A weedkiller linked with cancer will be used on the pavements of Brighton and Hove again this year after Labour u-turned on an election pledge.
When Labour was last in power in 2019, councillors voted to stop using glysophate on council-owned land.
But next week, this decision is set to be reversed, despite the 2023 Brighton and Hove Labour manifesto saying it would maintain the ban.
Councillor Tim Rowkins, the council’s environment lead, said: “In our manifesto, we committed to tackling the weeds that have been allowed to grow wildly out of control on our pavements and roads for years.
“They present a trip hazard and render pavements inaccessible to many residents, including wheelchair users, parents and carers with buggies, and people with visual and mobility impairments. We simply cannot continue as we are.
“Even if we were able to resource manual removal on the scale required, we would only be taking off foliage above the surface. Roots would continue to grow, and the problem would continue to get worse year on year.
“We have thoroughly evaluated all of the alternatives and have concluded that we now have no choice but to act.
“However, we have gone above and beyond and found a safer and more environmentally friendly method. The ‘controlled droplet’ approach uses less active ingredient, greatly reduces the risk of drift and run-off and will therefore have a far less significant impact on biodiversity than a conventional application.
“This will be limited to pavements and roads only, and we will not be returning to the use of herbicides in any of our parks or green spaces.
“As we have explored the options to tackle the city’s weeds issue, we have consulted with other local authorities. Those using the controlled droplet option and report that it is just as effective as the conventional method, which is of course very encouraging.
“Any use of herbicide will be done on a trial basis and kept under review to unsure it is effective and provides good value for money for residents, and we will continue to look for alternatives as they become available.”
Papers due to go before the City Environment, South Downs and The Sea Committee next Tuesday recommends hat the council continues the current policy to not use glyphosate in the city’s parks and open spaces where there are playgrounds, leisure activities and dog walkers.
The exception to this is when it is used to manage invasive species, which is already the case within the existing policy.
Glyphosate increases our likelihood contracting non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Monsanto had to pay millions out to people who were poisoned with this.
By how much will reintroducing spraying increase the likelihood based upon the council’s plans?
I recall the US problems were from operatives using concentrated (pre-diluted) chemicals and them not taking the appropriate precautions.
The manifesto also stated • Keeping schools open
The pledge reads “We will look at changing catchment areas to protect schools facing closure, particularly in outlying areas”.
• The early years
The pledge reads “Labour council will look to increase the city’s provision for pre-school children and seek to maintain council-run nurseries wherever possible”.
And to reconsider VG3!
A big thank you to Head of Transport, Mark Prior, and cllr Muten to lumping a £7m burden on the local taxpayer!
Excellent. Get it sprayed and get the paths clear.
I don’t know what Kirsty Moore’s irrelevant post has to do with weeds, so we’ll ignore that, but it has been said many times befiore that this weed-killer, used responsibly and according to the instructions, is safe. Just get it done, Council, please.
The issue is if you or I use weed killer on our property our exposure when spraying is very limited as we won’t be doing it on a week in week out basis.
Council staff will be using it on a very regular basis so the risk profile of exposure is different. I’m sure no one wants to put council staff at additional risk.
If they have found a way of delivering the product that prevents council staff being over exposed to it then that’s all to the good.
I don’t think you know anything about how professionally trained people apply pesticides compared with how the general public use them, if that’s the conclusion you’ve come to.
What I am saying is that as an employer the council has a duty of care over its employees.
If you as a private individual want to use stuff like weed killer on a regular basis then be my guest but an employer – any employer not just the council – has additional legal obligations to meet and that includes risk assessments and providing PPE.
So yes I do know what I’m talking about.
Hope they are provided with the relevant PPE as other councils have been doing.
Forget the school closures and the £13m wasted on valley gardens 3 and all the other multi-million pound vanity projects and we’ll get rid of your weeds.
More tricks from Labour who in reality have a legal duty to get rid of the weeds so don’t thank them. Demand it.
Do the job you were voted in to do.
If people pulled the weeds in front of their homes we would not have such a problem. It is so easy to pull a few weeds when they are small, yet people will step over them rather than pull them out.
In March 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC ) classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A). For the herbicide glyphosate, there was limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The evidence in humans is from studies of exposures, mostly agricultural, in the USA, Canada, and Sweden published in peer reviewed journals since 2001. For context other compounds/activities in Group 2A include Red meat, Very hot beverages at above 65 °C, anabolic steroids, Biomass fuel, Frying , Night shift work. Group 1 classification (Carcnogenic to humans) include Alcoholic beverages, Estrogen therapy (postmenopausal), Involuntary smoking, Processed meat.
She’s right you know. I feel this is a case of wrong timing. It’s costly to not use Glyco, and unfortunately, Brighton is tight strapped. I, reluctantly, accept this choice.
Pleased you are now agreeing a pragmatic approach, rather than just supporting the council’s ban based upon scaremongering misinformation from Brighton based Pesticide Action Network UK.
Oh no Bart, I’m against it from reading the primary research around it’s carcinogenic properties towards humans and animals, however, the practicalities of manual and alternative deweeding methods are unfortunately difficult considering the current financial climate.
So Benny you are saying either the primary research was flawed, or you now think the cost of not using chemical weedkillers outweighs the dangers.
Alternatively PAN UK were sensationalising the dangers to meet their dogmatic aims and in reality Glyphosate is perfectly safe if used sensibly and we’ve wasted £000s on manual weed removal over the past 5 years that just didn’t work.
Neither, as I said, the financial practicalities of manual and alternative de-weeding methods are unfortunately difficult considering the current financial climate currently. However, pragmatism must also apply, as doing nothing isn’t safe either.
U – turns?
Can we ask cllr Muten why he has agreed to put a £7m debt on the local taxpayers by pushing thru VG3?
This was against professional advice from the Council’s own experts and against the wishes of the vast majority of residents.
Tell us the truth, Trevor. Do the decent thing….
My belief is that the money for Valley Gardens was a DfT grant, which would have had to be returned had they not gone ahead with it. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, there is therefore no £7m liability on local taxpayers.
“This was against professional advice from the Council’s own experts and against the wishes of the vast majority of residents.”
wrong and wrong
Experts and residents are in favour. The only people against it are those who live outside and want to drive in.
Great news. Targeted use of glyphosate by trained professionals was never a problem.
It’s blanket spraying in agriculture and irresponsible use by the public that is.
Let common sense prevail over hysteria.
Common sense prevails at last, get the streets sprayed ASAP.
At last a decision based on facts, good evidence and the majority’s wishes, not a minority of whining action groups doing anything they can to cancel this. It seems we are seeing some green shoots since the end of the disastrous Green-led era, never ever to return! Now it’s up to all non Labour councillors to keep the new Labour majority in check.
Common sense at last, it’s what the Tories would have carried on doing. Labour always gets it right in the end. Maybe they’ll get the trans issue right yet, no hope for the Greens I fear. Or the S.N.P.
Good. Everything labour said here is exactly what I’ve been saying for years. Targeted minimal use by trained individuals on hard landscape areas of a city will have no negative impact on the environment or health of residents. The council used to spray too much including edges of grass verges, and grass around lamp posts and street furniture leaving ugly scars. This was over the top.
It was obvious that the council would never be able to afford to keep up with all the manual weeding and the damage being caused to pavements costs more every year. Combined with leaving verges and greens to grow long and flower, releasing millions of seeds into the air every year it was always going to fail. Keep the meadows and reduce mowing verges for biodiversity and keep spraying to a minimum. Weeds have their place and it’s not all over our pavements.
If you are worried about cancer I would focus your energy on making sure everything you eat is organic because gylphosate is sprayed all over non organic fields and is even sprayed directly onto wheat and oil seed rape to dry it out before harvesting. Also make sure you don’t drink or eat processed meat oh and wear sun cream at all times 😉
What would be the impact of individual householders, not trained or protected, spraying their own areas with an y weed killer they choose, including on breezy days? And do the outraged contributors smoke, eat meat, drive cars or fly abroad? Risk is relative, and of all the issues to get bothered about this does not seem the most pressing locally, nationally or internationally.
As I said above it’s a different proposition between individuals spraying once in a while compared to council employees using it on a regular basis.
Which is why as an employer the council needs to carry out proper risk assessments etc.
If it works use it, (the link to a remote danger of cancer is tenuous a best, eating processed meat is worse). Better to get this under control, stop potential claims and end up with huge repair bills as pavements and kerbs are damaged. Cheap and effective.
The link is pretty well established, the question in more around the quantities required and saying something else is worse is a false equivalence, you’re normally not one for those!
Still… pragmatism wins today.
What link? WHO says there is a ‘probable’ link but other agencies including European food Safety Authority, the EPA and the ECHA say there is NO link. The link is certainly not established, in fact so much so you or I can legally buy it and use it on our gardens.
Are you arguing the ability to purchase something means it’s safe for use? Because… cigarettes. 😀
If there is no link to cancer why is Bayer paying out billions to claimants in America? Shame on this Labour council for undoing all the previous good work.
Get spraying!!!! Suburbs first then the City centre!!!
The sooner the better, will no longer be known as “Weed City”. Now we’ll be like other cities.
Peter Kyle on winning, said we”ll be like Nice or Barcelona.
So this is the start.!
No-one refers to this as weed city, the only time it ever gets mentioned is on here, and usually from yourself!
Cancel vanity projects like VG3 clear the weeds and keep the schools open. Work for the people for a change and carry out yours promises or get out.