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

[izentrop]

Stopping glyphosate will significantly increase the carbon impact of agriculture.
https://www.publicsenat.fr/emission/doc ... moi-186316

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Author's comment:
"Nobody wants glyphosate residue on their plate. But I live in the heart of Beauce and my neighboring farmers don't want to do without it: banning glyphosate would force them to replace it with other herbicides, to consume more fuel to plow, seeing their fields overgrown with weeds and their yields collapsing. Not to mention that they are not really convinced that glyphosate is dangerous to health. As I have been around them for two years, they almost convinced me. Almost.".

[izentrop]

Yes, it's not Marie Monique Robin, but it's clear that the documentary is biased. In no case does she question her prejudices.
She says "only the WHO goes against international bodies," when this is false

[Christophe]

Cool that changes the covid

I will ring the bell when necessary!

[izentrop]

The sickly inconsistency of the ecologists to the end, refusing the evidence proven by the vast majority of world scientific agencies, except "one", supported by the organic lobby.

Glyphosate has long been a herbicide * considered to have no unacceptable health risk. In 2015, its classification as “probably carcinogenic” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) changed the situation and, in 2017, the European Union did not renew its authorization only for five years - France even wanting to "get out of glyphosate" in three years. However, official risk assessment agencies have contradicted the IARC opinion and, as our study attempts to show, this discrepancy is not understandable in a satisfactory scientific way. On the other hand, there is clearly a lack of ideological neutrality of the IARC and of links of interest with lawyers who exploit tort law in the United States, on the basis of the IARC opinion on glyphosate.

In Europe, the thesis of universal contamination of the population by this herbicide was propagated following urine analyzes of volunteers. The unreliability of the tests used in these militant campaigns will be established. In general, the influence of militant structures of scientific appearance as well as the questioning of official agencies pose a problem in terms of risk management by the public authorities and public perception. All the more so since journalists are involved in the quarrel, in particular around the appreciation of scientific evidence for some, and the supposed influence of Monsanto on researchers or on scientific expertise of the risk for others.
https://www.fondapol.org/etude/glyphosa ... et-livraie

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

No limit to the corruption of your ruined mind, Izy?

[Obamot]

supported by the organic lobby

It doesn't mean anything that And where do you think the need to form a lobby came from if not for “organic” farmers to better defend themselves against the orgy of pesticides?

[Janic]

especially as big agrochemicals, seems to have forgotten their campaigns of denigration of organic farmers, without lobbies, them. It is therefore normal that it comes back to them in full bloom because they have not managed to crush them with their billions and their Izy's full everywhere to defend a losing battle now, because more and more farmers change aside and above all, above all, the general public, manipulated yesterday, is waking up from its lethargy and no longer believing in the beautiful lies of petrochemicals.

[Exnihiloest]

The sickly inconsistency of the ecologists to the end, refusing the evidence proven by the vast majority of world scientific agencies, except "one", supported by the organic lobby.

Glyphosate has long been a herbicide * considered to have no unacceptable health risk. In 2015, its classification as “probably carcinogenic” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) changed the situation and, in 2017, the European Union did not renew its authorization only for five years - France even wanting to "get out of glyphosate" in three years. However, official risk assessment agencies have contradicted the IARC opinion and, as our study attempts to show, this discrepancy is not understandable in a satisfactory scientific way. On the other hand, there is clearly a lack of ideological neutrality of the IARC and of links of interest with lawyers who exploit tort law in the United States, on the basis of the IARC opinion on glyphosate.

In Europe, the thesis of universal contamination of the population by this herbicide was propagated following urine analyzes of volunteers. The unreliability of the tests used in these militant campaigns will be established. In general, the influence of militant structures of scientific appearance as well as the questioning of official agencies pose a problem in terms of risk management by the public authorities and public perception. All the more so since journalists are involved in the quarrel, in particular around the appreciation of scientific evidence for some, and the supposed influence of Monsanto on researchers or on scientific expertise of the risk for others.
https://www.fondapol.org/etude/glyphosa ... et-livraie

The study in relation to the IARC was completely screwed up but they managed to make believe that there would be a risk of cancer. Fortunately they are not so stupid in all countries, even if the green crusaders on the war footing are at work everywhere.

This Australian farmer explains to us, for example, how after 37 years of interval, he adapted to climate change and succeeded in his cultivation today, while the rainfall conditions were the same. He tells us :
"No plowing, glyphosate, grass control allowing early sowing, rotation, development of drought tolerant varieties, acceptance of the need for sustainability and continuous improvement"


Obviously, glyphosate is very useful, and it is an ecological product, which degrades on average in a month and a half in the soil, and in less than a week in water.

And to think that the timorous are afraid of having it on their plate, while analyzes regularly show that the levels of phytosanitary products in food are below standards, that organic products not only also contain them but are also the subject of of fraud, and thatno scientific study has been able to show the slightest evidence that there would be a health benefit to eating organic fruits and vegetables rather than conventional ones !

[izentrop]

This Australian farmer explains to us, for example, how after 37 years of interval, he adapted to climate change and succeeded today in his cultivation, while the rainfall conditions were the same. He tells us :
"No tillage, glyphosate, grass control allowing early sowing, rotation, development of drought tolerant varieties, acceptance of the need for sustainability and continuous improvement"

Translate in French https://seppi.over-blog.com/2019/11/aus ... hotos.html

Another proof that shows that it is not only a tool for soil conservation, but also for restoring and helping to store carbon in the soil, by allowing no-till agriculture.