Eden Research Share Discussion Threads

[supersonico] 20/7/2018 11:38

Thanks Investing..

I hope your right.

[investingisatrickygame] 20/7/2018 11:36

Both of these are of 3 hours ago

Eden Research plc Retweeted Sumi Agro France

The risk of #botrytis is growing each week in France according to Eden's partner @SumiAgroFrance and their excellent predictive model made from BSV data and OAD Promété; #biocontrol #vines #Mevalone #Sustaine


AND

Eden Research plc Retweeted Nathan Gaborieau

Our partner SumiAgro France helping growers and wine producers to be vigilant in the fight against botrytis with Eden's Mevalone: "Now it will be necessary to be vigilant# Mevalone with #biocontrol the 1st anti Botrytis #biocontrol with terpenes and curative action!!🍇" #sustaine


Forget the last 5 years and the recent spurious comments by others. Eden may have historically been delayed, but if the new Chairman (ex Bayer) is true to his 'in short order', that is all over and the deal announcements due are going to be delivered

[supersonico] 20/7/2018 10:27

I have that's why I'm asking as I'm being blocked at the same time we both seem to be attracting dismissive comments from other lands.

I must be being such a nuisance with my challenging opinions.. I should just swallow all the 5 years of incongruence so not to upset the shelf life in korte volgorde narrative.

[investingisatrickygame] 20/7/2018 09:46

Take a look at Eden Research plc (@edenresearch):

[supersonico] 20/7/2018 08:26

Investing,

Eden today tweeted a link by Nathan Gaborieau of Sumiagro.

If you have access could you post the link.

Thanks

[supersonico] 19/7/2018 18:42

Without Delay...Lol



La lettre d'information botrytis n°5

[supersonico] 19/7/2018 16:33

Investing,

Agreed probably not unless it does have some connection. .

The way the TT and Bayer delays have run in parallel suggest to me there could possibly be some relationship between them which may be Patent related or something we have not been made aware of yet or nothing more than coincidence.

But the statement behind 'in short order' suggests to me that plans are being made for those separate strands to be presented in a coordinated manner.

If that's the case I ask myself ...Why would separate companies do that??

[investingisatrickygame] 19/7/2018 16:13

Super

"But the shelf life tests could throw my calculations right out."

Agreed, but that would have no bearing on 'ISO' for Bayer animal health, Sipcam co-encapsulation and Sipcam options (various) which I believe expire on the 31st December 2018 and which the Company said at the AGM would be notified to the market at various times leading up to the end of the year.

With all this due to break are institutional investors now sat on the side lines ready and waiting? Who knows!

[supersonico] 19/7/2018 15:31

On 16 July, MP Marie-France Lohro registered a resolution on the creation of a commission of inquiry on natural wine on the presidency of the National Assembly.
[...] It is still appropriate today to listen to the claims of wine producers, and more particularly of natural wines. In fact, there is no legislation today that defines them. The definitions are multiple, which does not protect the 500 French winemakers considered as natural producers. It is in the will to protect and encourage those actors who work in respect for the environment and work for the richness of our soil, that we propose the creation of a commission of inquiry for the precise definition of what a natural wine.

[supersonico] 19/7/2018 14:28

Afternoon Norhtwick,

The only positive is that every day that news does not come we get closer to discovering what 'in short order' (ISO) actually means.

We already Know that 'in the coming months' means 5 years.. so ISO appears to be longer than a month and less than 5 years.

But the shelf life tests could throw my calculations right out.

[northwick] 19/7/2018 14:06

Good afternoon SuperA lot was promised by the company at the last 2017 Agm and more so this year but so far nothing has been delivered. The only positive has been recent directors buying which the markets appears to have ignored it.Wonder when Eden will start to deliver? any views/opinions would be welcomed?

[supersonico] 19/7/2018 13:40

Coming up to one month of 'in short order'.

And nothing has happened.

Well there's a surprise.

More Shelf life tests I assume.

Incongruence PLC

[supersonico] 19/7/2018 10:11

GO-E found alive on promo info Sipcam SPAIN





Fungicide composed of three terpenes with phytosanitary activity, eugenol, geraniol and thymol, formulated with the innovative and exclusive GO-ETM encapsulation technology, highly effective in the control of numerous fungi, including botrytis and powdery mildew, leaving no residue in the grape nor in wine.
Many of the terpenes produced by plants are the main constituents of essential oils and possess extraordinary properties. The use of these in agriculture has been limited commercially due to its volatility, phytotoxicity and lack of solubility. The GO-ETM encapsulation technology allows the use of terpenes in a safe and environmentally friendly manner, significantly increasing their effectiveness and presenting a low risk of resistance.
……………………………………………………

@Glyphosate: France in charge of the re-authorisation dossier at European #ttps://t.co/iqvLEd2eXY … level


France would be the next European state in charge of the next evaluation of glyphosate, its authorization coming to term 2022!
Generations Futures calls on the competent authorities to do everything possible to improve this assessment of glyphosate, after the many criticisms that the organization has made against the work of the German Agency and EFSA last year.
The glyphosate having been re-authorized for 5 years at the end of 2017 the question of the instruction of a next file of request for re-authorization arises already. To this end, the European Commission has approached France as a future Member State in charge of evaluation, with no less than 3 co-evaluators: Denmark, Hungary and the Netherlands. This Commission proposal will be presented tomorrow to the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals and Food and Animal Feed (Scopaff) for discussion.

Generations Futures welcomes this likely future change of rapporteur state positively, as our association had criticized the work of the previous rapporteur state, Germany (see our reports 1 and 2 criticizing the evaluation and complaint by NGOs including ours) .
Générations Futures asks the French authorities to take into account its demands so that the dangerousness of glyphosate is finally evaluated in a correct way.
Thus we ask that all the scientific data published be really present in the file and taken into account for evaluation according to the weight of the evidence brought and without retaining the only studies following the so-called 'good laboratory practices'.
Similarly, the use of historical control data (from past studies) should not be allowed to disqualify scientific discoveries (except rare major failure of a study).
Finally, we recall here that the first intention of Regulation 1107/2009 is an exclusion of active ingredients certainly or probably CMR according to an approach based on the dangerousness of the substances (exclusion criteria) and not on the evaluation of their risk (this evaluation risk is then realized on domestically formulated products). It is this approach that we want to see implemented by France in its future work, that Générations Futures will follow with the greatest attention.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Rapid rise in toxic load for bees revealed by analysis of pesticide use in Great Britain.



Abstract

A strong argument can be made that the European Union has the most rigorous regulatory system for pesticides in the world, and that modern pesticide use poses fewer environmental threats than older regimes. Nevertheless, the impacts of pesticides on bees and other non-target organisms are much debated in Europe as elsewhere. Here we document changing patterns of pesticide use in arable and horticultural crops in Great Britain from 1990 to 2015. The weight of pesticides used has approximately halved over this period, but in contrast the number of applications per field nearly doubled. The total potential kill of honeybees (the total number of LD50 doses applied to the 4.6 million hectares of arable farmland in Great Britain each year) increased six-fold to approximately 3 × 1016 bees, the result of the increasing use of neonicotinoids from 1994 onwards which more than offset the effect of declining organophosphate use. It is important to stress that this does not mean that this number of bees will be killed, and also to acknowledge that our simple analysis does not take into account many factors such as differences in persistence, and timing and mode of application of pesticides, which will affect actual exposure of non-target organisms. Nonetheless, all else being equal, these data suggest that the risk posed by pesticides to non-target insects such as bees, other pollinators and natural enemies of pests, has increased considerably in the last 26 years.

[supersonico] 19/7/2018 06:55

Alain Deloire Professor of Viticulture @Charles Sturt University

18/7/18
‏
'The 2018 grapevine Downy Mildew story in France continues with the development of Mildew on young leaves from laterals and with Rot Brun'

'A lot to learn about grapevine Downy Mildew in 2018 in France. Here an example of healthy canopy/leaves while clusters were damaged on Merlot'

#Grapevine Downy Mildew on clusters of Shyraz (first photo, dry fruits) & on Merlot (last two photos). Symptoms are dry berries resulting of early contamination from flowering, and symptoms of Rot Brun (purple colour of berry skin & dehydration), visible before veraison
.....................…………………………………………………..



Toxic substances in tampons and sanitary napkins
The Safety Agency recommends that manufacturers eliminate these chemical compounds with carcinogenic or endocrine disrupting effects.

[supersonico] 18/7/2018 13:45

TPI.

OK lets stop playing the man as that's a pointless waste of both our time .

What's your opinion on Eden Research?

[supersonico] 18/7/2018 11:27

Endocrine Disrupters: The delays continue, as the EU Commission consults on a new EDC framework

[supersonico] 18/7/2018 10:00

Your sounding Clumsy and very ill informed TPI and your timing is terrible.

Clumsy

[supersonico] 18/7/2018 07:48

Do some detailed background research on EDEN yourself TPI and you will realise Investing is on to a winner here.


Clumsy

[the patriotic irishman] 18/7/2018 07:14

jeez I'm surprised to see investingisatrickygame (2017andonwards over on LSE) is still around given his track record of picking and promoting liquidated companies

Strategic Natural Resources
New World Oil
Xcite Energy
Berkeley Mineral Resources

however it comes as no surprise to read he is still putting himself forward as the go to 'company liaison officer' for retail shareholders or selling himself as the demigod 'sector expert'


I wonder if he gets secretly paid for publicly promoting EDEN to retail investors just like he did for that busted flush SNRP 🤔


yes it never ceases to amaze me with AIM stocks what you can haphazardly stumble upon on the internet when doing some detailed background research


leopards and spots

100p soon 🤣

[supersonico] 18/7/2018 00:06

Farmers' Pesticides and Cancers: The Escape forwards to Irrefutability (Part One)



The fact that pesticides cause cancer among farmers is now the subject of a scientific consensus, legally enshrined in the fact that one of them, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, is classified in France as a professional disease. farmers, caused by exposure to pesticides. How many farmers are the victims? Curiously, INSERM, consulted by a French interministerial mission, recently declared itself unable to quantify the number [1]. How is it that we are still there, even for this disease whose link with the agricultural professions is one of the best documented? To understand it, it is instructive to return to the history of research on the health of farmers ... and its progressive drifts!

Concerns from retrospective case-control studies
Research on the delayed effects of pesticides on farmers took off in the 1970s, following the awareness of the effects of their accumulation in the environment, especially for organochlorine insecticides. Since this was an after-the-fact analysis of the impacts of products that have been used for a long time, the first epidemiological studies on this subject were retrospective case-control studies [2]. This type of survey is known to be potentially affected by Many biases, but as it gives results quickly, it is a normal step to begin to identify a new health problem.
These early case-control studies quickly revealed that farmers were overrepresented among the victims of a fairly large number of pathologies, mainly cancers and neuro-vegetative diseases. Unfortunately, these retrospective studies do not accurately calculate the number of excess cases in exposed populations. In addition, it is difficult to reconstruct, sometimes long after, the list of products to which the farmers studied were exposed.

Prospective cohorts: reassuring results
These first disturbing results have led to the creation of cohorts, that is to say large populations of farmers recruited while still in good health, to measure all the health events affecting them, and to monitor their use. of pesticides. These cohorts enable so-called prospective studies: they are much more expensive than retrospective studies because they require the collection of a huge amount of information, and it takes more than 10 years for them to start producing data. significant results. But they are much more reliable, and they alone can calculate incidences (number of new cases each year) and deaths (number of deaths caused each year) among farmers, and therefore compare them to the general population. The two largest cohorts on this topic are:

The AHS (Agricultural Health Study) Cohort in the USA, established in 1993, which monitors the health of approximately 90,000 farmers (pesticide applicators, and their wives)
The Agrican cohort in France, created in 2005, is even larger since it recruited around 180,000 people, a very significant sample of the French agricultural population. In addition, the Agrican cohort also has the advantage of including a significant proportion of non-pesticide farmers, which could lend itself to the study of potential confounding factors (ie risk factors). other than pesticides, but also associated with agricultural work).
These prospective cohorts finally made it possible to calculate for farmers standardized incidences and mortality, ie compared to those of the general population. These studies should therefore normally be used to calculate the number of excess cases among farmers. For example, a standardized incidence of 1.1 among farmers means that there were 10% more new cases of the disease in excess of them, compared to the usual number of cases in the general population. The results of the two cohorts are extremely consistent ... and should be reassuring, if we look at the traditional indicators of these standardized incidences and mortalities:

With respect to mortality, there is no standardized mortality of farmers above normal for any form of cancer. On the contrary, their mortality is significantly lower than that of the general population for most types of tumors, the others simply having normal mortalities.
For the impacts, the results for farmers are overall a little worse than for the mortalities, but overall are very reassuring. Only 3 cancer sites show significant excesses among them: cancers of the lip, prostate, and multiple myeloma. We will come back in another article on these 3 particular cases, but let's start with a freeze-frame on the overall results: for about 1/3 of the studied locations (essentially cancers of the respiratory and digestive tracts, and of the bladder), the standardized incidence of pesticide users is significantly lower than normal; for nearly 2/3 of the other locations, it shows no significant difference with the general population. Moreover, these insignificant results are most often less than 1, and with relatively narrow confidence intervals, it is therefore unlikely that they hide much of the effects of pesticides that would have escaped the statistical "filter" of as much as here again the results of Agrican and AHS are very consistent.
The results of these cohort studies, which should confirm or not the results obtained by the case-control studies, could thus have been considered reassuring: if we stick to the usual interpretation of standardized incidences and mortality, there are only 3 forms of cancer for which there is a significant excess in them, and this excess is only observed for incidence, not for mortality.

The effect "healthy worker": statistical truth, or loophole?
Curiously (or not), these results have in fact been very little highlighted in official bibliographic reviews and meta-analyzes, such as the collective expertise of INSERM 2013, without the reason for this reservation being expressed very clearly. . In fact, it is to this day the interdepartmental mission on compensation for pesticides already cited [3] that led INSERM to explain in the most transparent way the reasons for its reluctance: the way of life of farmers is associated with several protective factors against cancers. They smoke less than the general population, and often have a more balanced diet, which may explain their low incidence of respiratory and digestive cancers. In addition, it seems that we observe a healthy worker effect, already observed for other occupations involving regular physical exercise: the health of these professionals is often better than average. Consequently, INSERM warns that these favorable effects could obscure the negative effects of pesticides: it is possible that some cancers favored by pesticides will go unnoticed when farmers are compared to the general population, because the way of life healthier farmers would compensate for this effect. That's why INSERM warns against using too much "Simplistic" standardized implications, that a normal incidence would show the lack of effect of pesticides.

This reluctance of epidemiologists is entirely acceptable, but it means that standardized incidence and mortality, which they continue to calculate unmistakably in their publications, are not valid indicators. It is therefore a little surprising that this problem has not yet been addressed, while the first syntheses on prospective cohorts date back some ten years. It is common in other areas to correct the incidence depending on the consumption of tobacco or alcohol, several studies on farmers have done so. In addition, the more general objection to the "healthy worker" effect could be mitigated by developing standardized impacts, where the reference population would no longer be the general population, but the general labor force: but we did not so far no proposal from INSERM in this sense.


Moreover, the reasoning of INSERM has a consequence that should be verifiable in the Agrican cohort: if, for certain cancers, there is a "healthy worker" effect that masks the harmful effect of pesticides, in this case the the incidence of non-pesticide farmers should be lower than that of pesticide users: indeed, the so-called "healthy worker effect" should be exerted in these non-users of pesticides, as in conventional farmers, but without being diminished by the contrary effect of pesticides. However, the last assessment of the incidence of cancer in Agrican [4] does not demonstrate it at all, it is even a reverse trend that we observe [5]!

Fig 1: Standardized incidence of cancers (all types) among farmers and agricultural workers in the Agrican cohort, based on their use of pesticides (the "users of other pesticides" are people who have only used products veterinarians, or pesticides for the maintenance of uncultivated areas). The dots represent the average value, the vertical lines the 95% confidence interval. The authors did not make a statistical analysis to verify if the differences between these 3 populations are significant, but we note that the 95% confidence intervals (vertical lines) of pesticide users and non-users of pesticides do not do not overlap. It is therefore likely that this difference is significant ... but against the non-users of pesticides, in which cancers are more common!

Certainly, when looking in detail, by type of cancer, the confidence intervals found for non-pesticide farmers are too high to draw reliable conclusions. But, in any case, there is currently no evidence to support statistically the hypothesis that factors protecting farmers from cancer would be strong enough to mask a harmful effect of pesticides.

The flight forward towards the irrefutability
Epidemiologists have therefore rejected the use of standardized incidence and mortality to estimate whether or not pesticides cause cancer among farmers. They have a reasonable objection (the effect "healthy worker") but whose veracity has not been proven to date. Instead of finally tackling the statistical proof of the existence of this "healthy worker" effect, by comparing farmers users and non-users of pesticides to the general labor force, recent studies have rather moved aside , focusing now on comparisons between farmers, depending on the crops they produce. Several recent publications on the Agrican cohort highlight significant differences in the incidence of some cancers, depending on the crops produced or animals raised on the farm. Since each pesticide is generally only used on a fairly narrow range of crops, these results are generally interpreted as indicators that would identify the specific pesticides that would cause the excess of cancers. This is of course an interesting track, but there are still two rather troublesome gaps common to these studies:

They are no longer comparable with the general population: it is of interest to know, for example, that there are significantly more prostate cancers in farmers growing grasslands than in farmers growing crops. not, as observed in a recent Agrican publication [6]. But it still does not tell us if farmers with grasslands have more prostate cancers than the general population.
These comparisons between agricultural production systems distinguish a fairly large number of crops and / or animal species: in the example just cited, the authors distinguished the incidence of prostate cancer associated with 13 different cultures. This is typically an analysis potentially affected by the well-known effect of "multiple comparisons": the risk of obtaining a statistically significant result, but simply due to chance, when many statistical tests are performed. In this case, with 13 comparisons, an elementary probability calculation shows us that this risk is 49% (ie 1- 0.9513) [7]. A result of this type should therefore be considered as a serious alert that to one of these two conditions:

Or its significant character remains confirmed after an additional statistical test to eliminate the effect "multiple comparison" (Bonferroni test or FDR procedure). However, none of these tests were performed in this study.
Or we see a result of the same type, for the same culture and the same cancer, in another cohort. To our knowledge, this link between prostate cancer and grassland has not been observed anywhere else. In addition, she is associated in Agrican with an excess of prostate cancer among cattle farmers (for obvious reason: they are more likely than other farmers to cultivate grasslands). However, the American AHS cohort shows no significant link between cattle and prostate cancer. [I]
With this type of study comparing the risks according to the productions, one thus accumulates significant results, perhaps due to chance, and never confirmed, but which maintain the suspicions on a harmful effect of the pesticides, even when one do not know if the excess observed for certain crops corresponds to a risk higher than that of the general population. The field of possible effects of pesticides is therefore increasingly restricted, to a few localizations of cancers and some agricultural productions, with scientific arguments more and more ambiguous.

From the scientific hypothesis to the irrefutable consensus
As we have seen throughout this brief history of epidemiological studies, the likely field for the possible effects of pesticides on farmers' cancers has steadily declined over time:
Early case-control studies suggested perceptible adverse effects at the level of all farmers, for a dozen types of cancer
Prospective cohorts do not show serious (but not completely consistent) evidence for three types of cancers: lip, prostate and multiple myeloma. However, as we will see in a forthcoming article, the recent studies on these three cancers are not intended to clarify the uncertainties concerning them: explanation of the discrepancy between incidence and mortality, cause of the excess of incidences observable also for non-users of pesticides.
The trend is now to compare subpopulations of farmers, which are supposed to demonstrate the risk of pesticides associated with these crops, with methods that are more and more statistically questionable, and without any comparison with the general population.

The level of evidence required to suggest a carcinogenic effect of pesticides has therefore steadily declined. The results suggesting their safety (a hypothesis that is not extravagant, since it is only a confirmation of the validity of the approval procedures) are systematically rejected, with objections admittedly admissible, but whose epidemiologists never demonstrate validity:
Standardized normalized or even less than 1 incidences are discarded, perhaps biased by a mysterious "healthy worker" effect, admittedly plausible, but that epidemiologists regularly invoke without ever trying to correct or even measure it
The absence of a difference between user and non-pesticide farmers is not commented on, or even interpreted as demonstrating "contamination" of non-pesticide users, again without demonstration (see next article).

This evolution of the discourses reflects the drift of the epistemological status of the hypothesis of a carcinogenic effect of pesticides on farmers: it has progressively passed from the status of scientific working hypothesis to that of irrefutable consensus. However, contrary to common sense, this term of irrefutable is not flattering. Since the work of K. Popper, we consider that the main difference between true science and pseudo-science is its refutability: a really scientific hypothesis is a hypothesis for which we can imagine an experiment to refute it. The initial hypothesis that pesticides cause cancer in farmers is a scientific hypothesis: it can be disproved (or validated) by measuring cancer incidence among farmers who use pesticides, and comparing it to rest of the population. But we have seen that this experience leans rather for the refutation. The new hypothesis, according to which the harmful effect of pesticides could be masked by a "healthy worker" effect, is also a scientific hypothesis: it can be refuted (or validated) by two means:

Comparing the incidence of cancer among farmers to that of other occupations involving moderate physical activity
Or by comparing the incidence of cancer among pesticide users and non-users
Now none of these demonstrations have been made today, the refutability of this hypothesis remains entirely theoretical.
In order for farmer cohort studies to regain a truly scientific status, it is high time for epidemiologists to define what criteria they would be prepared to accept that the incidence or mortality of a type of cancer in farmers can be considered normal. This is all the more necessary since the precautionary principle requires defining the criteria according to which a technology can be considered harmless. It is precisely the work of the health agencies, to take responsibility for saying, from the experimental results, that a product can be considered as not dangerous. If the researchers do not decide on rules allowing them to make the same decision (which is understandable, after all it is not really their job), it is necessary that it is the agencies which seize this expert work on the results of epidemiological studies, in order to draw clear and operational conclusions, rather than to extend to infinity the domain of suspicions and uncommitted hypotheses.
In addition, INSERM publications on the Agrican cohort sacrifice to the sinfulness of research: the focus on statistically significant results [8]. The mass of insignificant results is not the subject of any additional analysis (except meta-analyzes to try to make them significant ...), whereas the notion of "non-significant" result actually covers two very different realities:
Results that are really "insignificant" because their wide confidence interval precludes any possibility of interpretation
"Quasi-significant" results, of which the critical probability (probability that they are due to chance) is barely greater than 5%, and whose proof value is therefore barely lower than those who obtained the Grail of the stamp " statistically significant.

Fig 2: Examples of standardized incidences obtained for 3 forms of cancer in the last balance sheet of the Agrican cohort for farmers who use pesticides. The dots represent the average value, the vertical lines the 95% confidence interval. In scientific publications, the analysis focuses on the significant results (whose confidence interval does not fall within the value 1 in red), especially if they are greater than 1, because they are the ones that demonstrate a connection between exposure to pesticides and cancer. The insignificant results are very little commented, while they have very variable values ​​in health expertise: in the example given, it is impossible to conclude anything about the incidence of liver cancer because the width its confidence interval is much greater than its deviation from 1. On the other hand, the result concerning rectal cancer, although not significant, is much more relevant in terms of health expertise, because the value 1 is very close to the upper limit of its confidence interval. A simple complementary analysis would make it possible to calculate the probability that there is an excess of rectal cancer, but it is obvious that this probability is only very little greater than 5% (the usual threshold of significance). This type of analysis, on the power of non-significant results, would be necessary in health expertise to prioritize research, and is not carried out by researchers.
The distinction between these two types of results would be important to guide future research. On the example we saw in Figure 2, it is likely that the uncertainty will further decrease on the results of rectal cancer, along cohort follow-up, until reaching a level where we can conclude without much risk of error that there is no particular risk for this cancer. In contrast, for liver cancer, the number of cases currently observed is too low, and as a result the range of uncertainty is so wide that it is unlikely that the Agrican cohort alone will achieve results. clearer in the future. An analysis of the statistical power of Agrican's non-significant results would therefore be essential, even if it is not in the habits of research (but it is perfectly within the purview of the health agencies).

While waiting for this eventual takeover by ANSES, we are witnessing this strange paradox: while France has the largest prospective cohort of farmers in the world with Agrican, its decisions on the recognition of occupational diseases do not take into account no account of the results of this cohort: none of the only three types of cancer for which Agrican provides warning signs is currently classified as professional. On the other hand, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is included in the tables of occupational diseases, while in Africa Agriculture gives no indication of this. This subject alone deserves a second article because it illustrates other scientific problems not solved by the epidemiologists' approach. It will also be an opportunity to examine the strength of an argument often presented as determining by opponents of pesticides: the cases of relations with dose effect, between exposure to pesticides and the risk of certain cancers.