GLYPHOSATE:
FEELING A CHANGE IN THE WIND
In
full controversy throughout the European Union after the re-authorization of
glyphosate for 5 years, a small French company takes advantage of the confusion
to make its public ad.
Picture:
of my own
It
explains that it has an organic alternative to glyphosate, but that its
commercialization is blocked by the administration.
It
broadly publishes on social networks (with the help of its supporters and / or
environmental lobbies) articles telling anyone who wants to hear that its
product exists, that it has a proven effectiveness, but that the
administration, for 4 years, is blocking its file without cause. It therefore
portrays itself as a victim of a situation suggesting that the administration
is under influence.
And
it works. In recent weeks, it is entitled to articles in all periodicals, even
the most serious, it goes on television, even outside France. A
well-orchestrated and, it seems, effective advertising.
Here
are some French links. There are many others.
The
administration in charge of the case, the ANSES (National Agency for Public
Health Security, for Food, for Environment and for Work), probably tired of
being attacked from all sides, has just published a statement in which it
specifies the situation.
It
indicates in particular that, although it's true that the file does not
progress, it's completely wrong to make the administration responsible. In
fact, the company in question is the only responsible for not having provided
the competent administration with the necessary elements, and for not having
paid the corresponding taxes.
"Upon receipt of the file, it
appeared that most of the necessary documents were missing, including the Cerfa
administrative application form, which specifies in particular the
characteristics of the product and its intended uses, as well as, for example:
- the integral composition (the
active substances which enter the composition having
necessarily to be approved
beforehand at European level),
- tests and studies to evaluate the
efficacy of the product, and its impact on the health and on the environment,
- The product label project.
The payment of the fee for the
investigation of the file (tax reduced to 2 000 € instead of 40 000 €, in the
case of a biocontrol product) has never been carried out."
It
is therefore very clear that a so-called biocontrol product, in other words a
biological pesticide, must follow a clear and precise procedure to be approved.
We can only rejoice.
The
assumption that everything natural is good is regularly undermined by reality.
We
can mention, for instance,
-
Nicotine,
extracted from tobacco, still used in many countries as a biological
insecticide and yet directly responsible for millions of deaths per year,
-
Arsenic,
a natural mineral whose toxicity is undisputed, used as a fungicide (sodium
arsenate) on the vines until 2001, and combined with lead (lead arsenate),
another natural mineral whose toxicity is widely recognized, which has been
widely used as an insecticide for example against the Colorado potato beetle
until 1971,
-
Neem
oil, a plant extract from the Neem tree, a complex bunch of natural substances,
authorized worldwide as a biological insecticide, and a proven endocrine
disruptor,
-
Natural
pyrethrins, extracted from certain plants, very versatile natural insecticides,
very widely used even in domestic insecticides, very toxic to aquatic fauna,
and disruptive of nerve connections (neurotoxic),
-
Copper,
the first pesticide in the history of modern agriculture, fungicide and
bacteriostatic recognized, widely used in agriculture, both conventional and
biological, despite its status as a heavy metal and known pollutant of soil and
water.
-
We
could also mention many natural substances, known for centuries, such as
hemlock, snake or scorpion venom, ergot of rye, curare, and a very long etc. I
have described only a few natural substances known for their use as pesticides.
It seems
obvious that the company in question has embarked on a perfectly dishonest
communication, trying to advance its dossier thanks to the pressure of the
civil society, the same who managed to turn explosive the glyphosate file,
which nevertheless was initially based on meager assumptions.
You will
find all details about the product and its steps in the article (in French) of
my colleague Seppi on the link http://seppi.over-blog.com/2017/12/osmobio-le-successeur-du-glyphosate-serait-la.vraiment.html?utm_source=_ob_email&utm_medium=_ob_notification&utm_campaign=_ob_pushmail
This
charming company probably thought that if the glyphosate almost disappeared on
the basis of a totally rigged and manipulated dossier, why could not its
product be approved without any dossier?
It has
become clear to all those who still doubt that social networks are currently
the most powerful and effective weapon of manipulation and propaganda.
The boss of
this small company also declared not to use chemicals that "destroy
biodiversity." As Seppi says, his product is itself derived from natural
chemistry. It is therefore a chemical product.
And like any
good weed killer, its role is primarily to destroy biodiversity by eliminating
unwanted weeds. In the case of pesticides, and in terms of biodiversity,
synthetic or natural, it's the same.
I
also think it's good to remember that, in essence, agriculture is fighting
against biodiversity, even in its most ecological forms, such as permaculture.
From the
moment when the farmer sows a field of a single species, with or without
plowing, with or without pesticides, whatever the method of production and
whatever the surface of the field, it disturbs the biodiversity.
It's
the same with a garden. Do you want your garden not to disturb biodiversity?
Leave it open, and fallow.
But beware,
the application for approval concerns a "total weed control of
non-agricultural areas", so for railways and roads, but not for
agriculture, and not for gardens either.
All this
takes on the air of false news and manipulation.
Wise guy.
This
entrepreneur uses all the ecologist rhetoric, but just forgets to clarify
matters. Lying by omission is in fashion nowadays.
It is
nevertheless reassuring to note that legislation is changing with regard to
organic pesticides. Indeed, until a very recent past, the requirements were
very superficial for the authorization of commercialization and use of
biological pesticides, leaving room for a regulatory vagueness giving rise to
numerous abuses, always on the pretext that "it's natural".
A natural
substance, for use on future foods must now demonstrate, of course its
effectiveness, but also its safety on both the environment and health.
The same
trend can be observed with plant-based preparations, such as nettle manure for
example, which now have to prove their safety, which does not please everyone. http://www.sudouest.fr/2017/12/04/environnement-la-guerre-de-l-ortie-n-est-pas-vraiment-finie-4004118-706.php
The
precautionary principle, if it's applied to synthetic substances, must be
applied in exactly the same way and in the same proportions to natural
substances. Don't think that I defend the principle of precaution, I consider
it a gangrene of our modern society, because of the brake to progress that it
represents, often without any real justification. It's too often put forward.
We must not do anything, but it is not a reason to paralyze all progress.
That being
said, if this product is good and if, as the company that manufactures it
asserts, it respects the environment, the user and the consumer, then very
sincerely, as a farmer, user (reasonable and moderate) of the glyphosate, I'm
looking forward to the arrival of this alternative.
It would
still be necessary for this society to do what it takes to be approved. It has
already filed a patent in Canada, in the United States, in Europe and finally
an international patent on its formula. It shows that it intends to sell it,
many even, to earn a lot of money.
At the
beginning of any for-profit enterprise, which is obviously the case of this
one, there is the notion of investment, ie an initial expenditure of funds
intended to be made profitable by the future sales of the company product. The
patent is part of that of course, but the homologation dossier too.
So dear sir,
make the necessary investment for your product to be approved. Then I will be
happy to use it, but only outside agricultural areas, unless you do the
necessary so that this product can also be used in crops.
Unless
of course, that its toxicity, its residues or the risks that it presents for
health or environment block its homologation, or its possible future extension
of use to the cultures.
Even
if it's a natural product ...
