warksfarmer
Member
https://www.newstarget.com/2018-12-...bs-worldwide-lawsuits-roundup-glyphosate.html
Glyphosate will be gone shortly.
Glyphosate will be gone shortly.
10,000 lawsuits
- Thread starter warksfarmer
- Start date
Phrases like "entity of evil" suggest a lot of bias in this article!
The payout to the California caretaker was reduced on appeal from $289m to $78m. These lawsuits were in the pipeline while Bayer bid their $66bn for Monsanto. They are just using the claims as a scapegoat to lay off lots of staff IMO.
The payout to the California caretaker was reduced on appeal from $289m to $78m. These lawsuits were in the pipeline while Bayer bid their $66bn for Monsanto. They are just using the claims as a scapegoat to lay off lots of staff IMO.
spin cycle
Member
- Location
- north norfolk
Once again, another article on TFF quoting a hysterical piece of anti-science masquerading as 'journalism
Because it is a "chemical found in nature" it is allowed to be produced and used on organic holdings in both the US, UK and fairly universally around the globe, despite it's high toxicity to bees and other pollinators.
It may come as some surprise to the anti agchem lobby that "this entity of evil" manufactures one of the only organic certified insecticides, called Spinosad.
Because it is a "chemical found in nature" it is allowed to be produced and used on organic holdings in both the US, UK and fairly universally around the globe, despite it's high toxicity to bees and other pollinators.
Gyphosate was going with or without any lawsuits. The pressure has been building against it for years, especially in Europe where the green lobby have so much influence. It'll be gone in 10 years at the most, maybe even 5.
In don't think all is necessarily lost though. I strongly suspect there are at least one or two non-selective herbicides already developed and on the shelf, just waiting for the market conditions to favour the makers swallowing the cost of approval.
Whilst glyphosate has been around it hasn't been worth the investment, not when you can buy generic roundup for less than a decent bottle of wine. Once it's gone though...
In don't think all is necessarily lost though. I strongly suspect there are at least one or two non-selective herbicides already developed and on the shelf, just waiting for the market conditions to favour the makers swallowing the cost of approval.
Whilst glyphosate has been around it hasn't been worth the investment, not when you can buy generic roundup for less than a decent bottle of wine. Once it's gone though...
Once again, another article on TFF quoting a hysterical piece of anti-science masquerading as 'journalism
It may come as some surprise to the anti agchem lobby that "this entity of evil" manufactures one of the only organic certified insecticides, called Spinosad.
Because it is a "chemical found in nature" it is allowed to be produced and used on organic holdings in both the US, UK and fairly universally around the globe, despite it's high toxicity to bees and other pollinators.
I agree - seems some farmers perversely want glyphosate banned the way they talk about it as enevitable
Even if it might be enevitable I fail to understand the joyful pessimism about our industry
Bogweevil
Member
Oh I don't know, there may suddenly be a sudden outbreak of rationality and understanding of science.
Hunger solves all sorts of problems
I do want it banned, because once it is then some semblance of certainty will return to the industry. Being in constant limbo is detrimental to everyone, and certainty of any kind will allow the most adaptable to start planning for a successful future.
If that makes me perverse then I'm happy to be so. I would rather be perceived as perverse than stuck in the past and betting my future on whimsical hopes and dreams.
If that makes me perverse then I'm happy to be so. I would rather be perceived as perverse than stuck in the past and betting my future on whimsical hopes and dreams.
You just move from one uncertainty to the next - it never ends
What we all have to focus on is being adaptable and being agile enough to change whatever we get thrown at us. History shows this is a skill farmers do have so I don’t loose sleep at night about these things
What we all have to focus on is being adaptable and being agile enough to change whatever we get thrown at us. History shows this is a skill farmers do have so I don’t loose sleep at night about these things
That's just commerce, Clive. If there was no uncertainty there would be a lot less innovation.
There comes a point where you have to accept you're fighting a battle you cannot win though, and I think that point has been both reached and passed with glyphosate. Put it to death and move on.
Quoting science and rational thinking is a waste of time. The battle for hearts and minds has already been won by the anti-roundup faction. Truth be told, it was won years ago and the recent negative press has only strengthened their position.
That might be true but the danger is that as time goes by more and more will get banned until we cant grow crops without stock to provide disease and weed breaks, and then of course we have the vegan nut cases blaming stock for global warming, only when the rich nations are starving will common sense return
Start the fight early, and win it. I'm going to sound like a self-help author here, but I recommend reading Sun Tzu's The Art of War.
Only fight the battles you can win, and only those which provide a strategic advantage. The roundup battle has already been lost, it's gone.
It's a bit like trying to keep hold of your wife once she's already started having affairs. You are too late, you've already lost the battle. Move onto a new wife and make sure you keep hold of her.
Lexion1000
Member
It’s worth fighting to keep it for a few more years though, capitulation will just mean we lose it sooner.
spin cycle
Member
- Location
- north norfolk
i agree with your on topic post.....but philosophically speaking .....history is littered with sides fighting loosing battles but still winning the war
for example the vietnam war....the popular myth is of the viet kong guerilla tactics....fact is they were being obliterated but the americans realised the only way to victory was effectively genocide
other examples being the alamo...thermopylae
The trouble is, the right people won't be going hungry - the policy makers.
You will always find exceptions which prove a rule, especially if you go back far enough. Kamikaze and suicide bombers are other more focused examples.
I maintain that, in general terms, fighting a losing battle will not produce a sufficient return on investment to justify the cost.
Daniel
Member
- Location
- Mildenhall, Suffolk
When it comes to war strategies Sir Winstons is more useful than that of Sun Tzu. You fight as hard as you possibly can at Dunkirk, to ensure you can just about hang on at the Battle of Britain, and having managed that you can start to consider an offensive.
And when you don't know what else to do you KBO.
Capitulating over glyphosate is not an option, not least because it's based on nonsense science, but also because if we don't defend this beach-head to the last we will be completely overrun when it comes to every other piece of chemistry available.
Winston Churchill was an alcoholic megalomaniac who presided over a failure. The Americans won WW2, precisely because that half-wit had us fighting battles on every available front rather than defending what was important, i.e. the British Isles.
If our forces hadn't been spread so thinly trying to protect colonial territory which we had effectively already lost before the war then we would most likely have been successful in isolation IMHO, but instead we were concerned with maintaining territorial influence over backwaters which ultimately cost us the opportunity to keep the Nazis at arms length on our own and left us indebted to the Americans for a lifetime.
This is getting very off-topic though.