Update on the glyphosate issue.

I’ve had a surprisingly high number of wonderful people write to me about the responses they’ve received after sending their letters regarding glyphosate use in our parks. (We haven’t even begun the conversation about what sits on our garage shelves.)

I genuinely believe that together we can shift mountains, the mountains built from decades of false corporate information. Below is a suggested reply to many of the standard responses people are receiving. The common arguments tend to be that councils are “complying with government standards” and that glyphosate is “the most efficient method of weed control.”

We still haven’t thought outside the box, like in Brasília, where they’ve engaged a goat herder and a roaming herd of goats to maintain the city’s grassed areas. Sustainable, regenerative, and imaginative.

There is also a link between the two glyphosate and our recent article on phone addiction. We tend to recognise the damage only once it becomes undeniable. Adaptation happens quickly; pushback takes effort. But every letter and every email sent truly matters.

Thank you to all of you wonderful people who are engaging with this shared cause.
 

Suggested reply:

Thank you for your response and for outlining your current weed‑management practices.

I fully appreciate that weed control in Australia is a genuine challenge. The question, however, is not whether glyphosate is efficient in the short term, it is. The question is what is worse: the operational inconvenience of shifting away from glyphosate, or the long‑term ecological and health consequences of continuing to use it.

My concern is that current industry standards are simply not good enough. We have seen this pattern before: asbestos was once considered safe, and passive smoking was dismissed for decades. In both cases, it took community groups, not industry guidelines, to shift policy and protect public health. Glyphosate sits in the same category of “slow harm”: widely used, convenient, and defended by industry, while evidence of long‑term impact accumulates quietly.

The fact that glyphosate manufacturers have already set aside $7–11 billion for litigation related to non‑Hodgkin lymphoma should give all of us pause. This is not a fringe concern; it is a recognised, material risk.

There are viable alternatives. Slasher, based on nonanoic acid, is one example, effective for many applications, fast‑acting, and without the systemic risks associated with glyphosate. Combined with mechanical removal, mulching, revegetation, and steam or hot‑foam systems, it forms part of a genuinely modern, low‑harm weed‑management strategy.

I understand the pressures councils and contractors face. At the same time, leadership requires us to recognise when a method is efficient today but harmful tomorrow. My request is simply that your organisation revisit its position with a longer horizon in mind, and consider whether continued reliance on glyphosate aligns with the environmental and public‑health commitments we all share.

Thank you again for your time and attention.

If you are needing assistance with mindfulness, start with our free resources on our website: https://themindfulnessclinic.com.au/resources/