These two articles are a mixture of truth and untruth, that is, they practice what they are challenging. Gaia is the only one really against arguing with accuracy. Indeed, glyphosate is not the worst of all products used in synthetic chemical agriculture and the temptation would be strong to replace a blind one by a blind man. But to say that it is a probable carcinogen, it is called a precautionary measure when it is known that, in the past, some products that were contested as carcinogens turned out to be a few years later.
For organic, the author is clearly against, which raises the question of quality vs performance and this is the only return he puts forward ... as usual. Moreover, when he questions the future generation and others about their anti-capitalist position, it is to engage in what he challenges elsewhere, namely to distort a certain reality of the words used. GF is not anti-capitalism but anti-money
AS THE ONLY PRIORITY ASPECT ON THE REST and whose history, even recent, shows us where this leads and denounces the ecologist movements.
Finally the relative toxicity measured on criteria imposed as ADI is completely absurd but logical in a system that is a vision of a chemist, not a biologist, and an abstract dose (estimated on caged guinea pigs that have nothing human ... precisely) does not indicate anything about the direct and indirect effects on humans in a totally different environment than a caged mouse. This is what is produced for DDT, widely used and found in Arctic regions in high doses among Eskimos with biological problems in children, etc ... or even vioxx, and the rest. This is the whole problem of medium and long-term effects, which are often only discovered in later generations.
However, to return to the image used, it is indeed part of the very suggestive and subjective elements. Thus we can present a child that we will vaccinate, which will differ is the comment on one side claiming its protection or on the other pretends to its intoxication with each time contradictory arguments. It is thus of the order of the affective when the final choice will be made, that is to say to be afraid or to be reassured: the carrot or the stick!
Prohibit its use to individuals and green spaces, but not to farmers.
Why ? If it is toxic here: what would justify it not being elsewhere? Because the individual can also reason like farmers: if they have the right to use it why not us? and we will continue to poison the earth and future generations!
[*] manufacturers, whoever they are, are not left to use suggestive images to use their products, so it is the trial of a blind one by a blind man.
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré