EU farmers can use glyphosate for another 5 years

This is a response to this article:

3 ways to deal with this:
1. consider it a defeat for the environmental lobby and continue as usual, because this means will remain available.
2. Take the opportunity to be weaned off this remedy during these 5 by actively seeking alternatives.
3. another 5 years we can use this easy tool. Then the same circus starts again. and we'll see how it turns out.
Even more flavors?
and what will it be?

Jan wrote:

This is a response to this article:

3 ways to deal with this:
1. consider it a defeat for the environmental lobby and continue as usual, because this means will remain available.
2. Take the opportunity to be weaned off this remedy during these 5 by actively seeking alternatives.
3. another 5 years we can use this easy tool. Then the same circus starts again. and we'll see how it turns out.
Even more flavors?
and what will it be?

what's wrong with glyphosate? is the argument that it is carcinogenic or is it that we find it or is it that our diversity in the fields is being affected If you have to falsify research results to get your way you are not strong Would rather stop this drug based on emotions but then keep imports of raw materials sprayed with glyphosate, this should be your approach LTO!

I'm getting so tired of the term "(possibly) carcinogenic". A study nowadays quickly concludes that something is possibly carcinogenic. Then the word may soon be forgotten to be copied by the copy paste media and hoppa, something is carcinogenic and big news. For the respective "professor" who did the research, his name is quoted everywhere. From a factual debate you quickly find yourself in an emotional debate.

IJsselmeerclay wrote:

I'm getting so tired of the term "(possibly) carcinogenic". A study nowadays quickly concludes that something is possibly carcinogenic. Then the word may soon be forgotten to be copied by the copy paste media and hoppa, something is carcinogenic and big news. For the respective "professor" who did the research, his name is quoted everywhere. From a factual debate you quickly find yourself in an emotional debate.

There is many other things that are carcinogenic such as cigarettes, BBQ, cell phone, diesel etc etc
Why only ban glyphosate?

Why does the manufacturer prescribe personal protective equipment when applying the product if it then simply flows into my body when I enjoy my free time with a beer?
That's a bit weird and makes me suspicious!
Furthermore, it is crazy that arable farmers no longer know how by being a little smart with nature you can avoid burning a seed bed or that just a little patience during the grain harvest makes pre-harvest sprays unnecessary! They have been brainwashed by full-page advertisements from the manufacturer in the self-proclaimed "trade journals" and by the "advisors" who are in reality mostly salesmen!!!

Monsanto is not doing anything wrong, thanks to Roundup ready crops, the amount of active substances used in the heavier products has decreased significantly. And why does the most resistance come from a continent where these crops are not even allowed and Roundup is therefore not used so massively? Suppose the largest drug manufacturer in Europe sold a drug like Roundup, then this discussion probably wouldn't even have taken place, but that's another story...

bookeskook wrote:

Why does the manufacturer prescribe personal protective equipment when applying the product if it then simply flows into my body when I enjoy my free time with a beer?
That's a bit weird and makes me suspicious!
Furthermore, it is crazy that arable farmers no longer know how by being a little smart with nature you can avoid burning a seed bed or that just a little patience during the grain harvest makes pre-harvest sprays unnecessary! They have been brainwashed by full-page advertisements from the manufacturer in the self-proclaimed "trade journals" and by the "advisors" who are in reality mostly salesmen!!!

bookeskook you are clearly an outsider trying to influence this forum, the russians also use this method to influence opinion in their favor.

But use the coming time to do good and thorough research

But use the coming time to do good and thorough research

bookeskook wrote:

Why does the manufacturer prescribe personal protective equipment when applying the product if it then simply flows into my body when I enjoy my free time with a beer?
That's a bit weird and makes me suspicious!
Furthermore, it is crazy that arable farmers no longer know how by being a little smart with nature you can avoid burning a seed bed or that just a little patience during the grain harvest makes pre-harvest sprays unnecessary! They have been brainwashed by full-page advertisements from the manufacturer in the self-proclaimed "trade journals" and by the "advisors" who are in reality mostly salesmen!!!

bookeskook you are clearly an outsider trying to influence this forum, the russians also use this method to influence opinion in their favor.

There is an alternative to everything, good or bad. I don't think anyone disputes that, unfortunately there is a group of people who want to severely restrict this freedom of choice and try to silence others. In the Zwarte Piet discussion you see the same phenomenon, one group wants to impose their will on the other group with certain arguments that are fine but please don't force others, give people freedom of choice instead of continuously destroying others through all kinds of procedures and loud yelling . Monsanto doesn't force anyone to use Roundup, I don't see what they are doing wrong.

@ Louis and Kjol.
a. I have not read any arguments (but fingerpointing) why I should change my opinion.
b. Farmer, foreign, not organic, but with more and more conviction of the unsustainability of current agriculture. You have to be very locked in your own bubble not to see that).
But the RU is the same.
c. Why would the EP have refused Monstanto's entry? Just because of emotions?
d. Check out critical studies from Canada and the US. That Monsanto placed its own people with the FDA (yes that is a shortcoming in the US order, but does not detract from the influence).
e. You have never heard me claim that RU is carcinogenic.
f. I am much more concerned with affecting soil life and locking up nutrients forever that are therefore no longer available for food (plants, animals and people as well as soil life).
g. That has to do with the Kjol mechanism of action, which you do not want to research. So that we can fool ourselves in ignorance. Is that CSR Kjol? No, you are probably not doing anything illegal, but CSR goes further than staying within the bounds of the law.
Ever wondered why the nutritional value (and taste) of vegetables, for example, has deteriorated so much? Couldn't that have to do with the way it's grown? And the role that RU plays in this and will continue to play due to residue in the soil for a long time to come.
I recently heard an organic farmer who only uses his own organic products say that urine tests showed that his urine also still contains RU residue. How would your urine be (is performed in D. analysis).

All arguments on your part will fail to reverse the increasingly strict requirements of supermarket companies regarding GWB resources and you will be forced left or right unless you want to compete in the global market.
Then you better prepare for that.

Jan wrote:

@ Louis and Kjol.
a. I have not read any arguments (but fingerpointing) why I should change my opinion.
b. Farmer, foreign, not organic, but with more and more conviction of the unsustainability of current agriculture. You have to be very locked in your own bubble not to see that).
But the RU is the same.
c. Why would the EP have refused Monstanto's entry? Just because of emotions?
d. Check out critical studies from Canada and the US. That Monsanto placed its own people with the FDA (yes that is a shortcoming in the US order, but does not detract from the influence).
e. You have never heard me claim that RU is carcinogenic.
f. I am much more concerned with affecting soil life and locking up nutrients forever that are therefore no longer available for food (plants, animals and people as well as soil life).
g. That has to do with the Kjol mechanism of action, which you do not want to research. So that we can fool ourselves in ignorance. Is that CSR Kjol? No, you are probably not doing anything illegal, but CSR goes further than staying within the bounds of the law.
Ever wondered why the nutritional value (and taste) of vegetables, for example, has deteriorated so much? Couldn't that have to do with the way it's grown? And the role that RU plays in this and will continue to play due to residue in the soil for a long time to come.
I recently heard an organic farmer who only uses his own organic products say that urine tests showed that his urine also still contains RU residue. How would your urine be (is performed in D. analysis).

All arguments on your part will fail to reverse the increasingly strict requirements of supermarket companies regarding GWB resources and you will be forced left or right unless you want to compete in the global market.
Then you better prepare for that.

Jan, you think a lot in conspiracies and conspiracies, fine that you experience fears, but don't saddle someone else with that and give everyone their freedom to make their own choices.

Jan
There is nothing wrong with the current agriculture, of course things will improve in the future, but that is a logical consequence of development. grab a shovel and look at a conventional and organic grower. I see no difference in soil life on average. What I do see is that after a glyphosate spraying and no more plowing, the soil life increases significantly. so if glyphosate reduces soil life, tillage does much more. Everything you eat will give you toxins, 99,99% are natural toxins and they are sometimes more dangerous, but most of them have never been studied and that's fine too.

15 years organic, is that long enough?
I see heavier machines running at the organic farmers.
I spray because weed control has a lower environmental impact than fires and hoeing.
We wouldn't be able to fight disease, but then in many years there won't be a lot to eat, I don't know if you should want that.

In my opinion, it should be about the least environmental impact and not about conventional or organic, but that concept cannot be marketed.

Are you also so critical of organic farmers? How many toxins are released when burning? All that fine dust when hoeing is not very bad for you? Why does all the work have to be done by foreigners? More land needed for the same production, so less nature.

Every way of growing has its advantages and disadvantages, let's be proud of what we have achieved and make sure that we take steps every year.

Joop wrote:

15 years organic, is that long enough?
I see heavier machines running at the organic farmers.
I spray because weed control has a lower environmental impact than fires and hoeing.
We wouldn't be able to fight disease, but then in many years there won't be a lot to eat, I don't know if you should want that.

In my opinion, it should be about the least environmental impact and not about conventional or organic, but that concept cannot be marketed.

Are you also so critical of organic farmers? How many toxins are released when burning? All that fine dust when hoeing is not very bad for you? Why does all the work have to be done by foreigners? More land needed for the same production, so less nature.

Every way of growing has its advantages and disadvantages, let's be proud of what we have achieved and make sure that we take steps every year.

"Each cultivation method has its advantages and disadvantages" '
Then there is something wrong with the current way of farming. Grab a sheet of paper and start writing.
The intensive way of farming has come to an end. And that end starts with the foundation of your company: the bottom. That is gradually becoming clear enough, isn't it? >60% root crops in NL, in some parts of NL. up to 80% is that sustainable? Is that an agriculture that has nothing to do with it?

Jan I do not accuse organic farmers of mistakes, they grow in an organic way and that has its advantages and disadvantages.
You are always talking about the soil, if you have driven through your plot ten times with a hoe or harrow, your soil life has also had a significant impact/suffocated.

Organic growers in the area have only 35% to no grain or alfalfa or grass in their crop plan.

The grower determines whether his soil remains healthy, not whether he cultivates conventional or organic

I don't have to prove myself whether spraying against weeds is better than hoeing or burning. the wur has already done that.

Jan, I think you want to be right. However, you place yourself outside society and reality with a very one-sided approach to what you think is the ideal world. Perhaps a communication course is a good option for you to convey your opinion in a slightly more nuanced way to others and also wanting to take something from the other side.

But Jan first goes to talk to the department store. Otherwise nothing will come of it.

Just ban all resources
Then Europe will eventually oblige us to use it again
Because the population is starving

geert wrote:

But Jan first goes to talk to the department store. Otherwise nothing will come of it.

put your mind at ease in the knowledge that these companies are already on their way. How fast it goes will not only depend on the consumer. I've never had the supermarket ask me what I want.
They do make their own policy, sometimes difficult, but true, because they want to distinguish themselves on more than just price.

What sets you apart from debaters?