Why don’t all these scientists studying glysophate and the harms it supposedly causes (I truly don’t know, I’ve read both sides of this) focus instead on coming up with a better product for farmers to use?
Because the thing is, glysophate works so well, that they aren’t going to quit using it. And if the litigation industry successfully sues Bayer into oblivion… well, guess what? They make it in China too. And you can bet your pearly buttons they don’t go through the same safety hoops and testing in China that the German and American Bayer company does.
So let’s focus all this great science on creating something BETTER that farmers can use!
European farmers don't use glyphosate. They grow nice food crops. They get adequately paid to do so.
The pay for products is the issue. Glyphosate makes massive monoculture farming cheaper. That increases the power of grain-as-a-weapon, which Nixon/Kissinger initiated, and it keeps Americans quieter by supplying cheap fast-food that they can readily afford.
Glyphosate is primarily a very long lasting broad-spectrum antimicrobial that sterilizes soil and lasts for years, but what it is sold for is killing most plants, which it also does.
Its main target is the shikimate pathway in plants, algae, and many fungi and bacteria. Animals lack this pathway, son it's selectively toxic to plants.
It has activity against some microorganisms under certain conditions. It does not "sterilize soil." And you're overstating its persistence.
"Studies show that glyphosate can persist in soil for weeks, months, and in some cases, even longer. The commonly cited half-life of glyphosate in soil varies widely — from as little as 2 days to as long as 197 days, depending on temperature, microbial activity, pH, and other factors. In some agricultural systems with regular spraying, there’s barely enough time between applications for residues to fully degrade.
This creates a situation where glyphosate can accumulate—not just as glyphosate itself, but also as its main breakdown product, AMPA (aminomethylphosphonic acid), which is also toxic and even more persistent in soil and water systems." https://nomoreglyphosate.nz/glyphosate-soil-accumulation/
Fine - oversimplifying and overstating. Doesn't sterilize soul for years.
Persistence is highly variable. It binds strongly to some soils, which can reduce its biological availability. Its environmental half-life varies substantially with soil, climate, microbial activity, and other conditions. It does not generally remain biologically active for years.
European farmers generally face tighter restrictions on glyphosate than American farmers, but it's still used extensively in parts of Europe. Farmers in some countries receive substantial income support through the Common Agricultural Policy, and they're not uniformly better paid than US farmers.
It is how the money is applied that makes various products available in our world.
Ag.Sec. Earl Butz, under Nixon-Kissinger had the mantra to farmers, "get big or get out". The American grain weapon was effectively put into play during years that Russian and even Chinese harvests were poor, and in general it put small farmers across the world, including the US, out of business.
National and EU subsidies play significant roles. Migrant labor use is different. And EU statements consistently report farm incomes remain significantly below average incomes in broader EU economies.
Why don’t all these scientists studying glysophate and the harms it supposedly causes (I truly don’t know, I’ve read both sides of this) focus instead on coming up with a better product for farmers to use?
Because the thing is, glysophate works so well, that they aren’t going to quit using it. And if the litigation industry successfully sues Bayer into oblivion… well, guess what? They make it in China too. And you can bet your pearly buttons they don’t go through the same safety hoops and testing in China that the German and American Bayer company does.
So let’s focus all this great science on creating something BETTER that farmers can use!
European farmers don't use glyphosate. They grow nice food crops. They get adequately paid to do so.
The pay for products is the issue. Glyphosate makes massive monoculture farming cheaper. That increases the power of grain-as-a-weapon, which Nixon/Kissinger initiated, and it keeps Americans quieter by supplying cheap fast-food that they can readily afford.
Glyphosate is primarily a very long lasting broad-spectrum antimicrobial that sterilizes soil and lasts for years, but what it is sold for is killing most plants, which it also does.
Its main target is the shikimate pathway in plants, algae, and many fungi and bacteria. Animals lack this pathway, son it's selectively toxic to plants.
It has activity against some microorganisms under certain conditions. It does not "sterilize soil." And you're overstating its persistence.
"Studies show that glyphosate can persist in soil for weeks, months, and in some cases, even longer. The commonly cited half-life of glyphosate in soil varies widely — from as little as 2 days to as long as 197 days, depending on temperature, microbial activity, pH, and other factors. In some agricultural systems with regular spraying, there’s barely enough time between applications for residues to fully degrade.
This creates a situation where glyphosate can accumulate—not just as glyphosate itself, but also as its main breakdown product, AMPA (aminomethylphosphonic acid), which is also toxic and even more persistent in soil and water systems." https://nomoreglyphosate.nz/glyphosate-soil-accumulation/
Fine - oversimplifying and overstating. Doesn't sterilize soul for years.
Persistence is highly variable. It binds strongly to some soils, which can reduce its biological availability. Its environmental half-life varies substantially with soil, climate, microbial activity, and other conditions. It does not generally remain biologically active for years.
European farmers generally face tighter restrictions on glyphosate than American farmers, but it's still used extensively in parts of Europe. Farmers in some countries receive substantial income support through the Common Agricultural Policy, and they're not uniformly better paid than US farmers.
It is how the money is applied that makes various products available in our world.
Ag.Sec. Earl Butz, under Nixon-Kissinger had the mantra to farmers, "get big or get out". The American grain weapon was effectively put into play during years that Russian and even Chinese harvests were poor, and in general it put small farmers across the world, including the US, out of business.
You misstate your basic premises.
"European farmers don't use glyphosate."
National and EU subsidies play significant roles. Migrant labor use is different. And EU statements consistently report farm incomes remain significantly below average incomes in broader EU economies.
Just like DDT
Took 40 years to rid ourselves of it!
DDT made the eggs with baby eagles break.
It smelled sweet when they were fogging the mosquitoes and I ran in the fog as a kid.
Why do you accept what those corrupt scientists at woke, captured NYU have to say about this?