Monsanto Roundup deadly to humans - Glyphosate

[Adrien (ex-nico239)]

By wanting to ban glyphosate, for me we shoot ourselves in the foot.

Why?

[Janic]

These sophisms are a manipulation.

it's all about who manipulates what and for what purpose and interest?

The round-up / glyphosate combination of the starting subject maintains it (whereas only the glyphosate additives in the Round-up are the presumed risks),

You are in the usual confusion. It is not only and specifically glyphosate but all the synthesized substances (simplified to the extreme) that are problematic and glyphosate is only part of the iceberg of all the products of synthesis that the living does not assimilate or to its detriment. Now it is true that all additives, whatever they are, only complicate the situation without knowing who is causing the observed effects, as can be seen with synthetic drugs and vaccines.

Regarding glyphosate, a broad scientific consensus has emerged on its safety. Despite its massive use, there is no case mortel of use of glyphosate under real conditions. By wanting to ban glyphosate, for me we shoot ourselves in the foot.

The scientific consensus (which generally comes from those who work for the manufacturers of these products of all kinds), only wants to make credible what is only part of the reality and which hide "modestly" what disturbs the system. The story is filled with scientific consensus that has proven to be completely wrong over time and across all fields.

[Forhorse]

When we know that 50 gene% in common with banana (a plant therefore) I do not see how one can believe that a product intended to kill a plant organism can have no negative effect on our health.
Once again, to believe in such things one must either be completely stupid, or be paid to hold that speech, or be a provocateur.
Stop responding to this troll and leave it in its bullshit.

[izentrop]

Either be a farmer responsible for the health of his customers, and sustainable agriculture saving oil, storing carbon in soils and so on http://seppi.over-blog.com/2018/11/une- ... peril.html

My brother and I produce a variety of crops on our lands in the southern state of Victoria, including wheat, canola, beans and hay. Our high quality barley is found in many beers, including the Crown Lager and Foster brands.

Our two families live on the farm. If glyphosate posed a real danger, we would not expose ourselves to it, much less our wives and children. Glyphosate is a safe and reliable weed control tool used on and around our gardens.

Misinformed people seem to think that farmers are buying glyphosate tankers and watering their fields. In fact, we use small quantities strategically according to the recommendations of the label.

In general, we apply glyphosate at two key points. The first time is early in the season, before sowing. Summer weed control is the second critical period for maintaining valuable moisture, rather than tillage weed control methods. We follow label directions and apply the product safely.

A recent investigation by Kate Kelland, Reuters correspondent for health and science, used internal documents to show that IARC even manipulates its data. The organization seems more determined to shock the public with press releases than to produce serious research and environmental results...

Take an interest in science, you will see that "there is no smoke without fire" collapses with the study of real facts.

[Janic]

It is understandable that this is a problem for farmers whose resources depend on the use of these various products. But his speech is almost a copy glued to those held with respect to DDT. But farmers are neither chemists nor biologists and they, in principle, trust those who condition them to use their poisons (or who will be revealed as such many years later).
Their only solution, in the near future will be to go to the AB which is really concerned about the health of the consumers and not the health of the lobbies.

[izentrop]

It is clear that agriculture question, you have lessons to give them.

[Forhorse]

I work in the agricultural sector and "bizarre" diseases still affect farmers quite a bit.
I have a neighbor (farmer) whose pancreas is "HS" when he has not yet reached retirement age.
Last month, we have a customer (farmer) who died of brain cancer not even 50 years.
We could go on for a long time.
So yeah that's for sure, it's just coincidence, the products they use for years have nothing to do with it ...

Continue to believe and eat shit, we talk about 15 or 20 years during a chemo

[Exnihiloest]

When we know that 50 gene% in common with banana (a plant therefore) I do not see how one can believe that a product intended to kill a plant organism can have no negative effect on our health.

In this case, you must consider that the eggplant or this excellent mushroom which is the trumpet of the dead, have negative effects on our health since they are toxic for the birds, and the birds are even closer to us than the birds. plants!

If you do not see, it's actually that you're not familiar with ecology and biology. However, it is enough to learn rather than appeal to his infused science.
First a product is degraded (eg 3 months after glyphosate administration, there is no more in the earth).
Then a product intended to kill some organisms, does not necessarily affect others, see the example cited above, or mild effects.
Finally, it's all about dose. It is not because we find traces of this or that in a food product, or in our body, that it is necessarily dangerous.
We have in the body hundreds of millions of billions of billions of atoms, including arsenic, without us getting hurt any more. Talking about potentially dangerous products by ignoring quantities is nonsense. Even oxygen is lethal to humans.

I work in the agricultural sector and "bizarre" diseases still affect farmers quite a bit.
I have a neighbor (farmer) whose pancreas is "HS" when he has not yet reached retirement age.
Last month, we have a customer (farmer) who died of brain cancer not even 50 years.
...

It happens even to city people, I knew, and younger!
Special cases highlighted by early generalization does not prove anything strictly (again a sophism, or rather in your case a paralogism since I do not think that you were trying to deceive).
Now if you have the epidemiological studies to support, demonstrating a significant excess of these diseases among farmers who use these products in accordance with the recommendations, I remain interested.

[Janic]

Special cases highlighted by hasty generalizations prove nothing strictly (again a sophism, or rather in your case a paralogism since I do not think that you were trying to deceive).

We are all special cases and it is true that, except to be locked up like laboratory animals with specific tests regarding particular products, in reality all of us are subject to multitudes of natural products or not and of this makes it difficult to charge or to innocent any particular product on the sole pretext that nothing specific or worse than no independent study was done for lack of financial means (or interests that oppose it).
The case of DDT, which showed its damage only late, including cancers 50 years later, or that spares the first generation but affects the second and third generation, etc ... show that playing with fire you end up burning yourself or the next generations. Asbestos took a century to be recognized for its carcinogenic liability.

Now if you have the epidemiological studies to support, demonstrating a significant excess of these diseases among farmers who use these products in accordance with the recommendations, I remain interested.

an epidemiological study can only be done when a product is suspected of having unwanted effects and in the meantime the harm is done without being able to go back. And it is not only a question of dose (a notion that is out of date most of the time), but of presence either alone or with a cocktail effect.
Finally, it is not enough that one or more studies go in a chosen direction (by the producers who become judges and parties); the human nature pushes the individual in the direction of his interests first of allIn agriculture, as in any other profession, since it is the survival of the individual and his family that takes precedence over all the rest (except in-depth awareness as with AB).

[Adrien (ex-nico239)]

By wanting to ban glyphosate, for me we shoot ourselves in the foot.

Why?