Monsanto Roundup deadly to humans - Glyphosate

[izentrop]

So the use of natural pesticides is only a bad thing until the agricultural industry, starting with the organic, reform gradually by returning to more suitable varieties, more resistant.

For this, artificial methods are used in order to burn through the stages of evolution, in favor of "human" interests. Do you not dispute that?

To overcome the reluctance towards "pesticides", more and more "biocontrol" is also being used. Methods that are not necessarily better, since it is the dose that makes the poison and that sometimes it can also drift (Asian ladybug).
No need to highlight the "endocrine disruptors", an exception that proves the rule.

[Janic]

Janic wrote The use of natural pesticides is just another way to go until the agricultural industry, starting with the organic, is gradually reformed by returning to more suitable varieties, more resistant.

For this, artificial methods are used in order to burn through the stages of evolution, in favor of "human" interests. Do you not dispute that?

Evolutionism is a vast, unconfirmed biological joke.
That said, the evolution of ideas and actions in a society gives most of the time catastrophic results because mastering only a very small part of the data that covers every element of the living and that a DIY laboratory can not, and does not can reproduce with accuracy and even less certainty. So nonsense, humanity (even with good intentions ... departure) is fond and specialized as for vaccines, it's the same approach elsewhere. But you are right in the sense that the main element is the term interests, not human, but especially financial (humanism supposed but never verified) is only a pretext to impose what, in short, means or long-term, will turn against its initiators who will have nothing more to do since they will probably be dead by then after taking advantage of interest and interest.

To overcome the reluctance towards "pesticides", more and more "biocontrol" is also being used. Methods that are not necessarily better, since it is the dose that makes the poison and that sometimes it can also drift (Asian ladybug).

Of course, the ecologists, full of "good intentions", have often done the worst by not respecting the local biological balance and thus accentuating imbalances already installed.
It's like hunting that after killing natural predators is recommended as a substitute regulator, which agrochemistry does as well.

No need to highlight the "endocrine disruptors", an exception that proves the rule.

Except that these exceptions multiply and end up becoming the new destructive rule.

[izentrop]

For those who do not understand the difference between risk and danger

[Janic]

For those who do not understand the difference between risk and danger

this character's speech is particularly interesting in that it demonstrates that anyone can demonstrate anything by selecting in studies what suits him or her all do the same. Many industrial products have been indicted for decades, then cleared, then indicted before being removed from the market (DDT, Asbestos, at least).
So it is certainly difficult to distinguish accurately what is only a distant risk and an immediate danger. If I stand at 100 m from the edge of a cliff the danger is almost nonexistent and I do not take any risk away in this way, if I stand at the edge of this cliff, so there is danger and a high risk of falling, which does not establish that I will fall, voluntarily in any case.
So the risks and dangers of chemicals come out less in laboratory tests on guinea pigs in conditions foreign to what happens in real life than in what happens in the field.
The question is whether this dangerous chemical, like any chemical, will not be replaced by another that is even more toxic and dangerous to the health of farmers and consumers.

[Ahmed]

It is less such or such a substance which presents a danger than the general industrial context that supposes and which opposes in the short term to the conditions of the life on Earth. This is more and more evident in many places, unfortunately those who suffer the most consequences are not the most responsible causes * ...

* Naturally (dare I say!), I speak only of humans, because things are still much more decided for other living beings.

[izentrop]

You're absolutely right Ahmed, industrialists have everything to gain from seeing the disappearance of the market a herbicide as effective as cheap, to put back in service more profitable products.
And yet they are not the ones who want his skin, just see who finances the IARC to have a little idea. Christopher Portier is no stranger to it either.

The young Matadon did a remarkable job of peeling off the IARC monograph, all the links on the studies are on the page youtube , everyone can check that there is no lobby behind all that

[Janic]

You're absolutely right Ahmed, industrialists have everything to gain from seeing the disappearance of the market a herbicide as effective as cheap, to put back in service more profitable products.

I'm afraid you did not understand Ahmed's thoughts, he will speak himself on this aspect, I suppose.
In terms of health it is not the price of a product that counts, but its impact favorable or not to it. That another more expensive product replaces it is possible, but will it be toxic for the living: that is the question! and replacing a blind man blind is not the right solution. But one-eyed is not one either.

And yet they are not the ones who want his skin, just see who finances the IARC to have a little idea. A certain Christian Porcher is no stranger either.

Most organizations like IARC are funded by public funds, but theoretically independent of lobbies. Hence their precautions to protect the goat and cabbage.

ABOUT IARC
Funding
The activities of IARC are mainly financed by the statutory contributions of its participating States. The regular budget of IARC, for the biennium 2018-2019, was approved by its Governing Council in May 2017 for 44,1 million; it is financed by the contributions of its participating States.
In addition, the Center continues to attract voluntary contributions to the general program and to individual projects, mainly through competitive grants, but also, increasingly, through direct contributions from funding agencies from charitable organizations. to government organizations.
IARC also receives donations from individuals. These contributions are credited to the non-designated contributions account, from which allocations to the general program and projects are decided in accordance with the decisions of the Governing Council.
We thank all our funders for their support in fulfilling our mission of reducing the global burden of cancer.

The young Matadon did a remarkable job of peeling the IARC monograph, all the links on the studies are on the youtube page, everyone can check that there is no lobby behind all that

There is no need for a lobby for influencers. The choices of society are sufficient to hold a discourse supporting or fighting a different opinion, it is peculiar to human nature. However, these lobbies do a basic job that conditions these societies: see the book by Stéaphane Horel which denounces precisely this fact: LOBBYOTOMY, a title very evocative.

[Ahmed]

It is obviously the risk of fighting a molecule to see another triumph, because the dialectic has long been hidden in the arsenal of large firms, but this is not at all my remarks, as noted Janic: read carefully.

[Ahmed]

These expert fights on the dangerousness or the harmlessness of chemical substances are endless, and therefore unproductive, except if we place ourselves on the side of the poisoners, since it is a time of perpetually won action.
It is not without reminding me of the theological discourse on the sex of the angels: each era is unloaded on its own mythology and that evades the real questions.
The essential thing is however easily seen if we look away from these tiny picrocholine disputes and that we consider the extent of violence that is falling on all aspects of life, this terrorism hidden but fierce against all beings who are trying to survive again.

[Exnihiloest]

These expert fights on the dangerousness or the harmlessness of chemical substances are endless, and therefore unproductive, except if we place ourselves on the side of the poisoners, since it is a time of perpetually won action.
...

"Poisoners": fallacy http://sophismes.free.fr/log1d.htm .
"since it is a time of action perpetually gained": fallacy https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procès_d'intention .

These fallacies are manipulation. The round-up / glyphosate association of the starting subject maintains it (whereas only the glyphosate additives in the Round-up are the presumed risks), as does the semantic drift consisting in moving from an experience of destruction in human umbilical cord cells in vitro, with the expression "fatal to man". Regarding glyphosate, a large scientific consensus has emerged on its safety. Despite its massive use, there are no fatal cases of glyphosate use in real conditions. By wanting to ban glyphosate, for me we shoot ourselves in the foot.