Thread: Glyphosate Treated Wood

isn't it a systemic product so if that is the case will work on sap moving in the trees it residual, maybe is it dangerous ,yep contrary to what is said about safety. Sorry wouldn't use it for food products .

Hi Cava, that is a very interesting question you've put forward. Although I don't have any specific knowledge about the food safety of glyphosate killed timber I can tell you that if you've eaten any broad acre grain or pulse product such as wheat (bread, biscuits), barley, chick peas (hommus), canola (oil) etc chances are that some of it has been 'sprayed out' with glyphosate or another approved agricultural chemical. By 'spraying out' I mean the plant has been sprayed to kill it to hasten the ripening of the grain to enable harvesting.

I suppose the question is how much of the glyphosate chemical itself or its metabolites remain in the timber (or the food we are eating for that matter) I suspect it is only a miniscule amount, maybe it is not even measureable. This is only my guesstimate and personal opinion but unless the timber has been literally soaked in glyphosate it would be safe to use for food contact utensils.

At the risk of diverting your thread (not intended), I don't believe glyphosate is anywhere near as nasty as its made out to be.

My 1c worth (devalued from 2c worth because it is only a guess)
Twosheds

Scientific claims about GPs longevity half life (time taken for half of it to decompose) in natural setting vary from 2 days to 147 says although I wouldn't place much significance on the latter as that is from a greenie-hippie-organic website. The most credible figures are 2 to about 50 days. So if the wood was set aside for 500 days I'd say that the amount of remaining toxicity would be significantly less than the toxicity of the wood itself. Just remember that all woods are toxic to some extent (this is why wood dust is so nasty) and you can drown in couple of cm of water.

In a somewhat weird way the toxicity of wood is why it is such a useful material to use for cooking purposes. Even though wood is toxic the greatest danger faced when cooking is not from the wood in utensils etc but from bugs that grow on what you are using to prepare the food that remain smeared/embedded in the wood. Bugs that grow on that will be killed by the woods toxins.

Most of the GP will initially also be in the sapwood so if you were to avoid that you would be doubly safe. I would be more than happy to eat from plate or cook with wooden spoon etc from the wood under these conditions.

+ 1 for what BobL said.... And if you're willing to cook dinner using your turned bowls and wooden spoons, I'll be more than happy to eat it at no charge.

Cheers

Bryan

Originally Posted by BobL

Just remember that all woods are toxic to some extent (this is why wood dust is so nasty) and you can drown in couple of cm of water.

I understand that most wood is toxic to a greater or lesser degree. However the human body, in my opine, can handle and break down natural toxins to some degree.

The concern is that Glyphosate being a man made product would be less sympathetic to a humans health and well-being.

Glyphosate is approved for use in the EU, US, Australia etc with regulatory reviews and approvals that state,

No risks of concern to human health from current uses of glyphosate.
No indication that children are more sensitive to glyphosate.
No evidence that glyphosate causes cancer in humans.

Glyphosate is much much safer than other herbicides such as the highly poisonous Paraquat and quite lethal accidental exposures to it.

That of course assumes that glyphosate is used iaw approved application rates, and residual glyphosate contamination on foods etc is below threshold limits. Application rate of glyphosate for "tree killing" would be much higher than for say broad acre crop management. So what is the residual glyphosate contamination in wood sourced from trees killed by glyphosate? I think that research on that topic would be quite sparse.

The greatest risk from glyphosate is to workers who may be accidently or systematically exposed to large doses by repeated occupational exposure through poor application techniques. Studies show the dosages required for Oral and Dermal Toxicity is very high 4000 to 5000 mg/kg for rats, and at those dosages is listed as "slightly toxic" so humans would literally have to drink a considerable volume of glyphosate mix in an accidental exposure or routinely exposed to dosages of around 10 mg/kg per day to be affected by "systemic toxicity." That exposure level would seem rather unlikely if the contamination came from the use of wood utensils.

However our knowledge of the proven links between cancers, etc and "potential carcinogens" is improving all the time through research, and we must always be mindful of who sponsors that research, and for what purpose.

"However, a basic principle of toxicology is that "the dose makes the poison" and the circumstances of exposure to that dose. Water can be pretty toxic (capable of causing death or serious debilitation) at 100% concentration when partially or completely submerged in it for a few minutes, yet it is highly recommended that we drink 2 lt per day for good health..

These links may prove helpful

Glyphosate | US EPA
gary-glyphos (usda.gov) - bit dated now.
Glyphosate (Roundup): Understanding Risks to Human Health (psu.edu)

Originally Posted by BobL

... In a somewhat weird way the toxicity of wood is why it is such a useful material to use for cooking purposes. Even though wood is toxic the greatest danger faced when cooking is not from the wood in utensils etc but from bugs that grow on what you are cooking that remain smeared/embedded in the wood. Bugs that grow on that will be killed by the woods toxins. ...

There was a lot of debate in the early 1990's on this finding. A plastics company commissioned CSIRO to test the hygeine of plastic (HMWPE) vs wooden cutting boards, and their research "unexpectedly" came out strongly favouring wooden ones because of this antibacterial property. The client tried to suppress publication of the report, and failed. Here is an old link to the CSIRO report, but it now seems inactive:
http://www.foodscience.csiro.au/fshbull/fshbull9b.htm

Originally Posted by cava

I understand that most wood is toxic to a greater or lesser degree. However the human body, in my opine, can handle and break down natural toxins to some degree.

The concern is that Glyphosate being a man made product would be less sympathetic to a humans health and well-being.

I wouldn't bet on human body being able to break down "natural toxins".
eg Almost all Virus are natural.

Trees also live a lot longer than humans and cannot move around to evade pests etc so they have to do it all sanding still.
They also have been around for a lot longer than humans so they have had time to develop some impressive ways of looking after themselves.

Don't ever bet on a "natural" toxin being less dangerous than a man-made one - ALL substances can be toxic, 'tis the dose which maketh the toxin, as Mobyturns has already pointed out. Some of the most toxic chemicals known are perfectly "natural". I didn't check the figures for acute oral toxicity of glyphosate BobL gave, but if they are near the mark, glyphosate has a lower acute oral toxicity than table-salt. Acute toxicity is one aspect, and not liable to be of concern in the situation in question. Cumulative toxicity is also unlikely in this case because of the extremely low amounts liable to be ingested. The potential for carcenogenicity, the real dark horse & what seems to incite most fear in people, is unfathomable on current knowledge, but unlikely to be higher than the risk posed by many other substances encountered in modern daily life, from both "natural" & man made sources. An old lecturer of mine used to joke that "living is carcinogenic".

Your body doesn't really care about the source of a toxin, if evolution has provided it with the metabolic pathways to alter/eliminate the active parts of the chemical, it will proceed to do so within its capacity to handle the amount ingested or absorbed. Conversely, if it has no mechanisms capable of handling the toxic elements, or the dose is too high & "swamps" the metabolic processes, there will be trouble. Our bodies can handle many chemicals we ingest in food that are quite toxic if not managed - for example, we can eat onions with impunity, but dogs cannot - a chemical in onions destroys the oxygen-carrying capacity of their red blood cells right smartly. A very good example of a "natural" toxin we haven't evolved mechanisms against is the so-called "finger cherry" (Rhodomyrtus macrocarpa) of Nth. Qld. It's highly toxic to mammals, yet local fruit-eating birds consume it with impunity because they can metabolise the toxins before they do any harm.....

Also, don't put too much faith in the "antibacterial" qualities of wood. There was a flurry of experiments done in the 90's & early 2,000s, not just here but o/seas as well and the results were not consistent. Folks tend to remember those experimental results that agree with their personal prejudices, but it's an area that needs much more clarification. I think the takeaway message is that simple hygiene, i.e. scrubbing your boards clean after cutting up any potentially contaminated material, not cutting up stuff to be consumed raw after cutting fresh meat on the same board, etc. does more to prevent tummy troubles than any material the cutting board is made from...

Cheers,

Originally Posted by IanW

... Also, don't put too much faith in the "antibacterial" qualities of wood. ...

More sloppy writing by me! Thanks for the explanation, Ian.

The study I referred to was commissioned by a plastics company looking for "scientific proof" that their plastic boards were safer than wooden ones. You can imagine their marketing campaign "CSIRO says that wooden boards are dangerous and our HMWPE boards are much safer". It did not eventuate.

captured from the wayback machine.... https://web.archive.org/web/20200313.../fshbull9b.htm

Thanks WP.

That's pretty much what I said, & not too surprising since I get my food safety information from my other half who was a senior scientist in CSIRO Food Safety division around that time. She wasn't directly involved in the research but was in charge of the labs at the time, so well aware of the work....

I'd forgotten about the knife-nicks part - yes, that was the Achilles heel of the plastic boards, it seems knife cuts in plastic make better hidy-holes for bacteria than knife-cuts in wood.

Cheers,

Another slightly allied question regarding dispatching all things tree related. My understanding from the various trades that I have come across recently, is that copper oxide CUO2(?) does a very good job in this matter.

So, thinking out aloud, what common household concoction could be used to oxidise copper wire? The thought is to place copper nails/rod/wire inside a drilled hole in a tree and pour the oxidising agent in the same hole to get a chemical reaction and subsequent demise of the tree.

Vinegar maybe?

Don't worry about adding anything just belt copper nails in. This was/is a common way of getting rid of an annoying neighbours tree. Wait until they go out and belt a bunch of copper nils in the base of the tree where they cant be seen. A few years ago the local council found a bunch of copper nails in some park trees blocking the city views of a few well heeled locals. They managed to take them out but but the residents then resorted to poisons. I believe a retired person who formerly "worked in law" was identified as one of the culprits and fined.