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

[izentrop]

Is glyphosate sold without POEA (polyoxyethylene amine) added? I imagine POEA is added to make glyphosate effective right?
It is true that POEA is much more toxic to humans than glyphosate.

https://www.anses.fr/fr/content/retrait ... ate-et-poe

[GuyGadebois]

Is glyphosate sold without POEA (polyoxyethylene amine) added? I imagine POEA is added to make glyphosate effective right?
It is true that POEA is much more toxic to humans than glyphosate.

https://www.anses.fr/fr/content/retrait ... ate-et-poe

And the other adjuvants, have they also been removed?

[Obamot]

Nothing prevents you from adding it yourself since that's what they do ...

[izentrop]

They will have it their ban the Greens", as there is only the CIRC in the race https://www.anses.fr/fr/content/etude-d ... consortium, the only lab to have classified it as "probably carcinogenic" https://quoidansmonassiette.fr/glyphosa ... s-agences/

Meanwhile WHO and FAO are proving once again that there is nothing to worry about

WHO and FAO for their part organized a Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues, a panel of 18 toxicology experts who met throughout the last week. As the name suggests, JMPR was concerned with the residues of pesticides (glyphosate, malathion and diazinon) found on food, not with the absolute carcinogenicity of glyphosate. And he concludes that studies in which glyphosate is added to mammalian food (the most relevant route to assess the risk associated with food in humans) have not shown any carcinogenic effect, except perhaps. be in mice at "very high doses" so that human exposure to glyphosate through diet is "unlikely to pose a cancer risk." https://www.lesoleil.com/actualite/scie ... 29be01f24f

[Obamot]

It's crazy your ability to publish pseudo studies that nobody believes!

They will have it their ban the Greens",

But what connection can there be between the fact that glyphosate is carcinogenic ”and what a particular group might want ”?
What matters is the objective fact of its impact on people's health. We cannot at the same time claim the contrary and at the same time see the development of the cancer pandemic continue by crossing our arms!
=> and simultaneously again, note the fact that population immunity is not increasing when we observe the meteoric spread of covid-19 (against which chemistry would have no remedy if we are to believe your own posts, we should know where your lobbyist logic is at the end ...)

all that remains is the IARC in the running, the only lab to have classified it as "probably carcinogenic"

It is not these labs which are the custodians of these classifications but the WHO ...!
And “probably carcinogenic”Well that means what it means: that it should be avoided at all costs

Meanwhile WHO and FAO prove once again that blah-blah-blah

But of course, [...] (he's cute ....)
1) How Monsanto cheated to get glyphosate studies published

A survey of "The World" reveals that the studies, signed by scientific experts, were in fact written by employees of the company.
https://www.huffingtonpost.fr/entry/com ... 57fcbdbae0

2) An American researcher says Monsanto has been aware of the carcinogenicity of its flagship herbicide, Roundup, since 1981 and has hid the danger.

[Exnihiloest]

...

all that remains is the IARC in the running, the only lab to have classified it as "probably carcinogenic"

It is not these labs which are the custodians of these classifications but the WHO ...!
And “probably carcinogenic”Well that means what it means: that it should be avoided at all costs
...

An assertion as irrational as it is gratuitous.
No interest.

[Obamot]

...

all that remains is the IARC in the running, the only lab to have classified it as "probably carcinogenic"

It is not these labs that are the custodians of these classifications but WHO...!
And “probably carcinogenic”Well that means what it means: that it should be avoided at all costs
...

An assertion as irrational as it is gratuitous.
No interest.

If there was only glyphosate as a carcinogen. scientifically proven by Pr. Seralini. But insects adapt ...
We are thus witnessing a veritable spiral of rise in the use of these cocktails in cocktails. Fish.
That the peasants improvise on the edges of their fields, without any test and without the knowledge of the health authorities.
Cocktails that we then find on our plates ... and that cause CANCERS ....

[realistic ecology]

[Pesticides] which cause CANCERS ....

Yes, pesticides carry risks; like everything we use, car, kitchen knives, drugs ...
What matters is the benefit / risk balance.
Benefits of the car or drugs, risks of the car or drugs.

In the case of pesticides, the benefit is to feed everyone, without deforestation; and we also hope to feed the two billion new mouths to feed that will arrive soon.
The risks are indeed cancers. Lots of cancers?

Farmers are particularly exposed to pesticides, on the front line when they prepare them, transfer them and spread them on crops. It is a "sentinel population", which would be up to 1 or 000 times more exposed than a simple consumer; it is for this reason that this population is particularly monitored and studied: if pesticides pose a problem, farmers will be 10 or 000 times more affected than simple consumers. So much has been said about pesticide horrors that everyone imagines that unfortunate farmers fall like surprise flies in a pchitt of insecticide.

But researchers find exactly the opposite! The amazing news is that overall farmers have fewer cancers and better health than the general population! All the studies agree. In the United States, the Agricultural Health Study, in France, the Agrican study (AGRIculture and CANcer).

In addition, the standardized rate of the number of cancers in the general population is decreasing.

[realistic ecology]

Meanwhile WHO and FAO are proving once again that there is nothing to worry about

In fact, no one except activists, no researcher, except activist researchers, is saying to be concerned.

IARC assesses the hazard of substances, while health agencies assess the risks, which are a function of the hazard and exposure to that hazard. IARC makes it clear:

"The classification indicates the degree of certainty in the indications that an agent can cause cancer (technically called 'danger'), but it does not measure the likelihood that cancer will occur (technically called 'risk') because of the exposure to the agent. "(IARC -" IARC Monographs ")

A volcano is dangerous, but in Île-de-France the risks are extremely low. The car is dangerous, but on a certain small island where there is no car the exposure to the danger is zero, and the car presents no risk.
Similarly, exposures to glyphosate for the public are extremely low, and the risks are extremely low.

There is nothing to worry about.

[Obamot]

[Pesticides] which cause CANCERS ....

Yes, pesticides carry risks; like everything we use, car, kitchen knives, drugs ...
What matters is the benefit / risk balance.
Benefits of the car or drugs, risks of the car or drugs.

In the case of pesticides, the benefit is to feed everyone, without deforestation; and we also hope to feed the two billion new mouths to feed that will arrive soon.
The risks are indeed cancers. Lots of cancers?

Farmers are particularly exposed to pesticides, on the front line when they prepare them, transfer them and spread them on crops. It is a "sentinel population", which would be up to 1 or 000 times more exposed than a simple consumer; it is for this reason that this population is particularly monitored and studied: if pesticides pose a problem, farmers will be 10 or 000 times more affected than simple consumers. So much has been said about pesticide horrors that everyone imagines that unfortunate farmers fall like surprise flies in a pchitt of insecticide.

But researchers find exactly the opposite! The amazing news is that overall farmers have fewer cancers and better health than the general population! All the studies agree. In the United States, the Agricultural Health Study, in France, the Agrican study (AGRIculture and CANcer).

In addition, the standardized rate of the number of cancers in the general population is decreasing.

After the flood ...
Comment from someone irresponsible with whom it is impossible to have a substantive debate.
Permaculture is the only valid way, it alone prevents soil depletion and thereby proves that it is PROFITABLE.
And anyway, consumers who don't want their infants to be bottle-fed your crap, don't want it!
Here is the way of reason ...