The new Agriculture minister, Didier Guillaume, has just declared that, in the case of babies malformed, that” there may be suspicions, but [that]there is no scientific evidence “. If it considers that there is no danger to the health regarding glyphosate, why is he in favour of its ban before the end of the quinquennium ? This is incomprehensible. The absolute proof of the dangerousness of a product can only come from the study of subjects that one exposes voluntarily to a substance, and then of the analysis of the consequences.
The minister would be the first volunteer for a study of this type ? All the scandals health arise from the non-consideration of a danger, the policies are so responsible and guilty. Also, a minister can ignore at this point the various studies of the Inserm (national Institute of health and medical research) and, in particular, the report of 2013 concerning the impact of pesticides on health ?
The industrial, masters of the debate
Ignoring what has just been stated, professor Philippe Grandjean of Harvard university in the United States, stating recently in The World : “How can I imagine that scientists do not reveal the exact nature of the studies that they sign ? In the case of the articles on glyphosate co-authored by Monsanto and signed by others, this gives the impression that the substance poses no risk and some who are not experts in the field believe him to be. “
there is No doubt that industrial pesticides are watching with great pleasure up the pressure against glyphosate : there is every reason to believe that it will be in effect withdrawn from the market in the near future, not by the action of the public authorities, but by industrial companies themselves. Their communication is preparing to appear as the saviors of mankind, anxious to appease the debate and to listening to the vox populi !
scientists incompetent
indeed, they appear to have virtually completed the development of an alternative chemical – of course – glyphosate and its adjuvants. It will be presented as respectful of the soil, the environment, and of course the health of men. We will have, pretty much, a discourse close to the way has been presented on the glyphosate 20 years ago. It may take a few decades to see its effects while providing the time to handle, as it should be, the science with the relay complacent scientists incompetent in the field, pseudo-scientific, but having an opinion on everything.
The new products will be a lot more aggressive, hence the use in terms of less volume. They will produce little waste, and it seems that the active principles hyper aggressive be worn by nanoparticles. That of happiness… Nicolas Hulot, come back soon !
