There has much said and written over the past year or so about the use of glyphosate-based weed killing products in the commercial sector - it has been a task in itself just keeping up with their current status!
Now though, a statement from the Amenity Forum has put a price tag on the subject, which very clearly puts into perspective the serious consequences for all, should a total ban come into effect.
They say that by their calculations a local authority ban on common weed killers used in the professional amenity and garden sectors which contain glyphosate, would add £228 million to council tax bills each year!
The Amenity Forum have reached this staggering figure by working out that the additional tax requirements for funding the alternatives would require an increase in the average household council tax bill of £7.80 - which is the equivalent of half the band D rate increase in 2015/16.
In this current climate of cuts to funding for amenity turfcare budgets it really is quite mind boggling that a ban which could cost this much to the local tax-payer is even being discussed. Especially when one considers that any weed killer coming to market undertakes rigorous testing before it is released and during its use. As the Amenity Forum states, over 40 years of robust scientific evidence, supported by one of the most extensive human health, crop residue and environmental databases ever compiled on any pesticide, shows no risk to safety.
What is concerning though is that apparently there are currently 30 local authorities that are understood to be being petitioned to ban glyphosate based weed killers, or are undertaking trials of glyphosate alternatives.
Hopefully the councils that are being petitioned can offer robust arguments in favour of rejecting the calls for a ban and not just try to appease the naysayers. They would do well to follow the example set by a number of other local authorities, including Bristol Council, who have already rejected proposals to ban the common weed killer after trials proved alternatives would cost six times more.
In addition, local authority published data shows the huge up-front investment costs of alternatives to glyphosate based weed killers. For example, Edinburgh council data suggests they considered a capital expenditure which taken together would total £852,000 for non-glyphosate alternatives. Aberdeen council meanwhile have published analysis suggesting the they would have to find an additional £1m for capital outlays in the first year.
Amenity Forum Chairman, Professor John Moverley OBE, has stated, “At a time when Local Authorities are faced with acute budget pressures, it is important that decisions are based upon science and evidence. Nobody working in the professional amenity sector would wish to do anything to endanger public health and safety and always makes use of all options available."
He went on to say, "We recognise concerns can arise but, in dealing with them, we need a rational debate based upon science and facts."
And this does seem to be the key. It's understandable that the public would be concerned if they read of 'dangerous' chemicals being used in the parks and open spaces that they use. But if the word is spread effectively that extensive research has proved that there is no risk involved, hopefully these fears can be sated.
Also its great that that bodies such as the Amenity Forum are explaining to the public that the amenity sector of course also utilise non-chemical approaches as well where appropriate, as part of an integrated approach.
But where chemical use is more effective, more economically viable and most importantly safe, councils, with support from the industry, should hopefully stand firm and clearly explain their position.
