Weedkiller will be used on the streets of Brighton and Hove again despite a petition signed by more than 7,000 people objecting to the return of glyphosate.
Elspeth Broady presented the petition – headed “Keep Brighton and Hove free of toxic weedkillers” – to Brighton and Hove City Council weeks after members decided to use a “controlled droplet” approach to rid the streets of weeds.
The council previously scrapped the use of glyphosate, sold commercially as Roundup, in 2019 – and the “cliff edge” approach has been blamed for rampant weed growth, particularly in the suburbs, in the years since.
Ms Broady presented the petition to a meeting of the full council at Hove Town Hall last Thursday (28 March) on behalf of the organiser Clara Usiskin.
She said: “Glyphosate is water soluble and Brighton and Hove is unique in that it sits directly above an aquifer which provides our drinking water. This absolutely should not be put at risk of glyphosate contamination.
“Glyphosate, indeed any weedkiller, has many negative effects on the environment. It’s not selective, killing all plants that come into contact with it, which means fewer wildflowers and habitats, with a reduction in insects and other food sources for wildlife.”
Ms Broady urged the council to find an organic solution, saying that biodiversity had improved in Brighton and Hove since glyphosate was banned, with more hedgehogs, starlings and sparrows.
Labour councillor Tim Rowkins said that the council would look to phase out glyphosate again in the future, once the controlled droplet approach had tackled the “five full years of unchecked growth”.
Contractors would be expected to use a “controlled droplet” approach, with the herbicide suspended in an oil-based solution and applied to individual weeds rather than sprayed as previously.
Councillor Rowkins, who chairs the council’s City Environment, South Downs and the Sea Committee, said: “It is my firm belief that the ‘cliff edge’ ban and the absence of a strategy to manage the problem in the years following 2019 has led to the situation in which we found ourselves.
“If you ask me the simple question, ‘do you want to use glyphosate?’ my answer is an easy no. But we don’t have the luxury of taking such a simplistic view.
“We also have to consider our duty to maintain safe and accessible pavements for all our residents.”
Councillor Rowkins said that there were no plans to use glyphosate on grass verges, parks and other green spaces – and he welcomed residents helping street teams to keep the weeds at bay.
Green councillor Kerry Pickett asked for a report on the return of glyphosate, a clear plan for a review of the herbicide’s use and detailed options for an opt-out scheme for residents.
She said that there had been community meetings because people were concerned about the weedkiller and there was no public consultation on its return.
Councillor Pickett said: “In France, pavements are the joint responsibility of council and residents. The municipal decree states that residents must weed the pavement in front of their house or flats.
“Individuals are not entitled to use glyphosate for their garden or pavement because the water from these areas goes straight into the drains without treatrment. All weeds are manually removed by individuals or council workers.”
Councillor Pickett added that Southern Water had advised the council against reintroducing glyphosate – but her request for a report was rejected.
Brighton and Hove Independent councillor Mark Earthey said that there was a great concern about the return of weedkiller among the residents of “semi-rural” Rottingdean and West Saltdean
Councillor Earthey said: “There is a ridiculous conflict in this city between various councillors, officers and action groups who want to encourage biodiversity, and another group of councillors, officers and action groups who are very keen to kill it.
“I’m under great pressure from my residents to commission a report and get to the bottom of it once and for all.”
Conservative councillor Carol Theobald said that the council would not be the first to reverse a ban on glyphosate, citing Isle of Wight and North Lanarkshire councils.
She said that weeds were the “number one” issue raised by residents in her ward, Patcham and Hollingbury.
Councillor Theobald said: “This is very dangerous, especially for elderly residents and those with mobility problems, and difficult for wheelchairs and buggies. There have been accidents with people tripping up and falling over.
“Some residents cannot even sit on bench seats especially at bus stops because the grass and weeds are more than a foot high. In some cases, verges are even 2ft high.
“Dogs have had seeds stuck in their paws which has resulted in their owners facing substantial vet bills.”
And are six thousand five hundred of them distant members of the Green Party who have no connection to Brighton whatsoever?
This is somewhat reminiscent of the cycle lane ‘consultation’ with cycling activists from far field skewing the figures.
Linked to those at Brighton based Pesticide Action Network UK whi, with the Greens, instigated the ban by spreading scaremongering misinformation about the dangers of Glyphosate.
Yes, it is toxic, but only to only to the plants it touches, but is harmless to animals and insects, and rapidly breaks down in the soil.
Perhaps Elspeth Broady would like to also ban the replacement products now being used in place of Glyphosate for the same reason?
The International Agency for Research on Cancer, classified glyphosate in Group 2A, “probably carcinogenic to humans”.
Correct – “probable” but if usage instructions are followed then safe. Just like “definite carcinogen” such as tobacco, alcohol, crispy brown good, processed meat, engine exhaust, and pollution in general.
However, California no longer says it is carcinogenic, and the EU has just renewed its license for 10 years, apparently upsetting to PAN UK.
It is still perfectly legal to buy and use Glyphosate based weedkillers in the UK, the EU, and the USA.
Did I mention how PAN UK is very good at cherry-picking information that supports their views?
Ok, so we’re following the science…I totally agree we definitely should totally oppose being around or directly using carcinogens probably harmful to us…and look forward to your backing bans on all other known carcinogens…assuming you don’t drink alcohol, garden using vermiculite, use talc, burn coal, eat processed or any red meat or salted fish, smoke, be around smokers or their carpets/curtains, vape, drive a petrol or diesel car or live or work near busy roads, sunbath or visit hot countries in summer without total sun block or use sunbeds, use a wood burning stove, work as a hairdresser/barber, metal/wood smelter/worker, painter, work any and particularly night shifts, drink very hot drinks, have certain types of leather sofas or chairs, a pvc shower curtain, use certain air fresheners/non-stick cookware/fire retardant furniture/mattresses/batteries/household cleaners/skin care Products…..
7000 people to manually sort out weeds on an ongoing basis will keep the streets safe.
If those concerned with use of weedkillers remove weeds from the pavements and gutters outside their properties then, as the council will only spot spray plants, they will not be impacted.
I was so fed up weeds outside my house affecting my father’s use of his mobility aide that I bought and used my own roundup to kill the weeds outside half the houses in our street where my father needed to walk.
Good thats over 250,000 of us that are in favor of clear pavements and parks etc that do not look like an abandoned allotment
Of course, excluding areas of lawn allowing wild growth, as that, ecologically speaking, is akin to a forest compared to a desert.
Well let the 7,000 patrol the entire city and remove any pavement weeds they see manually if they are that concerned about the use of chemicals.
But they won’t because that would mean them having to do some actualy work rather than spend a minute e-signing a petition.
If there aren’t any weeds visible when the council staff / contractors visit a street yhen there won’t be a need to use weedkiller will there?
Aye, there’s a level of self-action that would make this whole debate moot, I totally agree. I’d prefer against the use of chemicals, if it was reasonable and practicable to do so. However, with evidence to the contrary, I think controlled usage in the form described previously, I feel, is a reasonable pragmatic compromise.
Not dangerous if used correctly and then very effective. 7000 what ????? Weed heads. ??
spray them all leave none alive
Never noticed any weeds in the cycle lanes???
How did that happen???
We should start suing all these councils that knowingly put our lives and the lives of our pets at risk. With Bayer having paid out billions in America to the claimants who have taken legal action against the company and won millions in compensation after being diagnosed with cancer, mainly lymphoma, it seems absurd that we aren’t doing the same over here and I shall be starting my campaign to change any legal impediment to doing so very shortly.
I always think the number of people who signed a petition should be accompanied by the number who didn’t. Headline: 62,524 people didn’t sign petition, 7,000 did…