Roundup probably causes cancer

[Jimmy Higgins]

I have ZERO intention of arguing reputability.

Reputation proceeds. I already gave info from VERY reputable sources, one from University of California. My jack trumps your 9. There's no discussing.

I never believe things through faith. So if you don't mind me sayin', I can see you're out of aces, For a taste of your whiskey, I'll give you some advice...

Perspicuo: I think you are missing the point. These products are persistent in our environment. They don't have to be poisonous to you personally to kill the environment they are polluting and indirectly kill you. For instance, we are seeing a massive decrease in Monarch butterflies. Now they can eat roundup maybe but it kills milkweed...their food in their entire range and they are dying off. While we may not need Monarch butterflies, they are just one species being decimated by this herbicide. It is the overall condition this corporation produces that is the problem, not one single herbicide or other product. It is a matter of around 19,000 Indian farmers' suicides this year. It does not kill directly but Monsanto kills people. Roundup is part of this toxic formula.

And if it is causing troubles with the ecosystem, those issues must be addressed, but we need empirical evidence to show it.

 

[Perspicuo]

I have ZERO intention of arguing reputability.

Reputation proceeds. I already gave info from VERY reputable sources, one from University of California. My jack trumps your 9. There's no discussing.

I never believe things through faith. So if you don't mind me sayin', I can see you're out of aces, For a taste of your whiskey, I'll give you some advice...

Perspicuo: I think you are missing the point. These products are persistent in our environment. They don't have to be poisonous to you personally to kill the environment they are polluting and indirectly kill you. For instance, we are seeing a massive decrease in Monarch butterflies. Now they can eat roundup maybe but it kills milkweed...their food in their entire range and they are dying off. While we may not need Monarch butterflies, they are just one species being decimated by this herbicide. It is the overall condition this corporation produces that is the problem, not one single herbicide or other product. It is a matter of around 19,000 Indian farmers' suicides this year. It does not kill directly but Monsanto kills people. Roundup is part of this toxic formula.

That is an excellent hypothesis!

The results are __________________________________ .

(insert results from reputable source)​

 

[Perspicuo]

http://www.compoundchem.com/2015/04/09/scientific-evidence/

 

[Will Wiley]

I remember I read something a few weeks ago that said the glyphosate in Roundup is fairly safe but the other chemicals in Roundup are dangerous. I'll have to see if I can find it again.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBQNNDrT-zM&feature=youtu.be&list=PLkzNnI-HeIhPmayedIPKMIF92BXJ7sGN1[/YOUTUBE]

One thousand times more!

"Ask the EPA for the raw data" Nothing more needs to be said

 

[arkirk]

Perspicuo: I think you are missing the point. These products are persistent in our environment. They don't have to be poisonous to you personally to kill the environment they are polluting and indirectly kill you. For instance, we are seeing a massive decrease in Monarch butterflies. Now they can eat roundup maybe but it kills milkweed...their food in their entire range and they are dying off. While we may not need Monarch butterflies, they are just one species being decimated by this herbicide. It is the overall condition this corporation produces that is the problem, not one single herbicide or other product. It is a matter of around 19,000 Indian farmers' suicides this year. It does not kill directly but Monsanto kills people. Roundup is part of this toxic formula.

That is an excellent hypothesis!

The results are __________________________________ .

(insert results from reputable source)​

I think you are missing my point. I am referring to the notion that because we have not studied everything there is in the world which widespread dissemination of an industrial chemical might affect, we are not at a point where we can just license spraying it everywhere in the world...even if our short term studies have not found the Achilles heel in the strategy of making it omnipresent in the world. That is what corporations like Monsanto are seeking...to make their stuff go everywhere and to everyone and everything. Do you understand that? There are no short term answers to these problems. It isn't just Monsanto and it isn't just glyphosphate. There are more than 50,000 of these industrial chemicals and each of their makers want their product disseminated world wide. Think on that a bit. I am glad to see there are people interested in testing these products.

Some time ago I watched a special on cotton farming in India. Monsanto marketed a special cottonseed. It was designed for irrigated cropland and marketed in a country that mostly does dry farming. Outside of their lock on their special seeds, they also promoted the use of an inappropriate seed stock in an area that already was suffering from drought. This special was produced by a fellow who visited hundreds of these farms and farmers. Monsanto's part was to increase crop failure variability dramatically and this is what led to very many suicides. Statistics on the suicides were not produced for farmer's crop failures. They were produced on the basis in some cases of financial failure secondary to the crop failure. You could see in the statistics I have examined so far a variety of causes of suicides which could be linked to crop failure. The special I watched was on PBS and was titled Nero's Guests. It was informative and the result of real investigative reporting.

I suspect we may lack the ability to see around enough corners (as in chess to see enough moves ahead) to become too comfortable with the widespread dissemination of many products we produce. The thing is to not build a problem for ourselves and allow it to become existential before we we figure out that we should not be doing this.

 

[tupac chopra]

The Brazillian public prosecutor has called for a domestic ban on glyphosate.
http://noticias.pgr.mpf.mp.br/notic...que-glifosato-seja-banido-do-mercado-nacional

 

[bilby]

The Brazillian public prosecutor has called for a domestic ban on glyphosate.
http://noticias.pgr.mpf.mp.br/notic...que-glifosato-seja-banido-do-mercado-nacional

Yes, there really are idiots everywhere these days.

 

[Will Wiley]

Is Monsanto a bigger threat than global warming?

On two occasions, the United States EPA has caught scientists deliberately falsifying test results at research laboratories hired by Monsanto to study glyphosate.

No problems here are there?

 

[bilby]

Anyone who thinks Monsanto specifically is a major problem for humanity, worse than other companies of similar size, or worse than other companies in the same business, to a degree sufficient to warrant singling out Monsanto rather than, say, DuPont, or Bayer, needs their tinfoil hat replacing.

To even suggest that Monsanto is a threat in the same ballpark as Global Warming is too crazy to even address. The answer to the headline is "Fuck no! What is wrong with you!"; and if that's not the conclusion in the article, then I don't care to read it. If I wanted incoherent paranoid ramblings I could watch Fox News.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Anyone who thinks Monsanto specifically is a major problem for humanity, worse than other companies of similar size, or worse than other companies in the same business, to a degree sufficient to warrant singling out Monsanto rather than, say, DuPont, or Bayer, needs their tinfoil hat replacing.

To even suggest that Monsanto is a threat in the same ballpark as Global Warming is too crazy to even address. The answer to the headline is "Fuck no! What is wrong with you!"; and if that's not the conclusion in the article, then I don't care to read it. If I wanted incoherent paranoid ramblings I could watch Fox News.

They're in the same ballpark, they're both threats.

It's just Monsanto is a ping pong ball.

 

[Will Wiley]

Anyone who thinks Monsanto specifically is a major problem for humanity, worse than other companies of similar size, or worse than other companies in the same business, to a degree sufficient to warrant singling out Monsanto rather than, say, DuPont, or Bayer, needs their tinfoil hat replacing.

To even suggest that Monsanto is a threat in the same ballpark as Global Warming is too crazy to even address. The answer to the headline is "Fuck no! What is wrong with you!"; and if that's not the conclusion in the article, then I don't care to read it. If I wanted incoherent paranoid ramblings I could watch Fox News.

They're in the same ballpark, they're both threats.

It's just Monsanto is a ping pong ball.

Yes that's true, but the point of linking to that article was of course that Monsanto's scientists have falsified test results on Glyphosate. I realise you weren't the one who got hysterical about the headline but it's worth pointing this out.

 

[arkirk]

They're in the same ballpark, they're both threats.

It's just Monsanto is a ping pong ball.

Yes that's true, but the point of linking to that article was of course that Monsanto's scientists have falsified test results on Glyphosate. I realise you weren't the one who got hysterical about the headline but it's worth pointing this out.

Monsanto is a juggernaut company, very large, very ruthless, and we know it is not above falsifying or obscuring important data about its products, and its methods of doing business. For once, Loren is right...well sorta right....DuPont and Bayer are very similar and also represent the same kind and level of threats to our environment and our society. I have been consistently pointing to a concept we need to get straight before we buy a bunch of lab equipment for single constituent analysis. That is that any process or project that grossly and permanently changes a major portion of our environment or our economy must be carefully examined from many different aspects before it is allowed to be grossly deployed. We have seen many of these willy nilly deployments and every now and then one of them proves to have done a lot of social or environmental damage AFTER THE FACT. When a forest is converted to monoculture farmland, that is a gross change. When a stream is diverted for use in compounding fracking fluids and it becomes a series of constantly growing toxic waste ponds, that is a gross change. When a power plant melts down and the government has to evacuate in a 30 km diameter zone because of nuclear contamination, that is a gross change. When a million and a half people have all their infrastructure and housing bombed and they are contained in sub human conditions, that is a gross change. Man's survival is a complex problem and when certain organizations narcisistically seek only their own growth, they are treating life as if it is a card game and they are empowered to keep throwing jokers into the deck. These jokers are these grossly changed conditions that may have to be undone and prove to be very difficult to undo.

Don't ask me for a source on this post.

 

[KeepTalking]

They're in the same ballpark, they're both threats.

It's just Monsanto is a ping pong ball.

Yes that's true, but the point of linking to that article was of course that Monsanto's scientists have falsified test results on Glyphosate. I realise you weren't the one who got hysterical about the headline but it's worth pointing this out.

I think you need to reread your own link. The scientists involved were not Monsanto scientists, they were from labs that Monsanto hired to do testing. Not only that, but the incidents were 20 years apart, and the second incident was nearly 25 years ago. Both predate Monsanto's change from a chemical company to a biotech company, when they would have had tons of chemists on staff, but likely not any biologists, so they had to rely on outside labs. Those labs, and the lab employees who carried out the fraud were criminally charged, and Monsanto was not. This indicates that, while the labs may have been committing the fraud to provide Monsanto with results they thought Monsanto wanted to see, there was no connection found that points the finger at Monsanto asking for the studies to be undertaken fraudulently.

The tests were repeated at other labs that have not been charged with fraud in their testing, and Monsanto no longer relied on the research at the discredited labs after their fraud was uncovered and prosecuted. All of this information is contained in the very blog to which you linked. The only answer to the question posed by the blog title that any reasonable unbiased person should come up with after reading it is "No".

 

[Will Wiley]

Yes that's true, but the point of linking to that article was of course that Monsanto's scientists have falsified test results on Glyphosate. I realise you weren't the one who got hysterical about the headline but it's worth pointing this out.

I think you need to reread your own link.

I did.

The scientists involved were not Monsanto scientists, they were from labs that Monsanto hired to do testing.

Which would make them Monsantos' scientsists ie the ones they paid,

Not only that, but the incidents were 20 years apart, and the second incident was nearly 25 years ago.

So what

Both predate Monsanto's change from a chemical company to a biotech company, when they would have had tons of chemists on staff, but likely not any biologists, so they had to rely on outside labs. Those labs, and the lab employees who carried out the fraud were criminally charged, and Monsanto was not.

This is right but so what?

This indicates that, while the labs may have been committing the fraud to provide Monsanto with results they thought Monsanto wanted to see, there was no connection found that points the finger at Monsanto asking for the studies to be undertaken fraudulently.

Did I say there was?

The tests were repeated at other labs that have not been charged with fraud in their testing, and Monsanto no longer relied on the research at the discredited labs after their fraud was uncovered and prosecuted. All of this information is contained in the very blog to which you linked.

I didn't deny any of the things you point out.
The best case you can make is that supposed independent scientists will commit fraud to please Monsanto. It doesn't paint a very good picture.

 

[KeepTalking]

I think you need to reread your own link.

I did.

The scientists involved were not Monsanto scientists, they were from labs that Monsanto hired to do testing.

Which would make them Monsantos' scientsists ie the ones they paid,

They were not employed by Monsanto, therefor they are not Monsanto's scientists. Monsanto contracted with the labs to do testing, the scientists were employees of those labs, and Monsanto had no direct control over who those scientists were, or how they did their jobs. The only way that Monsanto would be culpable for their fraud would be if Monsanto instructed the labs to commit fraud.

Not only that, but the incidents were 20 years apart, and the second incident was nearly 25 years ago.

So what

The article attempts to paint Monsanto as a dangerous corporation that is worse for the world than global warming. Two incidents of fraud over 50 years that were not even committed by Monsanto employees does not meet that criteria.

Both predate Monsanto's change from a chemical company to a biotech company, when they would have had tons of chemists on staff, but likely not any biologists, so they had to rely on outside labs. Those labs, and the lab employees who carried out the fraud were criminally charged, and Monsanto was not.

This is right but so what?

Just trying to put things in perspective, Monsanto is not the same company now as it was when these incidents took place. Also, they have the right scientists to do their own testing now, so if there are any systemic issues with Monsanto committing fraud in their testing you would need to point to more current tests actually conducted by Monsanto to show that.

This indicates that, while the labs may have been committing the fraud to provide Monsanto with results they thought Monsanto wanted to see, there was no connection found that points the finger at Monsanto asking for the studies to be undertaken fraudulently.

Did I say there was?

No, but the blog to which you linked, and seem to support as showing that Monsanto is a worse threat than global warming is trying to make that connection. The fact that they fail miserably at making that connection should give anyone pause to endorse such a blog.

The tests were repeated at other labs that have not been charged with fraud in their testing, and Monsanto no longer relied on the research at the discredited labs after their fraud was uncovered and prosecuted. All of this information is contained in the very blog to which you linked.

I didn't deny any of the things you point out.
The best case you can make is that supposed independent scientists will commit fraud to please Monsanto. It doesn't paint a very good picture.

There is nothing supposed about the independence of the labs that committed fraud. It only paints a bad picture for the independent labs, and that hardly needs doing as those labs were shut down, and their staff prosecuted for fraud.

If you hire a contractor to paint your home, and the contractor uses toxic lead based paint without your knowledge or encouragement, does that paint a bad picture of you, or a bad picture of the contractor?