Pesticides like Glyphosate keep our fields free from weeds but their impact on human health and the environment is controversially discussed. Businesses, farmers, environmentalists and citizens have voiced conflicting opinions about how to move forward.

- Do you think there should be a compromise between the involved interest groups?

- How do you think a compromise that satisfies everyone could be found?

Share your idea

Please try to be as concrete as possible when answering the questions, the more in depth you go the more impactful your ideas will be!


No there should not be a compromise, the situation should be done “by the book”, pesticides go through multiple studies by the producer, dedicated EU agency and if possible some third parties, I would prefer they went through a similar process as medications go through. Research data should be public and always put up for peer review. Pesticides that pass safety limits should be allowed for use, they then have to go through continuous observation on their effects in widespread use, if problems arise then they need to be studied and adressed. We should not ban chemicals just because some emotional people think all chemicals are bad
Vote up!

Votes: 72

You voted ‘up’

I think it will be difficult to find a compromise, but the questions of human health and ecology are surely the most important indeed we talk about the life of plants, animals and humans. In fact the question should not arise, life is surely the most important answer besides, there are many clean and intelligent solutions. We need to move forward without lobbies like Monsanto if we want our children to live in a world that has not been too rotten by previous generations. The future is now and ecology is the future.

Votes: 73

An urgent shift towards Organic Agriculture is needed (!) The real Compromise should be met between generations now and generations in the future. Which World are we leaving to our future generations? A World where all soils are depleted, all pollinators gone and seed diversity genetically deteriorated? Or a World where agriculture and food consumption found sustainable synergies to keep the land , the soils, ecosystems and humans healthy and alive?

Votes: 73

I think we have to take over control about the quantity in terms of glyphosate or bisphenol A put or any toxic products put out of hazard rea. concentration must not be over a certain value. Pesticids manufacturers ( Monsanto and others..) must invest more than 20% in their R&D department as to create organic Bio-Pesticides. It means: - metabolism safe which can't trigger toxic metabolits - a thérapeutical gap extended - toxicity studies demonstrating non-invasiv effect, con cancérigène effect For that the Bio-Pesticides must be analogue with some chemical human products, for example an Bio-Pesticides (B-P) which would have a chemical structure near of keratin, or Hyaluronic acid or urea. Thus, their elimination won't cause any adverse effect level. The NOAEL would be better.

Votes: 78

I do believe there should be a compromise in the industry as I do believe that majority of farmers are taking the cheaper option. Very often the cheaper option is not the best option to opt for. Glyphosate is a dangerous chemical that has been found to have harmful effects on wildlife and humans. In order to reduce this effect farmers need to find a safer alternative. There are ways which you could use to solve this problem which does not require using a pesticide at all. However, it would be a much more difficult job for farmers. If they insist on using pesticides they should use pesticides which do not contain Glyphosate or the likes of this chemical.

Votes: 78