No 10-year extension for glyphosate

Yep, ordered a pallet. Costs nothing anyway.

Which is worse: weeds or cancer?

Tell that to your boss if he asks you to work overtime. Working overtime is on the same list as Glyphosate in terms of cancer risk.

What's worse? To eat or be eaten? There are many people who find it worse that food is eaten, because that is very bad for the environment.

Weeds are worse!
Cigarette, GSM telephone, diesel, BBQ, etc, etc, are also true

Ned men, the average age is rising
After 60 years of using glyphosate
Provide proof that glyphosate is not carcinogenic, consumers will pay 50% more for food

And you believe it? The farmer may pay the price for this measure. Higher cost, less yield and a government that protects its citizens against higher food prices. Count out your winnings!

Glyphosate kills all life, some short term, some longer. Farmers think again and let that well-known common sense work. Here and there something different than English raaygras or maize is good for everyone.

jos, jos still, seems smart only in the cultivation of maize and perennial ryegrass is no glyphosate used, at least not in Europe. Glyphosate is not sprayed on the crop in the EU because it kills almost all plants. This is done by spraying under leaf. The glyphosate that you find everywhere seems to me to be a result of the import of genetically modified corn and soy. The so-called round-up ready crops. That way it gets on your plate.

New research shows that pyrethrum and copper, which has been widely used in recent years, can be the cause of large-scale insect destruction, in addition, the cause of cancer cannot be ruled out. These resources seem to be mainly used in the explosive growth of what they call Organic farming, the overlap of this new production method seems to coincide with the above mentioned problems. A report from the WHO shows that facts about this have been covered up by interested parties and that further research is needed, advice is to immediately ban this form of agriculture until more is clear about the long-term effects.

Very correct kjol
In France, there was a study that showed that 60-year-old farmers were more likely to have Parkinson's than other people.
This happened to mainly grape growers, coincidentally!! those growers used to spray massive amounts of copper in their grapes, but this is being kept secret because copper is used in organic cultivation.

First of all I am not a scientist however I am thoughtful .
How is it possible that if you ask 30 scientists a clear question you will get 30 different answers .
Purely scientifically this cannot be possible. And yet it happens again and again .
If you then list the answers, it is possible for each of us to find an answer that fits his experience.
Scientists also work in this way . They find an answer that suits their thinking or that of their client.
But I try to think soberly . But who am I to believe now?
If it is indeed proven that glyphosate is carcinogenic in normal use, then I am in favor of banning it. After all, I just work with it and I also consume.
However, therein now lies the problem. I don't get a clear answer.
Scientists , empowered by NGOs , play on my fears . To me, every scientist is suspect at this point. The least suspect is the Efsa because, as I can see now, it has no direct interest in the result. I believe them .
It remains curious that European politicians do not believe and therefore do not follow their own research center . This states that glyphosate is not carcinogenic when used normally.

The danger now is , if the politicians do not follow their own instituted research center , that admission will be done on pure political feeling . And that by people who usually have no understanding of the matter.
That's no good.

We have to go back to the pure (pure) scientific approach.

If chains want glyphosate-free products, they have to buy them.
If you pay the right price for the right product, you will get as much as you want from farmers.
Controls are good in the Netherlands.
A ban makes no sense in Europe as long as glyphosate products can enter more or less freely from elsewhere in the world.

Incidentally, we as growers have to ask ourselves whether a pre-harvest method is still desirable. Let's take a good look at whether we can set up schemes in this way, possibly with adjustments to other labels, so that it is no longer necessary.

I could write much more .
But this had to get off my mind.


Gr. Jaap Haanstra, just an arable farmer

Good response Jack.
As far as I'm concerned, it can be done in the national newspapers.
Hopefully also on behalf of the other users of glyphosate.

In peasant circles, this story is fine and sweet. In this discussion, however, we are dealing with tough opponents who bombard the media with unfounded one-liners and investigations and who also get their hands on this method. From our side, we will also have to react with strong means to resist and, for example, much more emphasis will be placed on the double standards of supermarkets and consumers. Ban substances here and then get them cheaply from abroad and consume them without worrying at all about the substances used, etc. The level playing field is becoming increasingly out of sight.

Dear All. Who can explain to me the mechanism of action of glyphosate on this forum? If it's not a growth agent, how does it work?
bvd

The synthesis in the leaf etc is slowed down, causing the plant to slowly die. You can also cover the plant so that no more light falls on it, you will get the same effect.

Reuters has published that at least 10 unexplained changes have been made to the WHO glyphosate report to the detriment of glyphosate. The WHO has now strongly advised the authors of the report not to communicate in any way with the outside world about this report....Paragraphs where the original report stated that cancer is not related to glyphosate and could not be shown to be in the final version removed.

@Kjol, thanks for your reply. Question: the synthesis of which is inhibited? The roots also die. is that before or after the green parts die? What mechanism inhibits synthesis?

if other users or other experts want to add their insights to this, go ahead.

Not so, how can we explain that root weeds no longer sprout from their roots?

The synthesis of amino acids is inhibited in the leaf, stem and roots of the weed. By depriving these amino acids in the synthesis of vitamins, the weeds perish.

if I check for myself what I use in glyphosate then it is minimal
most to combat the potato storage I think 90% of the total use. with someone else it won't be much different
soberly viewed apart from the discussion my competitive position will only get better if it is banned but also in the rest of the world

I've always heard that the adjuvant of glyphosate is cancer-fighting
So if we want to ban glyphosate then you also have to be big enough to restrict the import of these products because whether it comes from country 1 you will also get cancer if it is so true

In addition to the topical applications of glyphosate, it is widely used here by plowless farming. With a ban there will be much more plowing again, because there are no alternatives.

Strange that pre-harvest spraying is still allowed. No wonder that glyphosate is found in beer, milk, bread and (therefore) breast milk! Strange should actually be “incomprehensible”!

It is incomprehensible that pre-harvest spraying is still allowed.
No wonder that glyphosate is found in milk, beer, bread and (therefore) breast milk.

Everything that is going to be examined will have a residue in it.

So stop taking drugs, etc

@Stoffel. Then they do it neatly at Juillie's neighborhood. A dead-sprayed grass green manure, spring spraying is allowed and is applied on a fairly large scale. That less than a liter in the hand syringe is a story of a completely different order.
If the stuff were made several times more expensive (environmental tax), that would not stand in the way of that application. Large-scale use then becomes expensive and declines. Isn't that a good, tentative compromise?

@Kjol. You wrote that the synthesis of amino acids is inhibited. you wrote earlier that it is the same effect that also occurs by memorizing light.
Do you actually mean that the formation of chlorophyll is inhibited/blocked? Or else, the formation of which amino acids is inhibited?

Are there any other glyphosate users/connoisseurs who have something to add besides Kjol's contributions regarding the mechanism of action of glyphosate?

and thus the knowledge of glyphosate users about the mechanism of action is exhausted? come, come you know more.

Jan do a google, wikipedia and you know about the hat and the brim about glyphosate. it's not that hard these days...

@saturna. did you do that? and what was your conclusion?

the intent of my question, not understood by you, is whether the users farm consciously, ie with knowledge of the facts, about this product.
that 'it works' is not enough for conscious farmers.
you'll have to dig a little deeper. two spikes.
unless you don't want to know because that knowledge / awareness could be very difficult when it comes to the long term.