Many are aware of the problems with the herbicide Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Round-up. It’s the most commonly used herbicide in the world today and has been known to cause cancers, fertility problems, and many other health problems not just in humans, but in other wildlife.

Producing glyphosate can cause just as much environmental damage as spraying it can. One of the main ingredients is phosphorus, produced by extracting it from the mineral phosphate ore, mined Florida and Idaho. Florida is called the “phosphate capital of the world”. Around 80% of the mineral is mined in Florida.

The chemical treatment used to create phosphoric acid creates large amounts of phosphogypsum, a radioactive waste product.

It may ultimately be impossible to determine whether the finished product or sourcing the material caused more damage to human health and the environment. What is certain is the financial gain enjoyed by the agrochemical industry. The global fertilizer market was worth $83.5 billion in 2020¹⁷ and estimated to grow 1.69% from 2020 to 2027. This means the industry may be worth more than $93.9 billion by 2027.

Radioactive Waste Is a Damaging Agrochemical Byproduct

To avoid glyphosate try to shop organic whole produce as much as possible. Better yet, grow as much of your own food as you can!

Tucson’s mayor Regina Romero has committed to planting a million trees by 2030. In February Romero joined the U.S chapter of the 1.t.org Stakeholder Council, a group of leaders committed to the restoration of one trillion trees around the world. The U.S chapter has committed to a billion trees.

Related: How Many Acres of Hemp Would Stop Global Warming? – Thought Experiment

Romero plans to prioritize tree planting in lower-income communities that are often disproportionately affected by Tucson’s urban heat island effect. This is largely due to a lack of green space.

Rainwater will be the primary fuel for the million trees initiative. When Romero entered office, she and her council approved a green stormwater infrastructure fee, which charges the average residential water-user $1 per month. Over the next three years, the fee will generate up to $7 million for sustainable stormwater harvesting in parks, streets, and parking lots, according to Romero.

Planting a Million Trees in the Semi-Arid Desert to Combat Climate Change

Planting trees is linked to better air, lower temperatures, and increased biodiversity.

Researchers asked 600 Finnish citizens what they would be willing to pay to ensure your food was coming from farms that promote biodiversity and mitigate climate change.

Results from the survey showed that an overwhelming 79% of participants would be willing to pay more for food that was sustainably farmed. The majority of participants reported they would be willing to pay a monthly sum of 16 Euros, or 228 Euros a year. This amounts to 245 Euros per hectare of Finnish farmland a year.

Currently, citizens pay 160 Euros a year in annual government subsidies for each hectare of organic farmland in Finland.

Related: Stop Eating Like That and Start Eating Like This – Your Guide to Homeostasis Through Diet

Of the 21% who said they would not pay more for diversified cropping, half of those said they were unable to afford the added cost.

Ultimately, a system that relies on consumers to pay for more sustainable agriculture shouldn’t impoverish people, or create a hierarchy where only those who can afford it get good quality food. 

A lot of people may be willing to loosen their purse strings to subsidize greener farming

Monocrop farming is becoming more common practice in Finland and all around the world. Monocrop farming can lead to a decline in soil quality and biodiversity as well as causing other problems. Diverse cropping on the other hand, can increase carbon sequestration in the soil, boost biodiversity, introduce new pollinators into the environment, and promote an increase in food production.

A new study by the University of Michigan suggests that exposure to glyphosate and AMPA significantly increases the risk for preterm births.

The study was published in Environmental Health Perspective and found that the presence of glyphosate in women’s urine later in pregnancy was associated with a higher risk of premature birth. Infants born prematurely are at a greater risk for long-term health problems.

Researchers measured glyphosate and AMPA levels by testing urine. The chemicals are not metabolized by mammals. They tested 247 pregnant women between 16-20 weeks and 24-28 weeks.

Related: How To Heal Your Gut 

Looking at preterm births (babies born at less than 37 weeks of pregnancy) and comparing them to controls, the research team found that the odds of preterm birth were significantly elevated among women with higher urinary concentrations of glyphosate and AMPA at the third visit, while associations with levels at the first visit were largely null or inconsistent.

Glyphosate herbicide exposure linked to preterm births

With all the other health problems caused and exasperated by glyphosate it’s no surprise that it negatively affects pregnant women as well.

New research shows that the application of three of the most common herbicides used on GM herbicide-tolerant crops (glyphosate, glufosinate, and dicamba) increases antibiotic-resistant genes in the microbiomes of the soil.

Similar to plants, the soil bacteria are becoming resistant to weedkillers. Additionally, bugs that are most resistant to pesticides were found to have a genetic mutation that made them resistant to antibiotics.

Dr. Jack Heinemann, Professor of Molecular Biology and Genetics at the University of Canterbury has published two papers that suggest herbicides are “accelerants when it comes to the evolution of antibiotic resistance”. His research is supported by recent findings from the University of York and Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University in China.

Related: How To Heal Your Gut 

When plants are sprayed, though, plenty of weed-killer gets into the soil – where there is an array of bacteria vital for healthy soil ecology. This is where a funny thing happens. Soil bacteria, like plants, are becoming resistant to weed-killer – and the bugs that are most resistant were found to carry a genetic mutation that also makes them resistant to antibiotics

Weedkillers are accelerating the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria

As greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise many people are looking for an easy one-size-fits-all solution to our climate problem. One of the trendiest options is going vegan. Over recent years people have raised questions about the impact of eating massive amounts of meat and suggested that everyone going vegan could solve our climate crisis.

So, what’s the real environmental impact of our meat, and can going vegan really save the environment?

Many are concerned about the amount of water and food it takes to produce a pound of beef, but the reality is a typical cow’s water footprint is 94% green water. This means that 94% of a cow’s water footprint is just rainwater, and of course, once that water is used it’s not gone forever. It’s urinated out and cycled back into the environment. In fact, almonds end up using less green water than beef.

Recommended: How to Eliminate IBS, IBD, Leaky Gut 

Additionally, many are worried about the amount of food it takes to produce a pound of beef. Couldn’t we be feeding more people with all that food? More than 85% of livestock feed is non-human edible, and in the end, 4.3 billion kilograms of non-human edible food gets fed to livestock.

In a recent “What I’ve Learned” video the narrator goes into many of the common problems with the carbon footprint of our meat and why it’s actually more nuanced than you might think.

At the end of the day, the government and big businesses need to be held responsible for their role in destroying the environment. The role of fixing the environment does not fall on the individual consumer, but rather, the producer. If you’re curious about how eating sustainable agriculture stacks up against going vegan check out this article.

A new peer-reviewed scientific paper concludes that glyphosate-based herbicides do not contribute to sustainable agriculture, and in fact harm human and animal health, soil, and biodiversity.

This contradicts the narrative that glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides are good for the environment because they allow farmers to avoid plowing, consequently conserving soil.

The paper explores whether glyphosate-based herbicides are sustainable by examining their effects in the areas of human health, no-till agriculture, soil quality, aquatic creatures, and beneficial non-target species

It occurred to me that most of the emphasis was being placed on whether glyphosate caused human cancer and not on its impacts on the environment. That’s when I thought that if glyphosate was ever to be compatible with sustainable agriculture, it would have to have benign effects on the quality of the soil, non-target species, and mammalian cells. Pro-glyphosate supporters emphasised its value for protecting topsoil in no-till agriculture. That is what got me to investigate the science of glyphosate-based herbicides in their system-wide effects.

Glyphosate-based herbicides do not contribute to sustainable agriculture

The study is not the first of its kind, as many are now aware of the problems with glyphosate. To learn more about the effects of glyphosate both on your health and the environment, check out this article.

Related: How to Eliminate IBS, IBD, Leaky Gut