Are “WE” Bombarding America’s Forests With Roundup? A Look at the Next Layer Down of a Mother Jones Piece

I’ll get back to what I’d intended to talk about last  week… understanding mechanisms.. but since we were on the topic of reforestation, I thought it would be helpful if  we could discuss this piece sent in by Anonymous. It’s from the outlet Mother Jones, who apparently recently combined with the Center for Investigative Reporting, with donors including the MacArthur Foundation and the New Venture Fund ( a D. affiliated dark money group).  The reason I am pointing out the funding is it’s really not clear why a reforestation project would have attracted this kind of attention-  other than some underlying political point. Which might be this one..

And finally, what would come of the Trump administration setting two key parts of its coalition—Big Agriculture, which embraces glyphosate, and the Make America Healthy Again crowd, which loathes it—on a collision course?

MAHA folks could also wonder why so much herbicide is sprayed in California on private land, which would be the erstwhile business of the State to regulate.  Last I heard, California isn’t exactly a MAGA state.

Anyway, I have three major criticisms with the piece. the first is that they elide private and Forest Service activities (intentionally apparently); the second is that they express concerns about issues that are dealt with in the EA, without arguing that the restrictions in the EA are inadequate (which would be fine but more detailed).  In fact, it sounds like maybe the reporter didn’t read the EA, let alone Appendix B where the restrictions are located. Finally we get the old saw (so to speak) “In short, a key rationale for spraying a disputed chemical in natural settings boils down to executives and regulators treating forests, including our national forests, as tree farms.” Like so may talking points, you can keep saying it, and certainly we can disagree about practices, but it’s not really true.

The title is We Are Bombarding America’s Forests with Roundup

With the tagline.. Scientists are wary of glyphosate. MAHA loathes it. And our yearlong investigation shows California is spraying it everywhere.

The story starts out personally, with the reporter driving by and observing the difference between natural recovery and private timberlands:

The towering trees were gone, but new saplings abounded—cedars, pines, firs, and more—scattered randomly amid the greenery, already a foot or two high. No such verdant revival is visible on the private timberland before me. No bees, no flowers—it’s a virtual dead zone where the only life consists of row upon row of manually planted, tightly packed conifer saplings, all less than a foot tall.

This is because, unbeknownst to most people, logging companies and the US Forest Service have been spraying massive amounts of herbicide in clear-cut and fire-ravaged forests of California—and throughout the nation. And not just any herbicide, but glyphosate, a potent and problematic weed killer best known by the brand name Roundup.

**************

Actually, I don’t think “logging companies” do spraying.. private forest owners, including corporate ones, do. But then private agriculturists and private gardeners do also.

My first hint of all this was a single word in a letter the Forest Service sent to me and my neighbors about a year and a half ago. Lassen, it said, was to be part of an ambitious new wildfire recovery project. This was welcome, as the fires had burned perilously close to our properties. Workers would remove selected trees, cull undergrowth, and set prescribed fires, as Native Americans have done for millennia to keep forests healthy and reduce the risk of megafires. The agency also would plant new trees where few had survived.

Then I came to the word “herbicides.” The Forest Service would, starting in spring 2026, spray glyphosate on some 10,000 acres of public land in Lassen to wipe out leafy plants and shrubs that might compete with replanted conifers, whose needles allow them to tolerate the chemical.

***********

Hmm. So I went to the EA.

I found this on page 4

1.2.4 Need to Eradicate and Control Invasive Plant Species
Currently, there are 17 known and 1 suspected invasive plant species within the Project area. The SNFPA directs the Forest Service to manage invasive plants and prioritize the following objectives: (1) prevent new introductions of invasive species; (2) conduct early treatment of new infestations; and (3) contain or control established infestations.
The Lassen NF treats plants primarily with manual methods. Manual methods often require multiple visits annually and reduce the potential for seeds to spread, but they do not control the infestations that remain. Wildfires increase the spread of invasive plants. There is a need for additional methods of treatment, including herbicide treatment, to contain, control, and eradicate known priority infestations and to prevent establishment of new infestations of invasive plants.

So that was interesting.  Then there’s the reforestation part.

So it sounds like the EA says 2700 acres not 10K. I wonder where the reporter found the other 7300.. maybe for invasive species?  I guess there isn’t a ceiling for invasive species, but that’s not the reporter’s argument (which seems to be against glyphosate for reforestation).

It’s also not just glyphosate, which is also interesting, but the article singles out glyphosate. Note: I am glyphosate agnostic- to figure out what applications I would support depends on the needs and the alternatives, plus a great deal of reading.

“In the late 1990s, widespread spraying on US crops genetically engineered to withstand it helped propel the organics movement.” “Propelling” is carrying a lot of weight here. Wikipedia seems to think that in the US, the organic movement  it started in the 1930s and 40s. Those of us who attended Berkeley in the 70’s remember the Berkeley Coop. Organic folks have never liked herbicides in general so why call out Roundup?

The Forest Service and private loggers say they use glyphosate because it helps commercially attractive conifers like pine and Douglas fir rebound faster after fires and timber harvests. It does so by killing deciduous trees, native shrubs, flowering plants, and anything else that might compete for water, nutrients, and sunlight. In short, a key rationale for spraying a disputed chemical in natural settings boils down to executives and regulators treating forests, including our national forests, as tree farms.

Again, in my primitive brain, loggers.. er.. log.  They take woody material out of the woods. Private timber companies as well as any other private landowner spray.  Plus in the EA there’s this..

When using herbicide, plantation-conifer seedlings and desired woody vegetation (e.g., black oak, alder, willow) will be avoided or shielded when spraying nearby.

Note how they think of non-commercial species as “desired woody vegetation.” Which doesn’t seem very tree-farmy to me.

And in their own words..

This seems like another NRV problem.. if the FS wanted the “Whatever Without Intervention” as a Desired Future Condition.. that would have been a different regulation (not the 2012 Planning Rule). They want to get trees back, which I think is good for carbon sequestration, wildlife, recreation, etc., plus historically there were ..trees.

To learn more about how widely glyphosate was being used and the risks of using it in places where people camp, forage, hike, hunt, and swim, I began by requesting all California spraying reports going back to 1990. My colleague Melissa Lewis and I analyzed more than 5 million records, and what we found was eye opening: Forest spraying, which practically nobody knows about, is happening at record levels. The amount applied annually in state forests—266,000 pounds of pure glyphosate in 2023, the latest year for which data was available—is nearly five times what it was two decades ago. And though far more glyphosate is sprayed on state croplands overall, forest uses have become the herbicide’s fastest-growing market in California.

I suppose illegal marijuana grows may use glyphosate as well, not sure that they would be in the records the reporters looked at. I tried to look online but most of the stories were about carbofuran and other pesticides. Maybe others know more?

Others, upset about the proposed spraying, wrote to the agency to register their opposition. They knew of the health concerns—studies suggesting glyphosate might contribute to ailments ranging from non-Hodgkin lymphoma to brain inflammation and metabolic and liver problems in children. There’s a growing body of evidence, too, suggesting it disrupts the gut microbiome, with implications for chronic disease. (Bayer disputes these findings and says glyphosate safety is “supported by one of the most extensive bodies of research.”)

Again, I’m a glyphosate agnostic, but they do sell it at the Home Depot in Susanville and Redding, so there is a danger of getting exposed elsewhere than on a conifer plantation. Those interested may check out the details of the rules for administering herbicides in Appendix B of the EA.

As my reporting proceeded, the questions kept piling up: Is glyphosate as safe for humans as Bayer insists? Does it really help forests bounce back after fires or, conversely, might it leave them more susceptible? And finally, what would come of the Trump administration setting two key parts of its coalition—Big Agriculture, which embraces glyphosate, and the Make America Healthy Again crowd, which loathes it—on a collision course?

Those tensions have been there since the beginning of the Trump Admin, and I don’t think the Lassen’s 2700 acres of reforestation has much to do with it.  Then there are many paragraphs about Monsanto.

The Forest Service’s 2011 risk assessment, which broadly depicts glyphosate as posing no significant threat to people and the environment, references Williams’ 2000 article 27 times—more than any other peer-reviewed paper, often to refute studies that raised health concerns. In fact, five of the seven most-cited journal articles in the report were either directly orchestrated by Monsanto or written by authors with financial ties to the company.

The only potential human risk acknow­ledged in the Forest Service’s assessment has to do with people unknowingly ingesting glyphosate after foraging for mushrooms and plants in recently sprayed areas. That’s a problem not just for foragers like me, but for anyone who has ever eaten a chanterelle, morel, or porcini mushroom, none of which can be farmed. Stores and restaurants purchase them from permitted commercial foragers who collect them in wild places, including the Lassen National Forest.

Yet in the EA, they put up signs to keep people out.

Signs will be posted at public access points to treatment areas at the time of herbicide application and remain in place for two weeks after application. Posted signs will include the herbicides being used, application dates, reentry periods, and a contact name and phone number. When the herbicide label specifies a reentry period or restricted entry interval, signs will also include warnings and the required timeframe during which entry is prohibited.

Again, this is a bit of a theme.. what seems concerning at one level, by some, may not be as concerning when you dive deeper.