Chorleywood Parish Council's Ragwort Error

  A good illustration of the rampant misinformation about which I blog was given by Chorleywood Parish Council with this tweet.

Chorleywood Parish ‏@ChorleywoodPC Apr 3

Ragwort poses a serious risk to horses, our Rangers and volunteers remove it from the Common each year, depending on the growing season

The problem is quite simple.  Ragwort does not pose a serious risk to horses in the way in which they describe and they are doing damage to the biodiversity of the common.

The issue is that a lot of people have got hot under the collar for no reason other than being fed false and invented information about ragwort.
For details see this blog posting Ragwort they made it up

We have the statistics. We have the science. We have the information. Ragwort is poisonous but it is not normally a serious risk to horses.

Let's just remember when complaints were made about companies who were repeating the nonsensical hysteria that has been put around. The Advertising Standards authority, who are impartial and independent took action and the adverts were stopped. See British Horse society rapped by Advertising Standards Authority


Ragwort poisoning occurs because horses are abusively starved into eating it or because it is present in significant quantities in hay. They instinctively avoid it when it is growing.

One of the prominent myths is that every tiny piece of ragwort that might be ingested causes harm. Well if you'd spent as much time as I have pouring over books and scientific papers as I have you would know this isn't correct. There are many things which serve to prevent this.

One important example of the factors which prevent low doses of the alkaloids in ragwort from causing harm can be explained by a parallel with paracetemol.
Paracetemol is harmless at low doses and a liver poison in overdose.
It is prevented from poisoning the liver by a chemical called glutathione.
In overdose the body's store of glutathione is used up and poisoning begins.

Glutathione is one of the chemicals which interacts and inactivates the toxic
breakdown products of the alkaloids in ragwort and it is not the only factor.


One of the things that often comes up when discussing it is what about Defra's advice. There are several reasons why you should be cautious about this.

First believing in an authority like this just because it is an authority is one of the worst possible errors you can make in science. It is so old an error it has several Latin names.  One is, "ipse dixit", apparently referring  to the followers of Pythagoras.  It means, "he himself said it".  It doesn't matter who says something it is the evidence that makes something right not the source of the information.

In fact, Defra have messed it up badly. In short they haven't a clue!
I blogged before about it as Defra ragwort code of practice nonsense.
and boy is it  nonsense. Their statistics wouldn't get a GCSE pass!
Click on that link and you will see that I have an explanation and an expert saying that if you do something like that then,"you're an idiot". It is rare  you can say this in science but their treatment of the evidence is utterly crazy.

The final reason for not stating that people should follow authority is that those in the know will think badly of your abilities or even that you may have something missing upstairs. It has been well studied and a personality trait of following authority is well established to be linked with decreased intelligence, what is more there is some pretty good evidence that this is associated with having fewer brain cells in a certain part of the brain.

For more information there are these two websites.

Ragwort facts

Ragwort myths and facts

The last of these two sites is written by someone who was originally a member of a ragwort extermination group, but she studied the scientific evidence and now debunks the evidence with the help of a stellar cast of international experts.

Finally as ragwort is one of the most important wildflowers for biodiversity. You can read about this here.

Ragwort weed or wildflower.

Messages From A Disappearing Countryside Ragwort Nonsense From Robin Page

Messages From A Disappearing  Countryside is a recent book by Robin Page. It contains a chapter, "The March of the Ragwort Ravers", which is based on an article which he wrote in the Daily Telegraph.

I have decided to mark New Years Day by making a blog entry to describe my honest opinion of this chapter of the book. To put it succinctly , it is lousy and it could be used as a masterclass in how not to make an argument.

He starts like this:-

It was kind of Gill Ling of Suffolk to suggest in the Correspondence columns of The Daily Telegraph that I should become a 'ragwort-eradication champion.' Lulu spotted her letter. It is sad that the march of this highly toxic, noxious weed is so rapid that it will take more than me to eradicate it.

It is a constant theme of the article that ragwort is increasing, in fact all the evidence including a properly conducted government survey is that this is not the case. The survey actually shows a marked decrease.

He continues with this piece of rather abusive name calling.

At the same time the advance of ragwort has become accompanied by the growth of what can only be described as 'ragwort groupies', ragwort worshippers who give the plant a conservation importance it does not have. They describe the proven toxicity of ragwort as being 'myth' and `scaremongering'.

This is a classic example of a well-known bad argument called a "Strawman argument". You misrepresent your opponent's argument and then debunk the misrepresentation. The reality is that no-one that I know on this side of the debate denies that ragwort is toxic. The myths and scaremongering are really very evident. They misrepresent the toxicity and tell falsehoods about the plant. Page himself is guilty of telling one of the common myths; a falsehood which makes the plant look worse as I will cover below. The evidence shows that the claims of it killing thousands of animals and being a serious danger are clearly false.

The reason of course that there is a reaction is that rational people who know the science and who are keen on conservation are appalled by the bad arguments, such as Page's, and react against it. This blog is one example of that.

Later in the chapter he says:-

"All my life I have tilted at windmills. Nearly all the out windmills have been much bigger than me and they have  usually won. "

Does he not realise what educated readers will make of this statement? The concept of tilting at windmills comes from Cervantes classic novel Don Quixote where Don Quixote is portrayed as  insanely attacking an imaginary enemy in the form of windmills which he deludedly thinks are giants. It would seem that Page's ragwort ravers are , in the form that he sees them, an imaginary enemy too.

He continues with another really bad argument:-

I do like the myth that countless insects love to visit the flowering heads of ragwort. In my last chapter I mentioned the National Trust's wonderful Collard Hill with its wild-flowers and butterflies. When I was there with Lulu, we specifically looked at the flowering ragwort, (Note to the National Trust: there was far too much of it.) Sorry, ragwort groupies. The large number of nectaring butterflies and other insects were choosing the red clover, flowering bramble, pyramidal orchids and so on. The ragwort was deserted.

This another lousy argument that is putting anecdote over evidence. It may be that he didn't notice many insects on ragwort on that occasion but that does not negate the mountain of evidence that insects do use it.  Collard Hill is a nature reserve with lots of nectar sources. Ragwort often grows in places where few other wildflowers occur.
To quote Buglife (and indirectly English Nature) who ARE the experts on this matter.(I know this to be true also from over a decade of personal reseach.)

At least 77 invertebrate species have been recorded eating Ragwort leaves, or living in the stems and flowers. About 52 of these are known to regularly feed on Ragwort and, more importantly, 30 species are entirely dependant on Ragwort, the Cinnabar moth for example, a beautiful macro moth. About a third of these 30 species are scarce or rare.

Ragwort is also an important nectar source for over one hundred species (117, says English Nature) of butterflies (Small copper is just one), bees, moths, flies and other invertebrates, helping to maintain insect populations generally in the UK countryside.

Yet another ignorant statement follows :-

 Yes — the ragwort plant is the foodplant of the attractive Cinnabar moth — but the Cinnabar moth managed before ragwort was allowed to get out of control.

Ragwort hasn't of course increased as we know from the evidence I stated above and again the Cinnabar Moth isn't the main issue again as I state above. In fact the evidence shows the Cinnabar Moth has declined severely. A recent study shows that  decreased by 67% over a forty year period.


Then there is this piece of really bad writing:-

It should be illegal for landowners to have ragwort on their land, but the obvious facts show that local councils, the Highway Agency and Network Rail couldn't care less, and nothing is done about them. In my view the police, Defra and Trading Standards should implement the law fully. If I failed to pay my council tax I would be prosecuted. If those councils that take my tax do not abide by laws affecting them, why are they not prosecuted?

His first sentence makes it clear that ragwort ISN'T an illegal plant by the use of the word "should" but then he acts as if it actually IS illegal. The reason it seems
is that  his original article in the Daily Telegraph said :-

It is illegal for landowners to have ragwort on their land but certain local councils, the Highways Agency and Network Rail are often in flagrant breach of the law Nothing is done about it but, in my view the police, Defra and Trading Standards should enforce the law.

There were complaints about the  article and Page was forced to print a retraction.It contains a falsehood. It is not illegal for landowners to have ragwort on their land. and just imagine the consequences of classifying a  common wildflower as illegal. Would little old ladies be under threat of prosecution for having overgrown gardens?
The idea is preposterous.


The poor information continues :-
  

Professor Derek Knottenbelt of Liverpool University, the country's leading authority on the toxicity of  ragwort, will not eat honey from areas infested with ragwort, neither will his family, which immediately takes Scottish   honey off their menu. It is astonishing that the Food Standards Agency has little information on the subject, although  the incidence of liver complaints is rising steadily.

Students of logic and rational thinking will know that it is rarely a good idea to make an argument from authority. Any authority may not have the correct evidence
In my honest opinion Professor Knottenbelt could not be accurately described as a leading  authority on the toxicity of ragwort. He is without doubt a veterinary expert but it seems to me that every time he says something about the plant there are problems with his claims. Such as when Professor Knottenbelt wrote a letter to the Yorkshire Post. claiming among other things that ragwort was a big problem in South Africa. I  checked this and the experts there say that there is no evidence that the plant even grows there.

Subsequent to the original writing of this original blog entry, I discovered a hilariously bonkers quote from the Professor claiming that the cinnabar moth was being poisoned by its natural and essential foodplant and blogged about it.

Also sometime even later in 2019 I discovered an article by the professor full of really bad claims about ragwort. He goes outside his field of expertise often in these claims where, of course, he is a layman, and certainly not a knowledgeable one either!

A rebutal of it can be found here:- https://www.ragwortfacts.com/professor-derek-knottenbelt-country-illustrated.html


In fact the issue of honey and ragwort was looked at some years ago, and the conclusions were that it was not a problem. The rise in liver complaints has a far better explanation, in the form of  the rise in binge drinking.

 And yet again Page repeats  myths:-

 If the build-up in cattle is slow, young, fattened beef animals will arrive , on our dinner tables before ragwort kills them; however,   their livers could already contain an accumulation of ragwort  toxins. Again there appears to be little research being   undertaken on the possible threat.

The toxins in ragwort are broken down in the process of exerting their toxicity so they do not accumulate in animals livers. The problem was studied years ago. There is plenty of research. It is not a problem
See this article on ragwort and meat.

All in all my honest opinion is that Page's chapter on ragwort and the almost identical article in the Daily Telegraph are a disgrace, showing poor research, poor logic and poor understanding of the issue.
Page self-publishes his books, being unable to find a publisher. Seeing this and other articles I think I can see why!

At least 77 invertebrate species have been recorded eating Ragwort leaves, or living in the stems and flowers. About 52 of these are known to regularly feed on Ragwort and, more importantly, 30 species are entirely dependant on Ragwort, the Cinnabar moth for example, a beautiful macro moth. About a third of these 30 species are scarce or rare.
Ragwort is also an important nectar source for over one hundred species (117, says English Nature) of butterflies (Small copper is just one), bees, moths, flies and other invertebrates, helping to maintain insect populations generally in the UK countryside.
- See more at: http://www.buglife.org.uk/campaigns-and-our-work/campaigns/ragwort-weed-or-wildflower#sthash.1hXnykrB.dpuf

At least 77 invertebrate species have been recorded eating Ragwort leaves, or living in the stems and flowers. About 52 of these are known to regularly feed on Ragwort and, more importantly, 30 species are entirely dependant on Ragwort, the Cinnabar moth for example, a beautiful macro moth. About a third of these 30 species are scarce or rare.
Ragwort is also an important nectar source for over one hundred species (117, says English Nature) of butterflies (Small copper is just one), bees, moths, flies and other invertebrates, helping to maintain insect populations generally in the UK countryside.
- See more at: http://www.buglife.org.uk/campaigns-and-our-work/campaigns/ragwort-weed-or-wildflower#sthash.1hXnykrB.dpuf

At least 77 invertebrate species have been recorded eating Ragwort leaves, or living in the stems and flowers. About 52 of these are known to regularly feed on Ragwort and, more importantly, 30 species are entirely dependant on Ragwort, the Cinnabar moth for example, a beautiful macro moth. About a third of these 30 species are scarce or rare. - See more at: http://www.buglife.org.uk/campaigns-and-our-work/campaigns/ragwort-weed-or-wildflower#sthash.AMK8FP6o.dpuf

At least 77 invertebrate species have been recorded eating Ragwort leaves, or living in the stems and flowers. About 52 of these are known to regularly feed on Ragwort and, more importantly, 30 species are entirely dependant on Ragwort, the Cinnabar moth for example, a beautiful macro moth. About a third of these 30 species are scarce or rare. - See more at: http://www.buglife.org.uk/campaigns-and-our-work/campaigns/ragwort-weed-or-wildflower#sthash.AMK8FP6o.dpuf

At least 77 invertebrate species have been recorded eating Ragwort leaves, or living in the stems and flowers. About 52 of these are known to regularly feed on Ragwort and, more importantly, 30 species are entirely dependant on Ragwort, the Cinnabar moth for example, a beautiful macro moth. About a third of these 30 species are scarce or rare. - See more at: http://www.buglife.org.uk/campaigns-and-our-work/campaigns/ragwort-weed-or-wildflower#sthash.AMK8FP6o.dpuf

At least 77 invertebrate species have been recorded eating Ragwort leaves, or living in the stems and flowers. About 52 of these are known to regularly feed on Ragwort and, more importantly, 30 species are entirely dependant on Ragwort, the Cinnabar moth for example, a beautiful macro moth. About a third of these 30 species are scarce or rare. - See more at: http://www.buglife.org.uk/campaigns-and-our-work/campaigns/ragwort-weed-or-wildflower#sthash.AMK8FP6o.dpuf

At least 77 invertebrate species have been recorded eating Ragwort leaves, or living in the stems and flowers. About 52 of these are known to regularly feed on Ragwort and, more importantly, 30 species are entirely dependant on Ragwort, the Cinnabar moth for example, a beautiful macro moth. About a third of these 30 species are scarce or rare. - See more at: http://www.buglife.org.uk/campaigns-and-our-work/campaigns/ragwort-weed-or-wildflower#sthash.AMK8FP6o.dpuf

At least 77 invertebrate species have been recorded eating Ragwort leaves, or living in the stems and flowers. About 52 of these are known to regularly feed on Ragwort and, more importantly, 30 species are entirely dependant on Ragwort, the Cinnabar moth for example, a beautiful macro moth. About a third of these 30 species are scarce or rare. - See more at: http://www.buglife.org.uk/campaigns-and-our-work/campaigns/ragwort-weed-or-wildflower#sthash.AMK8FP6o.dpuf

At least 77 invertebrate species have been recorded eating Ragwort leaves, or living in the stems and flowers. About 52 of these are known to regularly feed on Ragwort and, more importantly, 30 species are entirely dependant on Ragwort, the Cinnabar moth for example, a beautiful macro moth. About a third of these 30 species are scarce or rare. - See more at: http://www.buglife.org.uk/campaigns-and-our-work/campaigns/ragwort-weed-or-wildflower#sthash.AMK8FP6o.dpuf

Ragwort Debate More Ignorance and Inaccuracy

Again I am covering the ragwort debate on line here

It never ceases to amaze me just how inaccurate and ignorant people can be about the issues around ragwort, even when they are debating the issue with other people.
A lack of fact checking is a characteristic of the whole business. The British Horse Society didn't check their facts which is why they fell foul of advertising regulation. This also seems to be true of their supporters.                            

This quote from one of the BHS's supporters seems to be  a classic example of ignorance and inaccuracy that is all to common with those who fall for the hysteria over ragwort.
 

"The Weeds Act 1959 only gave protection to agricultural land. The Ragwort Control Act 2003 simply extended that protection to non-agricultural land which may be grazed by horses and other livestock and which may also used to produce preserved forage."

As I always say it is no crime to be ignorant but in this case the culprit is arguing on the net and the proper information is only a click of the mouse away.  Neither act of parliament mentions agricultural land at all!

The Weeds Act 1959, while it does not place an automatic responsibility to control ragwort, actually contains the words "weeds to which this Act applies growing upon any land"(My emphasis)
and the Ragwort Control Act 2003 does not mandate any control at all merely asking for some guidance to be created.

Ragwort Debate The Nerve of the BHS

The  British Horse Society have a real nerve!
Regular readers of this blog will know that I have very little regard for them. In fact it wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that I am disgusted by their behaviour. It is pretty clear now that they area poor source of information about ragwort.

This blog entry is based on the ragwort debate that is taking place on the Wildlife Extra website.

The first thing you will  notice is that the BHS offer no evidence other than to say Defra says you must control ragwort. Those of us who know will say  that Defra say this  because that BHS have created a hue and cry with false information. Not long ago they got themselves into trouble with the Advertising Standards Authority because one of their leaflets was false and companies were repeating their falsehoods

So we have a circular argument. the BHS gives Defra dodgy data . Defra repeat it and the BHS repeat Defra.

Defra of course as I blogged recently use such bad statistics it is questionable that they would pass a statistics GCSE.

In any case it is one of the biggest errors in thinking, particularly scientific thinking, to say something is correct because of someone in authority says it is. Worse than that research shows that people who do this habitually as part of their thinking tend to have lower IQ scores.

Of course the reason that the BHS don't offer any evidence is all the evidence they have tried to use has been comprehensively shreded by Buglife in the past.

One of the things that characterises the debate is how often BHS supporters are overly quick to find other reasons to panic about ragwort.  BHS supporters in Parliament have talked nonsense as in this example
and we have another excellent example in the forum debate

Oxford Ragwort is not actually covered by the Ragwort Control Act, though the code of practice does acknowledge that in some situations other species of ragwort may need to be controlled. There are a number of non-native species of ragwort present in the UK, S. squalidus and S. inaequidens being two I have become aware of. I understand some can hybridise with native species. Is there is any concern that common ragwort may through hybridisation be threatened as pure species. Once hybrids become established could these ragwort mongrels then be considered as non-native, invasive species. That would open a new can of worms.

The first thing here is going to be very clear to those of you who know botany is that this person doesn't have a lot of knowledge , as is typical in these debates. In fact I can see people chuckling if not laughing out loud. Oxford Ragwort ( S. squalidus) is absolutely insignificant in this debate. It simply doesn't grow in pastures. It can hybridise but not with Common Ragwort which is now in a different genus, but with Groundsel also not a normal pasture plant. The hybrids are usually completely sterile.
These are plants of waste ground. Oxford ragwort grows on railway lines, in gaps in the pavement and similar places. My local railway station carpark has a lot of it.

It is no crime to be ignorant. We are all ignorant of many things but it is annoying when ignoramuses find excuses for possible panic for no need at all. Unfortunately the BHS has  been spreading ignorance , by making ingnorant statements themselves.

Defra Ragwort Code of Practice Nonsense

Defra's ragwort Code of Practice is widely quoted and cited, but it is really often quite an unscientific document.
Today I am celebrating a little as this blog has been running for several years now and every August it gets the highest number of hits as ragwort hysteria is at its height and every August it does better than the one before. This year however it broke the record for the highest number of hits in a month some weeks ago and yesterday it passed the point of double the hits of last August. So today I thought it would be appropriate to tell everyone just how incompetent Defra have been. They have been very incompetent.

First let's look at one of the methods they use to estimate the risk to horses . To quote them:-

A figure of 500 horse deaths from ragwort poisoning in 2000. This figure is based on the number of confirmed horse deaths from ragwort poisoning seen by the Philip Leverhulme Large Animal Hospital Teaching Hospital at Liverpool University as a percentage of all the horse cases treated during the year, and grossed up to be representative of the total horse population.

I can hear the gasps from those of you with training in statistics! They did what!!?

You can't do this and get a sensible answer. Cases in a hospital,. whether of people or of animals, are not a representative sample of what is the case for the country as a whole. They are all concentrated in one place, so you cannot extrapolate and get a meaningful answer. Imagine, if you like, an opinion poll on political beliefs asked just people  in one of the party headquarters and then  extrapolated to the whole country. Do you think it would give a proper accurate answer?

Dr Ben Goldacre (a medical doctor and journalist) is well known for his work on educating people about Bad Science , both through his book of that name and his similarly named column in the Guardian  newspaper. In one of his articles he makes a very relevant comment which seems entirely pertinent to this situation.

We can't do a full census of the whole population every time we want some data, because they're too expensive and time-consuming. Instead, we take what we hope is a representative sample.
This can fail in two interesting ways. Firstly, a sample can be systematically unrepresentative: if you want to know about the health of the population as a whole, but you survey people in a GP's waiting room, then you're an idiot.

You can actually do a GCSE in statistics. ( For foreigners this is the General Certificate in Secondary Education that school pupils usually do at 16.)
These are the assessment objectives:-

AO1 Analyse a statistical problem and plan an appropriate strategy
AO2 Describe and use appropriate methods to select and collect data
AO3 Process, analyse and present data appropriately
AO4 Use statistical evidence to identify inferences, make deductions and draw conclusions

Ask yourself, do you think Defra would pass?

What is more while we don't actually know how many cases of ragwort poisoning the Phillip Leverhume Hospital recorded in 2004 when the Code of Practice was published., thanks to the Freedom of Information Act I can tell you how many they recorded in 2006. In fact I have their figures for 2006-2010, a full five years. They didn't record a single case in the whole five year period! 

It is also worth noting that the tests used would not have been definitive anyway since no test for ragwort poisoning that is definitive exists. The changes in the liver cannot be distinguished from other causes such as those caused by toxins produced in mouldy feedstuffs. See Ragwort Poisoning test.

Then we have Defra distances for where ragwort should be controlled in the vicinity of grazing land. They bear no resemblance to the studies on seed dispersal. We are told there is a risk at 100m when the seeds have been shown not to normally travel more than about 37 metres. Taken with the bizarre overestimation of poisoning risk this is totally unreasonable.

The whole idea that fresh ragwort is a  significant danger to livestock is completely without foundation and contrary to one of the most basic tenets of biology. As I keep saying, animals have co-evolved with the plants with the ragwort toxins which are actually 3% of the plants in the world. Those that ate poison died and did not pass on their genes. We find when we look at the research that animals have a whole set of resistance systems one of which is a complex system of taste genes and receptors which means they know what is good to eat.

This of course makes complete sense. The man who discovered this is so venerated in the UK that if you were to stop the average person in the street you would find they were carrying his picture in their wallet.
Charles Darwin is featured on the Bank of England Ten Pound Note!

The only problem is when owners abuse their animals by feeding it  in quantities in hay or where animals are cruelly abused by starvation. Just remember here that when you throw out the nonsensical claims of poisoning figures derived by measures that would not apparently get you a pass grade in a GCSE exam, and you exclude the abuse cases, ragwort is not a problem at all. Poisoning even including the abuse is actually very rare.

Then of course there is the damage to the environment, as Buglife put it recently in discussing the New Forest
( Again for non-UK people an ancient royal hunting ground  that was "New" when it was created by the man who became king in 1066.)

Ragwort within dried hay is known to cause illness in horses and hay-growers have a duty to remove it from their hay crop. But horses and ponies will not eat it as a live plant within open heathland and pasture. Indeed, ragwort and New Forest ponies have co-existed happily for centuries with no recorded cases of ragwort poisoning.

Absolutely and their expert Steven Falk said

"Ragwort pulling in the New Forest is a truly ill-informed and damaging activity that is totally unnecessary. There are so many rare insects in the Forest, and it is well known that a general reduction in the number of flowers in the Forest over recent decades has placed many insects under severe threat of extinction there. Examine any patch of flowering ragwort in fine weather and you will see an astonishing array of bees, butterflies, hoverflies and beetles".

Finally we come to a spectacular example of poor  critical thinking skills in Defra's guidance

A particular concern amongst conservation groups is that the public pressure surrounding the Code will compel land managers to carry out more extensive control measures than they would otherwise...........

There are concerns that the risks presented by ragwort on grazed nature conservation grasslands could lead to major changes in grazing regimes. These could conceivably include the abandonment of grazing on grassland and heathland sites, leading to the development of scrub and woodland which may have a consequential significant effect on biodiversity.
22 However, as has already been stressed it is not the intention of the Code of Practice to affect the balance of biodiversity. It should be remembered that the control of ragwort has been required long before the introduction of the Weeds Act 1959, which consolidates earlier legislation dating from 1921, without resulting in such drastic consequences

It is really hard to find a calm form of words  to describe what at best is seriously cognitively deficient misinformation and in reality seems more like egregious dissembling.

It doesn't matter what the "intention" is, it is the effect. In fact it is agricultural intensification pushed by people like Defra that has led to the massive declines in wildlife in the UK. Furthermore they know that ragwort control, which is NOT  automatically required by the legislation as they try to imply, was never pushed before the current hysteria. It also sounds rather like an argument from tradition which should lose any students marks in a science essay as it is a well-known example of a logical fallacy

 I want to reuse this blog post  You frequently encounter people on-line who say things like Defra are experts what do they say , or you should listen to Defra they  are part of the government they must be right. This is an answer to the people who say that.

 This is another one of those logical fallacies it is called "argument from authority". It is a falsehood. Just because someone is in a position of authority doesn't mean they are right. In this case Defra have made a real hash of some of their science.

Indeed, we know from very good, basic and fundamental research into the nature of personality that those who argue from tradition and authority and who are concerned that people have a responsibility to follow government advice tend very clearly to be less intelligent and we do see such examples out in the world of the ragwort basher.


And really finally a little joke. There is a word in Welsh. It is spelled with two Fs but the sound is the same. "Deffra". It is a command. It means "Wake up!". I think they should!

Ragwort fungus nonsense

A really fantastic case of nonsense appeared recently in the Penarth Times.

A PENARTH resident has labelled the land near Sully Moors Road a “field of death” and raised concerns after several horses started grazing on the land.
The resident, who asked not to be named, has warned about the dangers of the horses escaping, from being poisoned by the fungus ragwort and the risk of them being stranded on higher ground if the land becomes flooded in the winter.

So ragwort is a fungus now is it? No it jolly well isn't. It is a flowering plant. This is another case of the totally inept quality of journalism that fuels the hysteria.

There is probably no risk from ragwort since we know very clearly from evolutionary biology that horses have evolved to avoid the fresh plant. So unless it is in hay or the animal is starving there is no problem but it doesn't stop the panic about the yellow peril fungus triffid :-)

Later on of course we find there is no cause for concern.

Christina Roberts-Kinsey, Principal Trading Standards Officer for the Vale Council, said: “Trading Standards take all complaints and reports of animal welfare seriously and investigate to the fullest extent. We are in receipt of a complaint regarding the welfare and identification of the current herd of horses grazing at Sully Moors Road.
“In response to the complaint a joint inspection was undertaken by an animal health officer and a specialist equine veterinary surgeon. This inspection identified there are currently no welfare issues with the horses. There is, however, a small amount of ragwort which has been addressed with the owner and a schedule of works is currently in place to remove the weed.”

There is an interesting comment on facebook where someone who clearly knows the field says that the yellow flowers were actually buttercups. Who knows? But it really wouldn't be the first time the two have been confused.

Mad Panic in Scottish Borders

Today's blog posting is about the silly unnecessary panic in the Scottish Borders as reported in the Southern Reporter

Councillor Gavin Logan is expected to raise the issue of the toxic plant in the open questions section of the meeting.
He is set to ask officials: “Has the council any long-term plans to deal with the scourge of ragwort on council-owned land?”
The Conservative councillor for Tweeddale East told us: “The point of the question is, if the council are not controlling ragwort, why should the other landowners in the Borders bother?”

Well perhaps the council should be sensible and not fall for the hysteria on ragwort.
Poisoning is so rare as not to be of any significance and most of the stuff is made up. The statistics seem to indicate that grass is a worse problem for horses

Under the 1959 Weeds Act, landowners, including councils, are bound to remove the noxious weed from land they own.

 This is not true the weeds act does not say that. There is no automatic responisbility placed on landowners or councils to do anything. See this briefing on ragwort law

He admitted: “There are cost implications, however potential costs can only rise if ragwort continues to spread.”

To right this is a waste of money. Ragwort is not increasing. Ther last government survey showed a really significant decrease . There is a recognised psychological phenomenon where somehting seems commoner because it is drawn to someone's attention.

When complaints have been made about the propaganda the Advertising Standards Authority has stopped adverts..


Ragwort is one of the most important wildflowers  for biodiversity the charity Buglife has a special set of pages.


A large set of myths about ragwort are debunked here