Extract
[...] This debate is at a stalemate and leads to a real 'war of scientific studies' that is not about to end on a scientific level until a political decision is made. - Who are the actors mobilized, with what arguments and what resources? To answer this question, we will distinguish six types of actors: citizens, associations, private companies, media, the political sector, and finally health institutions. Although we will analyze these categories separately and linearly, they coexist, interact, and mutually use each other. First, we have citizens, who can themselves be divided into two sub-groups. First, individuals against the ban on glyphosate. [...]
[...] While the International Research Centre for Cancer IRC, a branch of the WHO) has classified glyphosate as a 'probable carcinogen', and that 'glyphosate potentially dangerous [ . ] depending on exposure levels'. However, 'exposure is mainly through inhalation [ . ] and skin contact', in this way, it is then 'unlikely' that the pesticide is dangerous for the population that consumes it through food. It would only be for farmers who do not protect themselves sufficiently during the use of the product. However, this debate is currently fueled by the doubt that all scientific institutions have about the studies conducted on the danger of glyphosate. [...]
[...] Indeed, politicians are divided between their electorates (who can be both for and against) but also by the information and studies they have through lobbyists, health agencies and media that can then be contradictory between them. Finally, our last actors are of course the health institutions - WHO, IARC, specialized agencies, FAO, etc. - as we have seen in the previous question, these institutions do not have a homogeneous response to the ban or not of glyphosate. On the contrary, they are themselves in an impasse. Overall, they all put together the fact that the pesticide can be dangerous if the exposure is strong, however, the question of risk changes on the institutions. [...]
[...] Doc - European Citizen Initiative (ICE) 'STOP Glyphosate' . one million signatures reached , source : https://solidaires.org/initiative-Citoyenne-Europenne-ICE-STOP-Glyphosate-plus-que-3-semaines-pour. Doc - Glyphosate: Monsanto may have manipulated scientific publications, source: Les Échos October 2007. Doc - Tense exchange between Macron and a farmer on glyphosate, source: Huffington Post, 24/02/2018. Doc - Glyphosate: how to navigate the war of scientific studies, source: L'Express, 09/11/2017. - What is the scientific debate around glyphosate? To begin with, we will base ourselves on documents 3 and 5. [...]
[...] Although the media have their arguments for or against the ban on glyphosate depending on the editorial line of the media, the media are more of a resource for the other actors mentioned earlier and to become so. The media are a channel of communication thus allowing visibility of the opinions, ideas, initiatives of each of these actors. Thus, our various documents come from and mention different media: AFP, Le Monde, Forbes, Huffington Post, Les Échos, l'Express. Citizens, companies, NGOs, politicians, health agencies use them, as a mode of action to deploy and communicate their own arguments on glyphosate and then pesticides. In fifth place, we have the politicians. [...]
