This is just like the gun grabbers: blaming the tool instead of the users.
I've relied upon glyphosate for our native plant restoration project for 30 years. We took a catastrophically overgrown property with a 200-year weed history from 60 remaining species to now 400 plant species. I never could have done it without glyphosate. It would have been impossible. On 14 acres, I use only a couple of quarts per year in foliar sprays, most of which is out of hand squirt bottles that can put down a spot as small as a centimeter.
Glyphosate may be the only way we can restore a sane redwood stand density because of the way the species sprouts from the root crown. Although I do burn down stumps, that doesn't get the root sprouts. Experiments in sprout control are ongoing, but the results are promising.
Antibiotics are not good for you, but without them many would die. It's the same with herbicides. After a treatment, we should inoculate with plants, seed, and mocroflora. Don't buy the lawyers' scam. It only feeds the big chemical companies with more toxic and patented alternatives.
Carry_Okie do you know if this process has a name?
1) New patented product developed
2) Product #1 released to market
3) Urge government ban on previous product once the patent expires
4) Develop new product for future patent coverage in the interim
5) Product #2 released to market
6) Urge a new government ban on product #1 w/ expired patent
7) Develop new product for future patent coverage in the interim
8) Product #3 released to market
9) Urge a new government ban on product #2 w/ expired patent
Rinse and repeat