Why Big Red Diary?

glyphosate – ‘a gift from god’

This is a very important principle.

Properly used, in the dosages recommended, there are no reputable scientific studies that point to a cancer link with glyphosate. Not yet anyway! The single study (in over 40 years of studies) that suggests a link between the two has been accused of cherry-picking some data and avoiding contrary data. That’s why there is peer review of science, not courts of law to decide such things. The recent award of almost $290 million is a travesty, sorry as the case of the individal is.

Let’s be clear about this, I don’t condone the use of Roundup where expensive wines are produced, it is not just lazy, it is indecently money-grabbing when there are so many alternative manual approaches. But this particular molecule has benefited millions, if not billions of people and animals when it comes to the production of basic foodstuffs. Monsanto are an easy target, indeed they are a deserved target for some of their approaches, practices, and some other of their products, but a CEO of that company once described Glyphosate as ‘a gift from god,’ and, so-far, there is no credible evidence to the contrary…

7 responses to “glyphosate – ‘a gift from god’”

  1. Fred E

    Another instance of insanity in the US court system. Just last month a Missouri jury awarded $4.7 billion (that’s $4,700,000,000) to a group of women who claimed talcum powder caused their ovarian cancer.


  2. Jan

    I think that the debate on glyphosate is a bit more complicated than the question whether or not it can be linked to cancer in humans. Even if it does not cause cancer, it does damage to the biological life in the area where it is used (bacteria, worms, other plants, fish,…) and glyphosate is always used in a mix with other chemicals for which the risks are not always wel known.
    Products like Roundup have been long time sold as being “totally harmless” and that is untrue. Calling it “a gift of god” is even absurd.

    I agree that the use of the product in the vineyards is more laziness and bad practice then anything else. In some regions in Europe (France!) it is used rather extensively, in many other regions (often also producing very cheap wines) it is hardly ever used, showing there is absolutely no reason to use the product in vineyards.

  3. Jan

    The relationship between the use of herbicides and higher yields is subject to scientific debate. As an example: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep30112
    The more or less generalized use of herbicides over the last decades did coïncide indeed with the general increase of crop yields, but it did also coïncide with many other factors like mechanization, better insight in biology, new plant variants etcetera that have had enormous impact on agricultural practices. The companies whose enormous profits depend on the sale of these chemicals, obviously spend fortunes to convince the world (and the world of science…) that their chemicals are “a gift from god”.

    As you surely know the viticulture in France is by far the largest user of chemicals, while it is only a small percentage of total crops. Chemical companies managed to convince most winegrowers that these chemicals are a (harmless) necessity. Nevertheless wine growers all over the world (including France) are showing that it is perfectly possible to make wines (from healthy vineyards with good yields) without using any of these products. That makes me very sceptic about the industry and its arguments…
    I’ve personally decided a while ago that I will try to buy “as much as possible” only wines from producers that are not using chemicals anymore (well, admittedly that is without excluding those using copper sulfate), as there are now so many excellent wines for sale that are not made with chemical farming, that I have no reason to go for other wines – it even helps me in making choices: these days there is too many good wines anyhow :).

Agree? Disagree? Anything you'd like to add?

Translate »
%d bloggers like this: