Roundup will be replaced by much more toxic herbicides if it is banned. NGOs will also have to find real arguments, not masquerades like the Hague trial if they want to be taken seriously.
And then eliminating the products in ... cide means putting half the population back to work on the land
You are right and wrong at the same time! Seen by the farmer who first thinks of his snack, pollution is not his main objective even when he is the first victim; in the same way the profession sees the interest of this one and the pollution finds there only a minor interest and in that you have, they are right. But at the higher level, when it concerns an entire country, these interests become minor for the rest of the population who thinks first of themselves, of the health of their children and of generations to come. And at the next level, that is to say of the entire planet, the stake is still different and it is the survival of all its inhabitants (animals and plants) who are affected by these successive pollutions which are not not limited to agriculture, which proves the first segment of the population wrong.
For herbicides, replacement with other more toxic ones is not compulsory. Indeed, the solutions used in AB require a paradigm shift; Did gives a few examples and these have been practiced for decades in AB Switzerland for example. But of course the farmer must gradually change his cultural habits and replace productivist agriculture with qualitative agriculture.
totally agree with you. The difficulty comes from the inertia of a society which changes its habits only very slowly and when time is short it poses a fundamental problem.Herbicides are not the only solution, but their minimal cost has led to a disaffection for other technical paths. In addition, this was fully in line with a progressive dispossession of the farmer's mastery for the benefit of outside technicians ...
The complexity of weed management is not so much a difficulty as an opportunity for farmers to reclaim their trade.
) 
