which are watered a lot, the salt is washed away, and that explains why the dandelion came back.When I moved into my home, the water softener was emptying into a sump, and then pumped into the woods next to the house. This water would have contained a lot of salts including sodium, calcium, and magnesium. The ground was actually white with crusted salt.

Nothing grew there. Lets start by analyzing the credibility of the authors. It is an organization called ‘Institute of Science in Society’. Who are they? A qwuick Google and you learn all kinds of stuff. In addition to being anti-Rounup, they are also anti-GMO and pro-homeopathy.

The director and principal author is Dr Mae-Wan Ho. From Wiki, “Ho has been criticized for embracing pseudoscience” – that does not sound good.80% of the worlds scientists see no health risks with GMO plants. Ho is not part of the majority.There is no creditable scientific evidence for homeopothy – Ho believes it to be valid.I see no credibility in the organization or with Dr. Today, on the web, it is easy to find junk science articles and reports to prove any point of view. If you want to truly understand the facts, read creditable material, and participate in science based discussion groups. For gardeners, the Facebook group called Garden Professors is one of the best.By the way, I also don’t trust websites that have been formed in order to sell stuff – Dr.

Ho uses the Institute of Science in Society to sell her books – is that a conflict of interest? True that in the early 1900 we thought there were 48. But remember that was at a time when DNA studies were very new. Chromosome studies was a frontier. Science is a self correcting system that over time gets to the right answer.The facts in this post are not new and are not at the frontier of science. Roundup has been studied for over 50 years.

We can be reasonable certain that we a good understanding of it. That does not mean we know everything, or that some of our info might be wrong, but as time goes by it becomes less likely to be the case. When looking at any report, the first thing to do is check for credibility. This article is written by GMwatch. Who is GMwatch?

The managing editor is Claire Robinson who is founding editor of GMOSeralini — a website promoting the research of French scientist Gilles-Erich Seralini. Seralini is an unreliable, discredited scientist who has been forced to retract some of his research. So the author and article has no credibility.This point is real simple. It is very easy to find junk science on the internet to support any position.But lets look at the data presented. Much of it is rubbish, but the statement “the World Health Organisation’s cancer agency IARC decided that the herbicide is a “probable” carcinogen”, is worth a look. After all WHO and IARC are creditable.The quoted statement is only partially correct.

Burger island 2 for mac. IARC made no decision about Roundup as suggested in the title of the article. The classification was for glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup.

The classification of 2a, ‘probably a carcinogen’ is correct. This should serious, but is it? In order to understand ho0w serious this is you need to understand what IARC is saying.

IARC says gyphosate is probably a human carcinogen, but they are not saying that normal exposure will cause cancer. On the surface these sound like the same things – but they are very different.The reason it is considered to be a probable carcinogen is because there is not sufficient evidence to suggest it ‘is’ a carcinogen.To reach their determination, IARC did NOT take into account the exposure levels people experience. It is critical to take into account the exposure levels in order to reach any risk assessment for glyphosate.

The dose is what makes the poison.To better understand this have a look at this video:To put this into perspective, IARC has also classified the following as ‘probably causing cancer’:– nitrate – would include most fertilizers you might use– sun– fried food– burning weed – ie campfire– job as a hairdresser or barber– doing shiftwork– gasoline– pickled vegetablesAll of these items are also probably causing cancer like glyphosate. We are not very concerned about these items because of dose. Same goes for glyphosate. Of course I considered the effects on humans – how else can one conclude a chemical is safe?I am always amazed how people select the ‘truths’ they believe. For the moment, lets assume that the facts in your reference are correct – they are not – but lets assume they are. Scientific American would not lie, and the author is fully versed in the subject and has read over much of the original studies to understand the issues – right? The article presents two main points of view:1) After 35 years, and hundreds (more like thousands) of research studies, the EPA and the U.S.

Department of Agriculture consider Roundup to be safe.2) One research paper by Gilles-Eric Seralini finds Roundup is ‘deadly to human cells’.Why would anyone suddenly believe Roundup is not safe given these two facts?? Science is an iterative process and new findings need to be verified before they are taken seriously. One study means nothing.Now lets look at some facts:1) Gilles-Eric Seralini is one of the most discredited researchers I have ever read about. Over the last 10 years or so he has published several articles that the scientific community does not take seriously.

He is the one who published the pictures of rats with huge tumors after they ate GMO grain. Most people believe he faked the results, in part because he refused to release his data – something that is unacceptable in the scientific community. Seralini has also retracted at least one of his research papers due to poor design and multiple errors.2) His work in the mentioned research paper was on single human cells. His findings tell us nothing about how Roundup affects a total animal. You can not reach the conclusions mentioned in the Scientific American article based on his experiments on single cells. That is not just my opinion, but that of the majority of scientists that reviewed his work. By the why, I also used similar types of human cells in my research on carcinogens – so I know a little of what I am talking about.The only part of the referenced article that is correct is that POEA is more toxic than glyphosate.

You can get more details here, h POEA is not a toxic chemical.Here is a review from PubMed which concludes “Roundup herbicide (including POEA) does not pose a health risk to humans.”. Robert: Monsanto’s Ag-giant production of GMO crops and its subsequent suing of neighboring farmers who save their seed, some of which may contain pollen from GMO fields, along with its Agent Orange history, has given it the reputation of a slimeball company. Nevertheless, its RoundUp is the only weedkiller that I find is really effective, other than expensive pre-emergents which I have to apply three times a year down here in GA. Now to my question: I have a stream flowing through my property which at different times of the year has tadpoles, frogs and an occasional snake.

RoundUp warns against using the product near streams. Do you have any reliable information as to how to define “near?” Can those dying roots send the product into the stream banks? I’m talking poison ivy, kudzu, greenbriar and pokewood. I won’t defend Monsanto, but most of what you read is baloney! Monsanto has not sued farmers who save seed that has some GMO pollen in it. That is a story being perpetuated by the anti-GMO movement. Just think about it – if they could win such a case, every farmer that grows seed next to a GMO farm can be sued.

This makes no sense. The farmers they have sued have all signed contracts with Monsanto to use their product and stick to certain guidelines.I think that very little glyphosate would leach out of roots that have been treated. It is going to remain inside the roots until they are decomposed by microbes which will decompose the glyphosate molecules at the same time as the roots. The bigger problem is wind carrying the spray into the water when you spray. To a lesser extent, glyphosate that ends up on the soil can also leach into the stream with subsequent rains, but this movement is very slow as most soils hold the molecule quite tightly.If you make sure there is no over spray getting to the stream you should be good.

Persistence is an important criteria for evaluating chemicals. Acetate (vinegar) will be used very quickly by bacteria.

A persistence of 1 month for a chemical is considered to be very short. For Roundup it can by several months depending on soil type – but even that is considered short.Another criteria is how the chemical reacts with soil. It turns out that Roundup binds fairly tightly to soil. That means the carry over to other plants is very small.It is certainly true that much of the bad reputation for Roundup is due to a dislike for Monsanto – but I think that is just dumb. If people don’t like Monsanto, then they should stop using their products because they don’t like the company, and give that as the reason.

But a lot of people make up untrue stories about the product in order to dislike Monsanto – and that is wrong.