Monsanto Roundup deadly to humans - Glyphosate

[sen-no-sen]

Yep! thermodynamics does not explain everything.

No, thermodynamics does not explain everything ... but almost!
If we exclude the cultural subtlety and the metapsychic phenomenon I think that thermodynamics can answer most of the problems of society a fortiori in the economic field.

They had to take into account Monsanto's mistakes and the flaws where the press was engulfed. They have already opened a site or they make available all the studies for who wants to consult them.

The objective of a monopoly company is to always have more control to maximize its profits, I have a hard time believing that Bayer turns into a model company ... Given the weight of this company will reach we can imagine that a certain number of laws should bend in the direction of their wallets!

[Janic]

It is precisely this highly specialized skill that is likely to become useless in the event of a change in agricultural practices.

This is quite fair, but for the moment it only concerns small and even medium-sized farms.
Bayer is not naive and is advised by experts. So we should rather look for the unspoken, the real reason for this desire to absorb Monsanto, with the bad image that sticks to its skin in the general public and increasingly among farmers.

They have already opened a site or they make available all the studies for who wants to consult them.

Summaries, not complete studies, and a summary allows to zap some troublesome points, for themselves.

If glyphosate is banned in agriculture, they will be able to fill their pockets by offering new products that are not in the public domain, them.

That on the other hand, it is not impossible, but Monsanto could just as easily have done it and it is probably already the case.

The objective of a monopoly company is to always have more control to maximize its profits, I have a hard time believing that Bayer turns into a model company ... Given the weight of this company will reach we can imagine that a certain number of laws should bend in the direction of their wallets!

Most likely!

[Ahmed]

Janic, you write:

This is quite fair, but for the moment it only concerns small and even medium-sized farms.

It is true, but an increase in oil prices would condemn the current agricultural model, just as a systemic collapse would do (more brutally).
As for Monsanto's "bad image", it is obvious that Bayer will not be different in substance, which will lead to the same disputes: "Monsanto-Bayer, same fight!"

[sen-no-sen]

As for Monsanto's "bad image", it is obvious that Bayer will not be different in substance, which will lead to the same disputes: "Monsanto-Bayer, same fight!"

Bayer suffers from a lackluster brand image, as a reminder during the Second World War the company had bought human beings for the purposes of medical experimentation ...
But all this is a thing of the past, we are fortunately in a democracy so there is nothing more to fear.

[izentrop]

Higher oil prices would condemn the current agricultural model

It would not be the first affected, but if it could lead them to less plowing.

Studies show that they have everything to gain, but on condition that they are not banned from using herbicides.

The highly developed cover in spring (biomass> 1 tMS / ha), living over the entire wheat cycle, had a negative impact on the yield, the crop then reaching 69% of the results of the controls without cover. Indeed, "a cover exceeding 1 tMS / ha at the flowering of wheat competes at a period when the latter has significant water, nitrogen and radiation requirements".

Conversely, the presence of a living cover, properly regulated in the spring (less than 1 tMS / ha at the flowering of wheat), leads to an average yield gain of 5%.

https://www.terre-net.fr/observatoire-t ... 34633.html

We must therefore rather seek the unspoken, the real reason for this desire to absorb Monsanto

Shareholder push must be part of it.

[izentrop]

The real reason for absorbing Monsanto is found here http://www.interactif-agriculture.org/p ... etique.php

... an interesting feature: the hybrid effect.
For example, when we cross two lines of corn, it happens that the first generation has agronomic characteristics far superior to those of its parents. This phenomenon is widely used today for many species. However, it has a drawback which limits its use: the seed must be bought back every year by farmers. Because only the seed producer holds the two parents at the origin of the hybrid.
Thanks to these two discoveries, breeding companies can then hope for profitability: initiatives are multiplying. Those who can specialize in hybridization, more complex to organize than the production of pure lines, will develop faster and become more powerful.

... In 1977, we discovered that bacteria can transfer a gene from one species to another. The way is open for genetic engineering, that is to say the reasoned introduction of a useful gene into the genetic heritage of a species that does not have it in its natural state. Gene transfers hitherto unimaginable were going to be able to be carried out. In addition, it became possible to limit the transfer to a single gene or to a group of well identified genes. We had just discovered what we now call genetically modified organisms.
The breeders producing seeds for agriculture naturally sought to take advantage of these discoveries to continue, even more effectively, the long work of improving plants intended for food.

... Let us think about how the 3 billion additional men who will be invited to the world table can be fed in 40 years. Whatever the scenarios imagined, it will be necessary to mobilize all the resources of genetics

This is why it is absolutely necessary to continue to adapt the plants necessary for the survival of all the inhabitants of the planet.

On the other hand, it is very important not to let big multinational companies confiscate genetic progress.

The patenting of the living will be carried out smoothly, with the agreement of the governments.

[Janic]

The breeders producing seeds for agriculture naturally sought to take advantage of these discoveries to continue, even more effectively, the long work of improving plants intended for food.

... Let us think about how the 3 billion additional men who will be invited to the world table can be fed in 40 years. Whatever the scenarios imagined, it will be necessary to mobilize all the resources of genetics

This is why it is absolutely necessary to continue to adapt the plants necessary for the survival of all the inhabitants of the planet.

It is also very important not to let large multinational companies confiscate genetic progress.
The patenting of the living will be carried out smoothly, with the agreement of the governments.

Typical example of a speech completely stupid and out of touch with reality!
What are these GMOs used for? To the production of plants intended for animal feed, which is itself intended for wealthy countries and in the process of becoming so. From the point of view of food yield, this is the worst solution because the same amount of food given to one beef can feed 10 humans (and therefore the 3 billion supposed in question) and then the use of GMOs then loses all utility and justification.
In addition, the most pessimistic forecasts estimate that 17 billion people will be living on this earth in 2100 and the production of GMOs would not satisfy the agricultural production necessary for animal production unless they cut down ALL the forests existing on this earth to produce these plants for animal use. It's stupid !!!!
https://www.viande.info/elevage-viande- ... imentation
It is therefore a question of big money! They don't care if some starve or die even more of hunger as long as it brings a lot of money to agro-chemists and do-it-yourselfers in genetics, without being aware of the effects of their DIY in the medium and long term (unless their hidden purpose and indeed the decrease of humans on this earth by these means!)

[Ahmed]

Given that currently the quantity of food produced is factually largely sufficient (even with this annoying orientation which moves it very far from the optimum) to provide for the needs of the world population, that does not prevent undernourishment and poor nutrition (the latter being observed have in the best endowed countries), we have to conclude that the purpose of agriculture as it is practiced does not have as its primary purpose "feeding the planet" and that putative technical improvements will not change anything.

[sen-no-sen]

In addition, the most pessimistic forecasts estimate that 17 billion people will be living on this earth in 2100 and the production of GMOs would not satisfy the agricultural production necessary for animal production unless they cut down ALL the forests existing on this earth to produce these plants for animal use. It's stupid !!!!

I doubt very much that we will arrive at such a scenario. Most estimates are based on extrapolations of curves, except it is a safe bet that the human population will be very greatly reduced in the decades to come.
For the rest I fully agree with your reasoning, it is a complete nonsense to want to keep the agricultural model as it is, we could already feed 9 to 10 billion people through a reorganization of the food bowl .
And this not to mention waste (stores) which is a problem easier to raise than to solve in the current state of consumption patterns.

GMOs only promise to perpetuate the problems, which is an integral part of the logic of the system.

[izentrop]

GMOs only promise to perpetuate the problems, which is an integral part of the logic of the system.

The reality of fundamentalists who allow themselves to ruin the advances of science in France, not I don't know what belief. https://www.terre-net.fr/observatoire-t ... 33311.html