UK Councillor Pesticide Briefing Summary
- UK Youth for Nature
- 6 days ago
- 7 min read
Headline Summary of Pesticide Briefing
Glyphosate based herbicides (the most commonly-used herbicide in the world) are classed as ‘probably carcinogenic’ by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
Current regulation is not sufficient for safety - harm has been demonstrated in studies at concentrations much lower than regulators currently regard as safe, particularly when testing the commercial products people are actually exposed to, rather than glyphosate alone.
Scientific papers that supported original approvals of glyphosate are now being retracted or reviewed due to lacking independence.
In areas where these chemicals are used by councils they have been found on children's playground equipment. This is especially concerning as children are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of glyphosate.
Alternative safe weed management strategies are feasible, as Cambridge City Council demonstrates, but they require a mix of approaches rather than one for one product replacements.
Switching to long term alternatives needs a clear plan, and possibly some upfront investment, but can be more effective and more cost effective in the long term.
Reducing glyphosate use may lead to significant health benefits for the public and council workers. As well as the improvement in public health outcomes, this limits council’s risk from lawsuits (which have been brought thousands of times in the US).
As well as health benefits, eliminating herbicide use has substantial benefits for biodiversity.
Given the current regulation is insufficient, it is possible that more stringent regulation will be implemented by the government, forcing councils to act. Acting now allows councils to get ahead of this and make the transition at their own pace on their own terms, which is likely to be easier.
Speakers
On 30th June, UK Youth For Nature held the first ever briefing on pesticides for local councillors around the UK. See recording here. Speakers included Nick Mole from Pesticide Action Network (PAN) UK, Professor Michael Antoniou, Emeritus Professor of molecular genetics and toxicology from Kings College London, and Councillor Alistair Wilson from Cambridge City Council.
Pesticide Use in Public Spaces
Nick Mole shared information on the current use of pesticides in public spaces, where glyphosate-based herbicides account for over 90% of local authority pesticide use. Worryingly, there is no knowledge of how much glyphosate is actually being used by councils: official government statistics suggest that 5,857 kg were used in 2024 but research by the Pesticide Action Network found that 354,000 kg was a more accurate figure - and even this is likely an underestimate. Research has found glyphosate in children’s playgrounds - on play equipment, not just on the ground - and in water bodies through run-off from hard surfaces, despite the substantial negative impacts it has on biodiversity, and probable hazardous effects on human health.
The Problem: Health Risks of Pesticides
What Are Pesticides?
Professor Michael Antoniou, who ran a pesticides research group for 15 years, expanded on the impacts of pesticides, particularly glyphosate, on human health. Pesticides - a term which encompasses weed-killers, herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides - are recognised poisons that are regulated to prevent a toxic level of exposure being reached. These chemicals are poisonous to their target organisms but also have unintentional harmful effects on other organisms.
Pesticide Toxicity
Pesticide products include active ingredients (glyphosate being the active ingredient in many herbicides) and co-formulants. These co-formulants are often referred to as ‘inert’ despite the fact that they are toxic in their own right. Professor Antoniou explained that regulators’ ‘safe levels’ of pesticides are established one chemical at a time, meaning that the active ingredient (glyphosate) is considered in isolation from the toxic co-formulants, despite humans being exposed to mixtures of the chemicals, as well as multiple pesticides at a time. This is a major flaw in how regulators establish safe exposure limits for commonly-used pesticides.
“Safe Levels” of Pesticides
Studies by Professor Antoniou’s research group have shown that regulators may be significantly underestimating the toxicity of glyphosate and glyphosate-based commercial formulations. Safe levels are currently established through studies on lab animals; to calculate a safe daily exposure for humans, a dose showing ‘no adverse effects’ in a lab rat is reduced by a factor of 100. However, when these ‘safe levels’ were tested through further lab rat exposure (pre-natally and for up to two years following birth), they were found to increase the risk of cancers, particularly leukemia, even at the lowest dose of glyphosate, equivalent to the ‘acceptable daily intake’.
Other Health Effects of Pesticides
Other research has shown that glyphosate causes oxidative stress in animals, causing cellular and DNA damage, which are huge risk factors for cancers, neurological issues, and developmental defects. Additionally, glyphosate is linked to imbalances in the gut microbiome, leading to gut issues such as IBS, and issues with the immune, cardiovascular, and nervous systems. There is little research into the impact of real-world exposure to pesticides on human health, although occupational exposure to glyphosate was linked to various cancers in farmers in a case in the US. Professor Antoniou stated that based on his research, he believes that exposure to pesticides needs to be urgently reduced by a factor of 100 or even 1000 for concerns for human health. For further information on the impacts of glyphosate on health and the environment, see our glyphosate blog.
The Solution: How To Go Pesticide-Free
Reductions Required
The panel explained the policy changes required for councils to transition from their current high level of pesticide use to a level in keeping with their biodiversity action plans. Some alternatives to using pesticides are: setting areas aside for biodiversity, mulching and brushing, mechanical removal by hand weeding, hot water and foam, using alternative less toxic herbicides and community involvement (different solutions work best in different areas/ circumstances).
Bold Thinking
There are many potential ways for local authorities to put these actions into effect. Councils could work cooperatively together, they could seek seek support or equipment from DEFRA, and they could integrate their weed-removal plans into Local Nature Recovery Strategies (LNRS). Going pesticide-free will require careful thought and effort but it can and must be done - as exemplified by various examples across Europe including France and Denmark which have banned pesticides in villages, towns and cities.
Cambridge Council: A Pesticide-Free Example
Alistair Wilson, Assistant director for public realm and environment at Cambridge city council then shared the experience from Cambridge of transitioning to no routine use of herbicides. Until recently, Cambridge managed weeds using glyphosate based herbicide treatment. They have now transitioned to not routinely using herbicides at all. This was not achieved through one for one product replacements, but through a different model of weed management and cultural shift.
Cambridge Council’s Pesticide Journey
The journey in Cambridge started in 2019 with declaration of a biodiversity emergency, including a commitment to phase out herbicide use and find alternatives. The reduction plan was trialled in 2022, and expanded to more areas in 2023. In 2024, on council owned sites herbicide use was fully stopped, and by 2025 the ward by ward herbicide-free work program was approved, which enables systematic management across the whole council area. The process involves ward by ward deep cleaning, to remove detritus preventing the growing conditions for weeds from forming, using mechanical brushing and manual work. To make this work requires coordination with highways teams for traffic management, and getting residents to move cars for deep cleaning. This requires a concerted communication effort and expectation management with residents.
Community Communication
Alistair explained that communication with local communities is absolutely key to making this work. It’s important to explain why standards and processes have changed, as the work is more visible than routine spraying. Cambridge Council repeatedly communicates these messages in resources like their 'Herbicide-Free Weed Management Work Programme and Communications Plan'. The Pesticide Action Network also has useful resources for communicating changes to weed management, like their Celebrating Pavement Plants resource.
No Magic Bullet
There are more practical challenges as well, particularly managing hard surfaces with established weeds. Dealing with this requires more early work and potentially specialist equipment including brushing for mechanical brushing. The headline message is that a simple replacement for glyphosate is unlikely, and a stacked solution is required. This will involve a combination of mechanical methods, manual and targeted work, adjusted standards and communication efforts, as well as potentially using thermal treatment or lower risk chemistry where absolutely required.
An Invitation to Change
Alistair invited anyone who would like to come to Cambridge to see the weed management processes in action to do so. There is real value to seeing it in action and hearing from staff and understanding different ways to respond to issues that can arise. It’s a culture change both for staff and for residents. With a combination of methods and strategies, it’s possible to make real progress on eliminating herbicide use, and as well as the health benefits discussed earlier, this can open a range of opportunities around biodiversity and climate action plans as well.
Conclusion
Removing harmful pesticides from weed removal programs protects staff and residents from long-term health impacts, and lowers local authorities' risk of lawsuits, as seen in the US. By acting proactively, councils can pre-empt potential new legislation and reduce costs over the long-term. Most importantly, phasing out pesticide use is supported by the public. Polling has shown that a large proportion of the public are concerned about pesticide use and would like to see pesticide reduction.
All the speakers and UK Youth for Nature invite any councillors who would like to get in touch and discuss these issues further to do so.
Contact Information of Speakers
UK Youth for Nature: ukyouthfornature@gmail.com
Nick Mole, Pesticide Action Network: nick@pan-uk.org
Professor Micheal Antoniou: michael.antoniou@kcl.ac.uk
Comments