*** INCOMPLETE: Make shorter

When you take a broad look at all the studies conducted on Glyphosate, you will realize that almost all studies made by independent researchers conclude that Glyphosate is indeed harmful and a hazard to human health.

Opposing those independent studies unfortunately stands an array of studies financed by the agro-chemical industry, often even featuring their own employees, that unsurprisingly say Glyphosate is not harmful.

The game the agriculture-chemical industry is playing is just the same the fossil-fuel industry did for decades to deny climate-change: they fund counter-studies with their own money that come up with the complete opposite what independent scientists found out. Then the industry can label the overall research on the topic as "non conclusive", "controversial" and with "no scientific consensus" making it sound like scientists would be in disarray over the issue and nothing would need to be done.

Which is rediculous, because even if it is not 100% sure that Glyphosate is dangerous, we still have a vorsorgeprinzip in the EU, which means that if its not undoubtedly agreed that a substance like Glyphosate is safe/harmless, it legally isn't allowed to be sold at all.

As we know now from Climate-change: 97% of the overall scientific community agreed climate change was real, while only 3% denied it. Still, the industry insisted for their profits that climate change was "controversial".
Just the same is going on with Glyphosate.

*** INCOMPLETE: Make firmer

Simply because Glyphosate = Big Money.

Companies like Monsanto are using this chemical for decades, despite strong evidence for its devastating health risks.
On top of that, the industry tries to denounciate and manipulate, deceive regulators and politicians by hiring PR and advertisement agencies, and creating bogus associations with misleading, intentionally "organic" or "concerned farmers" sounding names like the "European Crop Protection" who in reality are only tools Monsanto & co to represent their pesticide, herbicide and GMO interests in a "neutral" cover.
Monsanto alone makes more than 30% of their annual revenue from Glyphosate products.

Products that contain Glyphosate, like Monsanto's Round-up or similar Glyphosate products by BASF, etc are a huge cash cow for the industry.
Glyphosate is a main pillar for their profits and business model of selling the poison and poison-resident crops to farmers, and they are hell-bound on doing everything they can to protect those profits, may it be through lobbying, faking studies or influencing authorities and politicians with no interest to the public health.

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) bases its decision to not ban Glyphosate on "secret industry-funded studies" that are kept under wraps. Other studies that found Glyphosate risky and a health hazard, even by such prestigious institutions like the WHO's own International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), were systematically called "irrelevant" or simply ignored by the EFSA.
Those are all signs that the EFSA, under director Dr. Url (send him an email), is no longer working objectively and in accordance with its duty of consumer protection, but under direct influence of special interest groups.

That's why it is so hard for lawmakers to prohibit a chemical that's sternly toxic.

*** INCOMPLETE: Needs a shorter overview

Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the world today. Over 130 countries currently permit extensive use of the chemical. The US is the largest consumer, using approximately 20% of the world’s Roundup.[3] The latest reliable figures from the US Geological Survey record 280 million pounds of Roundup were used in 2012, nearly a pound for every American.[4] In 2013, gross profit of $371 million on crop chemicals including Roundup climbed 73% due to a 37% increase in sales. That same year Monsanto’s net income rose 22% to $1.48 billion.

via https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/monsantos-sealed-documents-reveal-truth-behind-roundups-toxicological-dangers

*** NEEDS AN ANSWER

Guardian Article, etc.. FAO infiltrated by industry, etc. Ask for a reform, investigation of the FAO board.

Actually, Glyphosate effectiveness is more and more conflicted by so called "super-weeds" which have adopted to the herbicide. Permaculture is a much better, and free, alternative which doesn't make farmers dependent on chemicals from Monsanto & co.

*** INCOMPLETE: Make more formal

No, because consequences to our whole society. Health risks.
- Farmers are the ones that produce the food for our society
- Their decisions whether to use risky chemicals or not propagates through our whole society and influences the health of everyone of us , our health system, medical care and social security
- therefore this is a decision that can not only be made by the farmers.

( besides, they are the ones who are in the front line of getting intoxicated and should be the most altered to Glyphosate )

*** INCOMPLETE: Make shorter

Glyphosate will be used even more that now already as farmers need to use more of the chemical to get the same effect as previously due to the rise of so called super weeds. Profits of Monsanto, BASF & co will rise, but concentration of Glyphosate in our environment will rise.

These days, farmers already have to use an ever increasing amount of Glyphosate because of plants resistance form the poison (so called superweeds). This also means that more and more Glyphosate will end up in our water, food and the human body. Possible near term consequences for our society could be ...

Those rapidly increasing superweeds primarily appear at places where GMO crops (like GT corn, GT ..) has been planted, and the proposed solution is. most ironically, to use more mechanical weed removal tools to counter this.
This means that in the end once all weeds become resistant to Glyphosate, all we did is make our farmers and society dependent from big agro-chemical's genetically modified, heavily patented crop products.

A 2015 study conducted in Germany found that already 70% of the tested population had Glyphosate in their body. We are going towards a future where close to 100% of the population will have Glyphosate in their blood.
The long-term effects on the general population are yet unknown, but steeply rising rates of cancer and neurotoxic diseases could be among the many consequences. An MIT scientist even suggests that Glyphosate could lead to high rates of autism in children by 2025.
This could mean health problems for generations of EU citizens to come and also severe financial bearings on the public health fund.

*** ANSWER NEEDED WITH SOME EXAMPLES:
like DB to remove all organic matter from their train rails.

*** ANSWER NEEDED WITH MORE EXAMPLES:

Better methods for weeds removal:
Instead of using absurd quantities of poison when we could as well use more advanced mechanical weed removal from the start.

Changing your profile picture sends a powerful, wide-spread message across your social network (often more than a single post could reach) and lets your friends know where you stand, and what Glyphosate is.
Please consider changing your profile picture to on of the below:
& write in a comment to your photo the website link: anti-glypo.org

March Against Monsanto:
https://www.facebook.com/MarchAgainstMonstanto

How to change your Profile Picture on:

List of local NGOs the user can join.

Please like other people's posts & tweets as well !

How to change your Profile Picture on:

We need to build public awareness for the topic. Big agriculture companies try everything to downplay the risk to protect their profits.

Government undecided, spd doesn't want it

Merkel / CSU wants it because it would make Bayer more valuable, otherwise Bayer might not expand to the American Market in which Monsanto is strong with GMO & chemicals. If Bayer takes over Monsanto, it's likely that Bayer will also try everything to level all their power & lobbying tools in Berlin & Brussels to bring GMOs & co to their european market.

If Bayer succeeds, we are facing a giant, international mega-corporation with total control over nearly everything we eat: the biggest seed company and pesticide company all rolled into one. This would spell disaster for our bees and vulnerable farmers. It'll usher in a new era of sterile crops soaked in cancer-causing pesticides. That's why we need your help to stop the deal today. Will you chip in $1 to stop the Monsanto-Bayer mega-merger? If the deal is successful, this mega corporation will completely dominate the agricultural market, giving it almost total control of the most important aspects of our food supply. And at the centre of Bayer and Monsanto's corporate agribusiness model is the indiscriminate, widespread use of pesticides linked to the massive global bee die-off.

Taken form "SumOfUs.org"
https://actions.sumofus.org/a/we-have-to-stop-this-bee-killing-mega-merger?akid=19542.11407342.pkzETn&donation_band=nondonor&rd=1&source=fwd&t=1