German press reports that Monsanto was convicted of using glyphosate in America. That’s incorrect: Monsanto was convicted because the company failed to warn the American public in time about the dangers of “Roundup”.
Roundup contains glyphosate as the herbicidal active ingredient. According to Wikipedia, the lethal dose in rats is up to > 5 g per kilogram body weight.13 An 80 kg (176 lb) man would have to consume 400 g (almost 1 lb) to kill himself. In order for glyphosate to be better absorbed by the plant, it needs a wetting agent. The wetting agent, tallowamine, which is only found in the original, American Roundup, has a lethal dose of about 0.9 g per kilogram of body weight. It’s thus about six times more toxic than glyphosate itself.
It’s obvious that excessive use doesn’t make sense because the weeds will become resistant as well, like penicillin. Since glyphosate has a slight antibiotic effect, any excessive use will destroy soil life as well. But this is probably the case with any fertilizer. Glyphosate is an alternative to plowing. This, in turn, is not optimal for soil life either. No system is without its disadvantages.
The German Railway uses tons of glyphosate to keep its tracks free of weeds. It’s the last approved highly effective herbicide. But a problem crops up even here: Applying glyphosate to sealed surfaces isn’t allowed. For example, it’s prohibited to apply glyphosate to paved cycling paths, which develop slits through which a lot of weeds can grow, especially on street corners, which become hazardous when it rains. This increases the risk of falls for cyclists who are on the road in an eco-friendly manner. In track beds, however, glyphosate is only sprayed on the stones. The ban on applying glyphosate to sealed surfaces doesn’t apply here.
The opponents of glyphosate don’t ask what to use instead when it’s prohibited. Since about 2010, when the Monsanto patents expired, it had “become” a poison. In mid-2017, it was discovered that the Deutsche Bahn is its biggest single customer in Germany. On South Tyrolean cycle paths, the agent is used to suppress Mexican grass that destroys the asphalt surface. The choice here is between using glyphosate and re-asphalting the paths every fifteen or eight years – without glyphosate. German vacationers can be seen taking pictures of the apple orchards there. Often, no green stems can be found under these trees. It’s all sprayed away with glyphosate.
Glyphosate hasn’t killed a single person yet in Germany; the risk of cancer is theorized here without one single piece of evidence, although many other substances are considered “probably carcinogenic” as well, and hundreds of people had died from the insecticide E605 in the past.
Psychological Tricks and Manipulations
The following is an example of the methods being currently applied. Science is being misused since valid scientific results are mixed with opinions and psychological tricks. This can be seen in the case of the environmental protection association “Bund e.V.” when it discusses the subject “glyphosate” a.k.a. “Roundup”. The difference isn’t quite clear, which is probably intentional.
The Bund e.V. writes (April 2019):
»What is glyphosate? Glyphosate is the world’s best-selling weed killer and a so-called “total herbicide”. It kills any plant that has not been genetically engineered to survive its use as a herbicide.«
That’s not correct: plants do exist that are not genetically manipulated and don’t react to it.
»Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in Germany and the world; it is used on 40 percent of Germany’s arable land.«
That’s correct. But the argument implies that only farmers use this herbicide. It fails to mention that others like Deutsche Bahn is using it to keep the tracks clear.
The statement that glyphosate is the most commonly used herbicide has “wicked industry” undertones. Since glyphosate is the last cheap herbicide ever approved, it should come as no surprise that it’s the most widely used. The passage implies that real alternatives are available, which isn’t correct.
»70 percent of Germans are in favor of a ban on glyphosate. It can be detected in the urine of over 70 percent of Germans.«
Prevailing opinion is of no relevance whatsoever for the evaluation. In a technically oriented society, decisions must be based on facts that represent the best compromise. The argument that 70% of all Germans would be against glyphosate is therefore a pseudo-argument. Glyphosate has not been detectable for a long time, only its degradation product AMPA. It’s a cleaner as well, and a drug against osteoporosis. False reports are thus disseminated in order to argue with public opinion.
Urine is relatively rich in phosphorus. The first synthesis of phosphorus took place with urine when alchemists wanted to produce gold. They discovered the element phosphorus. In AMPA, the “P” stands for phosphorus. This indicates that something incorrect may have been measured here since micro traces of a simple phosphorus compound are supposed to have been detected in urine with its inherently high phosphorus content.
»The German authorities lack the necessary critical distance to the pesticide manufacturers.«
The line of argument against glyphosate was duly explained. It starts with “...it kills every plant that hasn’t been genetically engineered to resist it...”, which is incorrect. Anyone who sprays a cactus can test this. Exactly these people are accusing the German authorities of “failing to maintain a critical distance to the manufacturers”. Glyphosate is a herbicide, not a pesticide.
»Scientists regard the negative influence on the fertility of people who come into active or passive contact with the glyphosate-containing pesticide “Roundup” as conceivable.«
Which remedy do you mean: Roundup or glyphosate? American Roundup contains relatively toxic tallow amine, the European variety does not. Everything is used interchangeably.
At the same time, glyphosate “mutates” into a contact poison. What’s more: What kind of “scientist” does Bund. e.V. mean? Even a social scientist may think something like this is possible.
»Even the smallest amounts of a harmful substance can cause great damage; especially substances that have an influence on the endocrine system«
Correct: The endocrine system is at risk. This is especially true for children because they’re particularly at risk for everything.
1 Why doesn’t the federal government take action against soy products containing hormones? Causalities can be proven here: Zoos had problems with their offspring until they stopped using soy.
2 The sentence is kept general and the statement is correct. Since glyphosate was previously reported on, the reader is supposed to conclude that glyphosate is an endocrine poison, but this isn’t the case. Manipulations like this are analyzed later in the book (see “Manipulation Instruments of a Democracy” et seq.).
Correct: As with conspiracy theories (see “Conspiracy Theories and Their Parallels”), a large part of these arguments are fear-mongering in order to stop the proper function of the brain.
In a similar vein, the Environmental Institute Munich e.V. writes (14/05/2019) on a social networking site:
»Glyphosate: Next defeat for Bayer-Monsanto
Bayer-Monsanto must pay more than $2 billion in damages to a married couple suffering from cancer who had used the glyphosate-containing agricultural poison Roundup for decades. This is already the third judgment in which a US court established a direct connection between the use of Roundup and cancer of the plaintiffs.
Another 13,400 or so similar lawsuits are still pending in the USA. In Germany, meanwhile, glyphosate is still allowed to continue to be used in agriculture and private gardens.«
Again, “glyphosate” and “Roundup” are used synonymous. Whether an American judgment is comparable to a European judgment cannot be determined a priori because the legal