to be chafoin wrote:Yes I am not going back on this opinion which we had spoken about last year (or is it another?), Which dates from 2008 and which was sponsored by the "partner" SLUXX. I laugh. Just for the record, the author of the report is a senior official who went through the Ministry of Ecological Transition before suddenly being hired in the private sector of the automotive world.
Almost all of the toxicology data we have comes from the files for a marketing authorization (MA).
An official who writes a report hires the service - I was a civil servant: we always have a chef !!! So you don't write anything, even if you can influence what is written.
We are there in opinions and everyone is free. It is only mine.
For many years, the "burden" of measuring these toxicology data has fallen entirely on the manufacturer who requests Marketing Authorization. Sometimes, labs do this at the behest of the manufacturer. The protocol is codified at European level, hence the fact that tests are carried out on a certain number of precise species, and at stereotyped doses (2 mg / kg of body weight, for example).
It's the same with drugs, by the way.
Or the CE self-certification of all devices, toys, etc ... supposed to guarantee the fact that they are safe. Look at the end of a manual, you have the signature of the manager of the manufacturer who hires his box. It has never been checked in an independent or public structure!
This is of course open to criticism. It is a choice of society where we decided not to do this in public labs, which would cost very dearly in charges and taxes - so that would make a lot of yellow vests, Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays etc !! !
There are nevertheless some safeguards, checks being made by the authorities of the different European countries, by "sampling". There are also independent researchers who do research on toxicity, impact on wildlife, etc etc ... Fortunately there is still "free" research on environmental issues. With researchers who are very fond of "buzz", through publications, because it allows them to attract funding. So totally crazy results would quickly be noticed. And then there is investigative journalism like a few magazines that would be fond of crazy results to create a buzz ...
So even if it is sometimes open to criticism, even if certain figures change with time and observation (asbestos was not immediately known as a carcinogen, then the fact was concealed by manufacturers, etc. . but we ended up knowing), it is not "just anything" either.
There are currently no “risk phrases”, nor any allegations that I know from the side of “environmentalists”, LPO, etc. for ferric phosphate ... on a significant dangerousness of ferric phosphate.
This does not mean that it is a harmless product. See the opinion of the poison control center (which seems to concern only domestic mammals - dogs ...):
https://www.centre-antipoison-animal.co ... maces.htmlI use it moderately during this critical period that we know at the end of 'winter, when the slugs are active, but the auxiliaries are not or little ... Basically 1 pack of Ferramol out of 4 to 500 m² cultivated with vegetables.
I recommend to avoid the "crowns" of Ferramol in large quantities around the plants, and to disperse at a fairly low density (the width of a hand between each granule being a mark) for another, non-toxicological reason: excess ferric iron slows down the assimilation of Zn and can lead to deficiencies in this element.
Salt is toxic to birds. It is very harmful to soils. It is over the counter ...
Everything is always relative in this world! So there is room to place the risk / reward slider at different levels, neere the "khmer vert" position and that of the "papy sulphate flytoxer - everything must always be blue so clean".