Thousands sign a petition against toxic weedkiller in Brighton
The petition is objecting to the return of a toxic weedkiller
Thousands of people have signed a petition objecting to the return of a toxic weedkiller to the streets of Brighton and Hove.
The petition – Keep Brighton and Hove Free of Toxic Weedkillers – was set up by Clara Usiskin.
It now has more than 6,000 signatures, at the time of writing.
Ms Usiskin said she was inspired to start the petition after Brighton and Hove City Council decided to use an oil-based version of glyphosate weedkiller.
Members of the council voted for the return of the controversial herbicide last month, almost five years after a decision to end its use.
Contractors will be expected to use a “controlled droplet” approach with the herbicide applying it to individual weeds rather than spraying it as previously.
"Glyphosates in Brighton and Hove would put people and nature at risk"
Clara Usiskin argues: “There is evidence to suggest that in the years since 2019, biodiversity in Brighton and Hove has improved, for example, the starling, hedgehog and sparrow population.
“By creating and supporting biodiverse green spaces in the city, Brighton and Hove City Council is enabling vulnerable people to access nature.
“Glyphosates have been described as likely carcinogens by the World Health Organisation. The reintroduction of glyphosates in Brighton and Hove would put people and nature at risk".
Although Ms Usiskin did say she has sympathy with the council’s position because there was no phase-out plan.
Councillor Rowkins, who chairs the City Environment, South Downs and the Sea Committee, said:
“We are working on a number of large-scale biodiversity projects in and around the city that are focused entirely on aiding nature recovery.
“(These include) implementing the city Downland Estate Plan, which is a landscape-scale intervention to restore wild chalk grassland on the South Downs and to move local farming practices away from the intensive methods of the late 20th century".
He said that the council had a duty to look after residents by providing safe and accessible infrastructure – and the unchecked weed growth without any plan to tackle it required a “reset”.