Glyphosate: an effective ecological herbicide, not carcinogenic, not endocrine disrupting

[Obamot]

Always your bullshit on repeat Izentrop...Would you like a little glass of it again...?

[izentrop]

I didn't know Extinction rebellion sectarian and antiscience...
To listen without moderation.

[Obamot]

YOU are the facho sectarian of your zetetic sect

[Janic]

Econologue expert
Re: Glyphosate: a herbicide NOT ecological industrial printing process INeffective, carcinogenic, endocrine disruptor.
07/02/23, 04:42
village idiot, liar, as soon as he sees that someone might say more bullshit than him, he can't stand it and to stay the most stupid, he has to outbid! Pov'guys!

[izentrop]

The 2 kékés still stammered nonsense...

The good thing about inquisitors who try to gag honest popular science is that they advertise and therefore have the opposite effect than desired.

Do not miss listening to the very informative presentation by Hervé Lebars

[Obamot]

gag popular science integrated

From integrity to fundamentalist there is only one step (we can already see it crossed with you, the injections and the Covid)

[Janic]

izmentor
What is stupid with the inquisitors of the zetetic AFIS sect, who try to gag the true popularization of science with integrity, is that they advertise themselves and whose effect is the opposite of that desired.
really dummies these naz' y facho conspiracies!

[izentrop]

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Thanks to Catherine Sirven from Bayer for her bullshit comparisons.

Glyphosate: the position of IARC, EFSA and health agencies

The IARC – International Agency for Research on Cancer publishes monographs.

“The IARC Monographs identify environmental factors that constitute a carcinogenic hazard to humans (chemicals, complex mixtures, occupational exposures, physical and biological agents, and behavioral factors). Public health organizations then use this information as scientific support in their actions aimed at preventing exposure to these potential carcinogens (source IARC).”

Thus the IARC does not take into account the notion of risk, only of danger, and it is only interested in one health effect: cancer.

EFSA and national health agencies are interested in risk.

Apart from the fact that the IARC and the EFSA do not refer to the same epidemiological studies, the EFSA integrates the studies carried out by the manufacturers themselves. Which for many discredits the message of the European health agency.

Finally, cancer is not the only possible effect of glyphosate. It is suspected of disrupting the hormonal system (endocrine disruptor), of being reprotoxic (toxic for reproduction) and of being genotoxic (causes deleterious modifications to the genome), hence the desire to ban it.

https://www.science-environnement.com/p ... anitaires/

[izentrop]

In your article is also written:

To put it simply, the danger is the intrinsic toxicity of the product (ex: cigarette smoke is dangerous, because it is carcinogenic) and the risk is the probability of being exposed to this toxic substance (ex: the risk is minimal if the person is a non-smoker and does not undergo passive smoking).

So a dangerous substance or hazard does not necessarily constitute a great risk if you are unlikely to be exposed to it.

Whether it is prohibited for individuals or green spaces, ok there are risks of exposure for excessive doses, but for farmers who use 2 to 3 liters per hectare with drastic protection, to put it simply risk benefit is 99.9%.

Luxembourg was the first to ban, France the second

“Our colleagues from other continents are hallucinating when we talk about European ambitions in terms of ecology, sustainable development and the fight against global warming. The EU is light years away from global universal thinking on global agricultural production", observes Laurent, a Luxembourg farmer, when he exchanges within the framework of his professional responsibilities with farmers from Europe and all over the planet ( former vice-president of the European Council of Young Farmers or Ceja, he is now a member of the World Farmers Organization or OMA).
Thus, Luxembourg is the first country to ban glyphosate. However, the position of the producers is the same as elsewhere, and in France in particular: “There is no alternative to this essential chemical product, insists Laurent. And it is not the €500/ha of aid over three years that will compensate for crop losses”...

https://www.terre-net.fr/europe/article ... 0en%202023.