No States committees back requete on herbicide ban
A TOTAL ban on the herbicide glyphosate, as called for in a requete, has no support from States committees.
The political petition is being led by long-term anti-glyphosate campaigner and former Environment minister David De Lisle, pictured right.
In a letter of response from the Policy & Responses Committee, it said it had consulted seven States committees with five raising concerns and stating they were not supportive, and neither of the other two in favour.
In conclusion P&R president Deputy Peter Ferbrache said that because businesses and professional users directly affected by the proposal to ban glyphosate altogether had not been consulted, any proposed ban was at the risk of a successful legal challenge.
‘In addition, banning the importation of glyphosate may not accord with Guernsey’s international obligations and may result in legal action against the States of Guernsey.
‘Further, it is a matter where the practical implementation and the wider risk of harm to Guernsey’s international reputation outweigh the perceived benefits.’
Glyphosate is the active ingredient in most commercially sold weedkiller. A non-selective herbicide, it will kill most plants by preventing the plants from making proteins needed for plant growth.
The chemical has proved controversial due to the potential for contaminating water supplies and its effects on pollinators such as bumble bees.
Although a retail ban on the sale of the chemical came into effect at the end of October, it is still used legally by qualified commercial users.
Deputy De Lisle said that a lot of farmers were using glyphosate on grasslands and not just crops.
‘No wonder the water authority is complaining that our water resources are being polluted,’ he said.
Deputy De Lisle was not surprised by the States response, but said it was at conflict when compared to how the States themselves used the herbicide.
‘There seems to be departments not looking at how the States treat glyphosate. The States’ policy is to prohibit it on their own land. They are banning its use on 18 fields that they lease.
‘On one hand they are saying they don’t support the requete, but then saying don’t use it on our property. What’s that all that about?’
. The matter was tabled for debate at the end of last month but was deferred due to the Tax Review debate. It is now likely to get a hearing in March.
