Telling the truth about ragwort.

There are several of postings on twitter again and as I often do I reply on this blog.
Twitter is very good at short pithy messages , but you cannot get longer messages across easily.
It is almost the epitome of the phenomenon described centuries ago by the Roman writer Horace.
"Brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio." ( I labour to be brief, I become obscure.)

There are a several tweets by Guy Gagen like this one.

Guy Gagen @AgricPolicy
@OliverDowding I understand there is a highly active pro-ragwort campaign lobbying to down play the impact on agriculture

Actually this is not true at all. No one is playing down the impact on agriculture. People are using science, reason, evidence  and rational thought to tell the truth.

As well as being a science buff I am also interested in music. I come from a very musical family and I have a strong musical sense. Indeed as I am typing this I have some nice Bach playing in the background.
A while ago I was subjected to having to put up with the sound of someone singing off key for a long period. In the end I plugged the Classic FM radio station into my earphones to drown it out. The discordant off-key singing was intensely irritating . It is the same thing with the hysteria about ragwort. If you look at the research you will find that rational minded people are very irritated by irrational nonsense. It is the motivation of debunkers everywhere and this is what the people who tell the truth about ragwort are doing. They are using their rational senses to debunk nonsense.

This is another of his tweets which illustrates the problem.

Guy Gagen ‏@AgricPolicy
@ecology_digest @Buzz_dont_tweet not really sure that is a gd example of balanced argument on ragwort, ignores harm to agricultural animals

At this point I can honestly and rationally ask, "what harm to agricultural animals?"
What we have had is a constant stream of exaggerations and falsehoods. As I previously blogged there has been a lot of made up stuff on ragwort. Yes, the plant is poisonous and the properly collected figures and surveys show that occasionally, when it is in hay and when animals are abused by starving, ragwort is a problem, but it is really clear that there are far far worse problems which should be tackled first rather than what is, reason and science tells us, actually a tiny  problem.

It isn't just the stuff mentioned in that old posting. The Daily Mail told us, falsely, that ragwort is increasing by 10% per year. There have been motions in parliament with clear falsehoods. And what  I rationally described as a bonkers letter in the press, Politicians making false statements to get the law changed and so on ad nauseam. I am currently compiling a time line of the campaign. It takes a while because unlike the anti-ragwort lobby I care about the truth so I collate my evidence carefully.

If you want the confirmation that this stuff is false. The Advertising Standards Authority who are unbiased and simply have a rational code to guide them acted against a number of adverts repeating the hysteria last year.

Guy Gagen  also wrote

Guy Gagen ‏@AgricPolicy
@ecology_digest @NFUtweets @Buzz_dont_tweet all for supporting invert sp, but are you seriously suggesting there is a shortage of ragwort?

 I can honestly and rationally say yes to this. There are fewer wildflowers generally than there used to be. The recent State of Nature report shows that 60% of wildlife species are in decline. We know that ragwort has declined seriously in the UK. We know this not because of a daft,  "Them plants is yellow, like. They is ragwort. I seen more of it. It is increasin' ", survey that is run  but a proper survey run by the government on proper scientific lines.


If you really want an example of how the campaigning  exaggerates the risk with apparent  "Cargo Cult Science", stuff that looks scientific but isn't. You only have to look at the original stuff from the National Farmers Union which started the debate.
It is not the worst example,but ironically placed in a science and environment section it is rather ignorant of the facts.

Grazing land should be regularly inspected when animals are present and the plant should be pulled, removed and disposed of responsibly.
Ragwort poses a real risk to animal health with potentially fatal consequences if it is ingested by horses or livestock, either in its green or dried state. 

It is a problem in hay but we know that animals are extremely reluctant to eat the green plant unless they are starved into it,. It isn't so much that the plant tastes bitter but it is because of a basic, simple to understand, element of science. So simple and fundamental in fact that it is now to be taught to primary school children.
This primary school science says that animals that eat poison do not pass their genes on to their offspring and that nature creates a system that will prevent this happening. Nature's reaction to this is the sensation of intense bitterness when consuming the alkaloids in ragwort, which actually occur in 3% of all plants.
 The man who discovered this, Charles Darwin, is so revered in the UK that his picture appears on the Bank of England £10 note.

The NFU continue:-

 And left unchecked the problem is likely to become worse, as growth acts as a reservoir for seeds and spread.
Cut and pulled flowering ragwort plants may still set seed and ragwort has a 70% seed germination rate.

Here we go again. You know that this comes from the circulating propaganda when you see that 70% figure.
It is constantly trotted out, It may be about accurate but it doesn't paint a truthful  picture. It is high and scary  but normal figure for almost any flower. In using rational thought to determine what will grow it is irrelevant. On average in the UK , because ragwort is declining, each plant produces less than one offspring. Of course a high figure like 70% sounds scary. Who cares about being rational when you want to scare people into action.

The reality of the matter is that people fight against the anti-ragwort propaganda because it is characterised by a hideous web of falsehoods and lies. It damages the environment for no benefit to anyone and it preys on the cognitively deficient to spread itself. Anyone with proper critical thinking skills should see this clearly.

Is Benyon usurping Parliament over ragwort?

One of the great benefits of living in a parliamentary democracy is that we live under the rule of law and even the government has to follow it. They cannot just make it up as they go along. Well it does seem that with regard to ragwort that Richard Benyon the biodiversity minister is rather pushing the boundaries on this and doing things that are rather differently from the will of parliament.

I should mention that Benyon's previous perverse statements on ragwort , including a Guardian article on his being crucified  over his rank ignorance over ragwort by the scientific community on facebook ,  have been a subject of a previous blog entry.

Some years ago the British Horse Society, whose misinformation about ragwort has fallen foul of the Advertising Standards Authority's regulations, tried to get the law changed to force public bodies to control ragwort. The draft bill said.

“
1A Duty on relevant occupiers to control ragwort on relevant land
(1) A relevant occupier must take all reasonable steps to remove ragwort
from relevant land occupied by him and to prevent the growth or
regrowth of ragwort on such land.
10
(2) For the purposes of this Act a relevant occupier is—
(a) a highway authority within the meaning of Part I of the
Highways Act 1980 (c. 66); or
(b) a statutory undertaker within the meaning of section 262 of the
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c. 8);
15
(3) For the purpose of this Act relevant land is—
(a) highway (including carriageway, footway, verges and any other
area) maintainable at the public expense; or
(b) operational land of a statutory undertaker within the meaning
of section 263 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c. 8).
20
(4) In carrying out this duty under this section a relevant occupier shall have regard to any code of practice or other guidance issued from time to
time by the Minister

Fortunately for the conservation of nature parliament decided to remove that clause from the bill. There is still no legal obligation to control ragwort on anyone unless they are ordered to do so.

Now we come to Mr Benyon on ragwort.  On the 12 June he said this as part of a written answer to a question in Parliament.

 In February 2013 I wrote to over 500 public bodies, including the Highways Agency and Shropshire council, reminding them of their responsibilities in relation to the Weeds Act (1959) and the Code of Practice on Preventing Ragwort Spread (2003). I have placed a copy of this letter in the House Library.

Now then let's ask ourselves what the legal responsibilities actually are in relation to the Weeds Act (1959). Well parliament was very clear when it wrote the Weeds Act. There are no responsibilities placed on any government body to do anything. There are only responsibilities placed on anyone to do anything if the government orders them to do so in specific circumstances, this is what parliament decided and they did so twice, once with the Weeds Act and then with the Ragwort Control Act.

 Here are excerpts of his letter with my comments.

With the growing season fast approaching, I am writing to a number of public bodies to remind of them of their responsibilities in relation to the Weeds Act (1959)

It is quite clear that parliament decided, as you will see from the text that was removed from the legislation more recent legislation,  that the only legal  responsibilities that were to be placed on public bodies were to follow compulsory orders. This was the will of parliament.

Defra takes its responsibilities under this legislation very seriously. We are committed to working in partnership with our colleagues in the public sector to ensure these responsibilities are fulfilled.

Let's be  clear Defra has no legal responsibilities to do anything under the legislation. It is implied strongly in the letter  that it does, but the law is clear. They "may" act but they have no responsibility under the legislation to do so.
 

First, let me be absolutely clear about what those responsibilities are.
The Weeds Act specifies five 'injurious weeds'. The best known of these is the species senecio jacobaea(sic), better known as Common Ragwort.

It is really quite clear that neither Benyon nor the mandarins advising him know very much about botany. They don't understand how to use the terminology properly which is a real give away.
It is the custom that the name of the genus is capitalised so it should be "Senecio jacobaea". Also the latest taxonomic research has led to the name being changed to "Jacobaea vulgaris". The reason that it is now so well known is because of people like Benyon making an unnecessary fuss as in my previous blog article mentioned above. As I have previously blogged, most of the fuss about ragwort, including the arguments use to get the rather poorly named Control Act through, has been made up.

 The term 'injurious' means that the plant poses a potential threat to agricultural land and/or activities. In the case of ragwort, which is toxic, this threat often means that there is a risk that animals may be poisoned.

Well at least they understand what "injurious" means but if you look at the biology carefully the only risk of poisoning is from hay or from animals being so starved that they will eat anything. Ragwort poisoning is, all the evidence tells us, rare.

The letter goes on to mention the Code of Practice that Defra has drawn up. Superficially this looks reasonable until you actually look at the detail. It is an example of what is known as, "cargo cult science."  That is to say, something which superficially looks like science but is in fact pseudoscience.
I intend to write something a lot more detailed about this , in what will likely be several blog posts, but here are some of the essential details: -

It ignores evolutionary biology and the science of mammalian taste senses to assume that animals normally eat the growing plant.

It imposes control distances which appear entirely arbitrary because they bear no resemblance to the data on seed dispersal.

It uses statistics that are just dreadful. There is no evidence that they asked for the data behind them and they are used in a way that scientists call,"Not even wrong." They are so bad they aren't science at all!

So we have a government minister placing emphasis on legislation apparently in contradiction to the will of Parliament. He shows ignorance of the scientific terminology and usage in writing it and then guides hundreds of public bodies to guidance containing obvious pseudoscience. Surely any sane person would say that this is unacceptable?

Kent Downs AONB false ragwort info

One of the really depressing things about the information on ragwort on the internet is how often the information provided by official bodies is wrong.

In this case it is the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty who are distributing material which is unquestionably wrong.  They have produced a document called "Managing Land for Horses"
which makes the following incorrect statement..

   Landowners and occupiers have a duty to prevent the spread of ragwort under the Weeds Act 1959 and the Ragwort Control Act 2003.

Now the thing about laws is that they can be black and white and in this case they are.So we can be absolutely certain about what a law says and these laws DO NOT place a duty on landowners and land occupiers to prevent the spread of ragwort. The 1959 Act provides for the application of control orders where the plant is a problem. In the absence of an order there is no obligation on anyone to do anything and the second Act just provides for the production of a non-obligatory code of practice. In the link in this sentence you  can find a briefing on ragwort law .

There is of course much misinformation about ragwort on the internet these days, so you are advised to go to the Ragwort Facts website for more information.

This is a salient lesson to those who insist on following official bodies. It is well known that to argue from authority is a complete no-no in science, indeed there is evidence that people who do this habitually are in fact less intelligent. This is another of many examples of incorrect official information on ragwort.

Your horse forum bad hysteria

If you want to see the effect of bad writing in the press, you have to look no further than the Your Horse forum.

Your Horse is a magazine with a bad history of  posting nonsense about ragwort. Printing alarming nonsense about the law and other things and encouraging the readers to pass this on to MPs. So it should come as no surprise that its forum contains people repeating nonsense about ragwort.

This is just one example of a rich vein of material recently drawn to my attention. There are some really silly quotes.

Don't farmers realise that ragwort is dangerous to ALL animals, even humans?

Yes it is poisonous to things that eat it., but animals avoid it when it is growing and eat around it and humans don't eat it. The class of dangerous chemicals present are actually found in 3% of the world's plants.
 May may plants are poisonous but plant poisonings are very rare in animals and in humans.

I  believe the farmer ( & actually everyone else! ) has a legal duty to keep his land ragwort free as it is a notifiable weed 

There is no automatic legal duty on any one  in the UK to keep land free of ragwort and there is no such thing as a notifiable weed in UK law.


And lo and behold we have the old skin absorbtion myth again!.

Sorry its the juice of the plant which soaks through your skin that causes the problem and it will cause liver and kidney failure not a nice way to go.

This has been looked at . There is no problem here. The toxins need to be absorbed in quantity, ar poorly absorbed through the skin , and then need to be changed in the gut before they become toxic.

This blog does tend to get a bit repetitive I know but these stories need to be combatted.
It really isn't at all acceptable for people to be mislead into saying silly things on the internet as a result of campaigning , often with those with financial gain at heart.

I could if I chose to devote the time probably find something somewhere on the internet everyday that is repeating false material about ragwort.

 

More Nonsensical Ragwort Twittering

After yesterday's posting correcting the twitter user @dookist we were treated to a frankly hilarious display of exactly the problem that causes me to blog. It is of course no sin to be ignorant, but it is frustrating that when you supply someone with the sources of proper data that they seem to carry on ranting ignorantly.

There was a flurry of responses These are just some which illustrate the point beautifully.

@Ragwort_horses @ragwortfacts Obviously, the onus is on the farmer producing the hay. There's so much ragwort now, that people go to France!

This is really really silly. Ragwort is actually DECREASING in the UK. We know this because it has been subjected to proper scientific study as part of a government sponsored project.

@Ragwort_horses @ragwortfacts I don't think it justifiable to accuse someone of being hysterical, when one can be prosecuted for growing it.

But you can't just be prosecuted for growing ragwort. It is true that in extreme circumstances you may be ordered to control it, but in the absence of such an order there is no obligation to control it and you can only be prosecuted if you ignore an order. This has apparently never happened and also the orders were hardly used until people started making things up about ragwort to scare people.
Here is a briefing on ragwort law.
 

@ragwortfacts @maldondc Hysterical, moi?! It blows from the verges onto hay crops, & a few years down the line you horse gets liver failure.

First of all ragwort poisoning is rare.People continually quote Liverpool University as a source of expertise and a source of high figures. Well they have supplied figures for a five year period, the totality of the data that  they could provide. There was not one single case of ragwort poisoning recorded over these five years. NOT ONE!

Secondly ragwort seeds do not normally blow far. Only a matter of metres in fact.
Here you will find the data on ragwort seed dispersal

My message to @Dookist is this. If you are going to go into a public forum and post information, you had better make sure that you know what you are talking about. I have been studying this subject for  over  a decade. From where I am standing you seem rather foolish.

Ragwort is good for bees in general

Today's blog entry is in reply to two tweets that have appeared on twitter.

@Dookist 26 Apr @MaldonDC Please delay cutting of rural roadside verges until flowers have set seed... Save our bees!! Cut late summer & remove ragwort...

@Dookist 24 Apr A cut in late summer would be much more beneficial, plus it would help remove injurious weeds like Ragwort, and Dock. #SaveThe Bees RT?

It is really quite worrying to see that someone is concerned about insect conservation and then has been mislead by the quite crazy propaganda about ragwort. I have previously covered how this was all made up.

The story that ragwort poses a serious and dangerous risk to livestock and particularly so when alive really has been made up. I would recommend that this particular twitter user and Maldon Council take note of this.

Ragwort is a particularly good source of nectar for insects in general. It is true that it can make honey taste bad, but let us remember that the honey bee is just one of many bee species and the others require nectar too. So for bees in general ragwort is a beneficial plant.

There will be even more evidence about the nonsensical nature of the anti-ragwort campaign available soon
on the Ragwort Facts website

Amateur Gardening Gets It Wrong About Ragwort

The latest edition of Amateur Gardening magazine contains a classic piece of misinformation about ragwort.

A reader has written in worried because it is in the garden and it is poisonous. Well lots of things in the garden are poisonous like rhubarb leaves and runner bean roots so why the panic.At least in this case he says the risk to humans is negligible. in fact it isn't even worth mentioning

The magazine's expert, John Negus,  gets the law spectacularly wrong with this statement.

"The Ragwort Control Act imposes a duty of responsibility on  landowners to  prevent its spread onto grazing land."

In fact the Act says nothing of the sort . It merely creates a Code of Practice. (which also contains poor information fed by the hysteria of which I plan to post more in the future) This is a briefing on ragwort law.
In fact there is no automatic requirement on landowners to control ragwort. Only last year the Advertising Standards Authority stopped a series of adverts with misleading statements including a leaflet from the British Horse Society

If the journalists concerned are reading this then this earlier posting about the stuff made up about ragwort should be informative.