17 ms·

Bunk. > But mounting evidence, including one study published in February The article boldly cites a paper by Gilles-Eric Séralini for "evidence" of roundup ca

by searine 10y ago

Bunk. > But mounting evidence, including one study published in February The article boldly cites a paper by Gilles-Eric Séralini for "evidence" of roundup causing cancer. Seralini is a known fraud who has had multiple papers retracted. The only reason this paper they cited was published at all is because it is published in a predatory journal that will accept anything as long as you pay the fee. >World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) declared glyphosate a probable human carcinogen Their definition of "probable human carcinogen" is laughably broad. >Meanwhile, in November the European Food Safety Authority issued a report concluding that the active ingredient in Roundup was “unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans.” The EFSA is order of magnitude more reliable than a fraud like Seralini, so I am puzzled why it took so long for the article to mention this? This position is mirrored by the EPA, Royal Society, and National Academy of Sciences. The article then goes in depth to ride Seralini's dick and give attention to this quack. This is a shameful piece of "science" reporting, I expected better from The Intercept instead of this ignorant garbage. Edit by request : EFSA : http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/4302 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/4302 EPA [PDF] : https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/reg_actions/reregistration/fs_PC-417300_1-Sep-93.pdf https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/reg_actions/rere... NAS : http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/national-academy-of-sciences-finds-no-evidence-of-gmo-health/article_a7ffbe9a-5848-5826-aa28-6b75b3c947d2.html http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/national-academy-of-s... Safety of POEA : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15862083 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15862083

guelo 10y ago
Thanks but I'll pass on the side order of unknown chemicals.
- searine 10y ago
  Bad news buddy. Everything is made of chemicals.
  - goda90 10y ago
    A good portion of which can do serious harm to life. Therefore "unknown" is the issue.
    - searine 10y ago
      I agree, so why be concerned with ppb of rigorously studied chemicals shown time and again to be safe (quack-science excluded)? Your daily coffee is probably an order of magnitude more carcinogenic than any glyphosate/roundup exposure.
      - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
        >(IARC) declared glyphosate a probable human carcinogen // You consider IARC to be "quack-science"?
        searine 10y ago
        They don't have evidence that glyphosate is a carcinogen. They are using general classifications to infer potential harm. Glyphosate is in the same class as cooked meat. This is also likely political posturing to appease anti-gmo sentiments.
        pbhjpbhj 10y ago
        Cooked meats are carcinogenic though (eg http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/cooked-meats-fact-sheet http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/di...) aren't they? So ... are you saying glyphosate is known to be mutagenic and likely to cause cancers or that the common understanding on cooked meats is wrong. I'm not clear how the mutagenic properties reported in cooked meats appease "anti-gmo sentiments" as 'organic' meats are as likely to be cooked as others. You're being very vociferous in your arguing perhaps you got carried away in your claims for Monsanto products?
        10y ago
- tptacek 10y ago
  You think that if farmers eschew Roundup you're going to have a better idea of what chemicals are on the crops you consume? Roundup is popular because it's potent, and it's potent because glyphosate is an elegant and powerful weed control solution. Most farmers who don't use glyphosate will use something less biochemically elegant, and those things are more likely to be harmful to humans, not less.
  - guelo 10y ago
    It's like everybody missed the part of the article where it's not just glyphosate and we're not allowed to know what the other additives are.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      No, I read that part too, and I understand the concern --- but how is it less of a concern for other pesticides? The safety record on conventional weed control is... not great.
ArtDev 10y ago
Regardless, Roundup is not safe. Glyphosate probably is safe, by itself. After college I did landscaping. Once I cleared brush that had been treated with Roundup, and broke into an itchy rash from head to toe. After that experience, I quite landscaping forever. The biggest lie is that Roundup IS glyphosate. This false. Roundup is a chemical slurry of byproducts that happens to contain some glyphosate. Otherwise it would not be so cheap.
- searine 10y ago
  >Regardless, Roundup is not safe. PROVE IT. All studies thus far point to roundup/glyphosate being incredibly safe. Far safer than any alternative, including many "natural" ones. The LD50 for glyphosate is like a fucking kilogram for humans. >After college I did landscaping After college I did a Phd in genetics.
  - ArtDev 10y ago
    I was a biology major. If Roundup was only glyphosate, it would be safe. It is made from recycled chemicals. That is all I know.
    - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
      > It is made from recycled chemicals Is this a joke? So are apples, people and cats.
      - ArtDev 10y ago
        Industrial chemistry doesn't have to be that clean. Especially if you are just spraying it on the ground and selling it cheap. Makes sense to me. No, I don't have any links to back it up.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - WHGANDNORAHG 10y ago
angersock 10y ago
I'm downvoting you (pretty much everywhere here) because you haven't provided any links to substantiate your dismissals and further you've come off rather uncivilly.
- searine 10y ago
  > you haven't provided any links to substantiate your dismissals Because it is the widely publicized scientific consensus. But if you insist. EFSA : http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/4302 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/4302 EPA [PDF] : https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-06/documents/glyphosate-417300_2015-06-29_txr0057175.pdf https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-06/documents... NAS : http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/national-academy-of-sciences-finds-no-evidence-of-gmo-health/article_a7ffbe9a-5848-5826-aa28-6b75b3c947d2.html http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/national-academy-of-s... Safety of POEA : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15862083 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15862083
  - aresant 10y ago
    I would suggest that you attach these to your top comment with an "EDIT" flag since primary source info substantiates your comment.
- bcoates 10y ago
  It's trivial to google the guy's name and confirm he's a self-identified anti-GMO crank with paper retractions. It's not reasonable to ask for citations on things you can easily confirm or deny yourself.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    It is polite to provide them, though.
colordrops 10y ago
Really odd how articles criticizing a weed killer rile up such emotion. Your response is a good part ad hominem and emotional attacks. Do you have any facts to back up your claims? Seralini is a fraud according to who? He is well respected and has won awards from the German Federation of Scientists. He has actually won court cases against special interests that have attempted to libel him. Seems that you were influenced by this libel. And why should I trust your judgement over WHO on carcinogenicity? Talking about "riding dicks" doesn't help your cause either. You come off as immature and it hurts your credibility. I'm surprised you've been voted to the top.
- davidw 10y ago
  > Talking about "riding dicks" doesn't help your cause either. Yeah, whatever else is true in his comment (and I think most of it is), I didn't care for that at all. I think people get riled up about this stuff because Monsanto is a particular bête noire of some leftish anti-science people. BTW, the guy in question is very definitely controversial and has an Agenda with a capital A. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair
  - Chathamization 10y ago
    > I think people get riled up about this stuff because Monsanto is a particular bête noire of some leftish anti-science people. The reverse is true as well. Monsanto/GMO debates seem to be mostly about posturing/signaling, with the two sides throwing pseudoscience and FUD at each other and absolutely no chance of either side reconsidering their stances or taking a close look at the facts. It's more akin to the argument between different religious fanatics, and agnostics or non-believers don't have much to gain by getting in the middle of it.
    - davidw 10y ago
      A lot of it seems to be the anti-science folks who are against GMO's and the like, and Monsanto is a convenient bad guy. Most of the actual science and law doesn't seem to look that bad for them once you get past the "outrage!" articles. Of course, like many a large company, they do have some ugly history in their past, and I'm sure they're not perfect, so I guess that makes it more convenient. However, yeah, it does make discussing specific things kind of difficult.
kafkaesq 10y ago
Bunk Maybe, but your post is overly emotional in a bunch of ways -- and worse, uses language that's really quite a turn-off, viscerally, in a technical forum -- and as such, doesn't exactly inspire me to follow up on any of your links. If anything, it leaves the impression that even if the Intercept article was sloppy (or worse), then most likely your analysis is engaging in some form of cherry picking or other rhetorical manipulation, as well... so why should I bother?

by searine 10y ago

guelo 10y ago

Thanks but I'll pass on the side order of unknown chemicals.

searine 10y ago
Bad news buddy. Everything is made of chemicals.
- goda90 10y ago
  A good portion of which can do serious harm to life. Therefore "unknown" is the issue.
  - searine 10y ago
    I agree, so why be concerned with ppb of rigorously studied chemicals shown time and again to be safe (quack-science excluded)? Your daily coffee is probably an order of magnitude more carcinogenic than any glyphosate/roundup exposure.
    - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
      >(IARC) declared glyphosate a probable human carcinogen // You consider IARC to be "quack-science"?
      - searine 10y ago
        They don't have evidence that glyphosate is a carcinogen. They are using general classifications to infer potential harm. Glyphosate is in the same class as cooked meat. This is also likely political posturing to appease anti-gmo sentiments.
        pbhjpbhj 10y ago
        Cooked meats are carcinogenic though (eg http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/cooked-meats-fact-sheet http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/di...) aren't they? So ... are you saying glyphosate is known to be mutagenic and likely to cause cancers or that the common understanding on cooked meats is wrong. I'm not clear how the mutagenic properties reported in cooked meats appease "anti-gmo sentiments" as 'organic' meats are as likely to be cooked as others. You're being very vociferous in your arguing perhaps you got carried away in your claims for Monsanto products?
        10y ago
tptacek 10y ago
You think that if farmers eschew Roundup you're going to have a better idea of what chemicals are on the crops you consume? Roundup is popular because it's potent, and it's potent because glyphosate is an elegant and powerful weed control solution. Most farmers who don't use glyphosate will use something less biochemically elegant, and those things are more likely to be harmful to humans, not less.
- guelo 10y ago
  It's like everybody missed the part of the article where it's not just glyphosate and we're not allowed to know what the other additives are.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    No, I read that part too, and I understand the concern --- but how is it less of a concern for other pesticides? The safety record on conventional weed control is... not great.

ArtDev 10y ago

Regardless, Roundup is not safe. Glyphosate probably is safe, by itself. After college I did landscaping. Once I cleared brush that had been treated with Roundup, and broke into an itchy rash from head to toe. After that experience, I quite landscaping forever. The biggest lie is that Roundup IS glyphosate. This false. Roundup is a chemical slurry of byproducts that happens to contain some glyphosate. Otherwise it would not be so cheap.

searine 10y ago
>Regardless, Roundup is not safe. PROVE IT. All studies thus far point to roundup/glyphosate being incredibly safe. Far safer than any alternative, including many "natural" ones. The LD50 for glyphosate is like a fucking kilogram for humans. >After college I did landscaping After college I did a Phd in genetics.
- ArtDev 10y ago
  I was a biology major. If Roundup was only glyphosate, it would be safe. It is made from recycled chemicals. That is all I know.
  - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
    > It is made from recycled chemicals Is this a joke? So are apples, people and cats.
    - ArtDev 10y ago
      Industrial chemistry doesn't have to be that clean. Especially if you are just spraying it on the ground and selling it cheap. Makes sense to me. No, I don't have any links to back it up.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - WHGANDNORAHG 10y ago

angersock 10y ago

I'm downvoting you (pretty much everywhere here) because you haven't provided any links to substantiate your dismissals and further you've come off rather uncivilly.

searine 10y ago
> you haven't provided any links to substantiate your dismissals Because it is the widely publicized scientific consensus. But if you insist. EFSA : http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/4302 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/4302 EPA [PDF] : https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-06/documents/glyphosate-417300_2015-06-29_txr0057175.pdf https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-06/documents... NAS : http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/national-academy-of-sciences-finds-no-evidence-of-gmo-health/article_a7ffbe9a-5848-5826-aa28-6b75b3c947d2.html http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/national-academy-of-s... Safety of POEA : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15862083 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15862083
- aresant 10y ago
  I would suggest that you attach these to your top comment with an "EDIT" flag since primary source info substantiates your comment.
bcoates 10y ago
It's trivial to google the guy's name and confirm he's a self-identified anti-GMO crank with paper retractions. It's not reasonable to ask for citations on things you can easily confirm or deny yourself.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  It is polite to provide them, though.

colordrops 10y ago

Really odd how articles criticizing a weed killer rile up such emotion. Your response is a good part ad hominem and emotional attacks. Do you have any facts to back up your claims? Seralini is a fraud according to who? He is well respected and has won awards from the German Federation of Scientists. He has actually won court cases against special interests that have attempted to libel him. Seems that you were influenced by this libel. And why should I trust your judgement over WHO on carcinogenicity? Talking about "riding dicks" doesn't help your cause either. You come off as immature and it hurts your credibility. I'm surprised you've been voted to the top.

davidw 10y ago
> Talking about "riding dicks" doesn't help your cause either. Yeah, whatever else is true in his comment (and I think most of it is), I didn't care for that at all. I think people get riled up about this stuff because Monsanto is a particular bête noire of some leftish anti-science people. BTW, the guy in question is very definitely controversial and has an Agenda with a capital A. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair
- Chathamization 10y ago
  > I think people get riled up about this stuff because Monsanto is a particular bête noire of some leftish anti-science people. The reverse is true as well. Monsanto/GMO debates seem to be mostly about posturing/signaling, with the two sides throwing pseudoscience and FUD at each other and absolutely no chance of either side reconsidering their stances or taking a close look at the facts. It's more akin to the argument between different religious fanatics, and agnostics or non-believers don't have much to gain by getting in the middle of it.
  - davidw 10y ago
    A lot of it seems to be the anti-science folks who are against GMO's and the like, and Monsanto is a convenient bad guy. Most of the actual science and law doesn't seem to look that bad for them once you get past the "outrage!" articles. Of course, like many a large company, they do have some ugly history in their past, and I'm sure they're not perfect, so I guess that makes it more convenient. However, yeah, it does make discussing specific things kind of difficult.

kafkaesq 10y ago

Bunk Maybe, but your post is overly emotional in a bunch of ways -- and worse, uses language that's really quite a turn-off, viscerally, in a technical forum -- and as such, doesn't exactly inspire me to follow up on any of your links. If anything, it leaves the impression that even if the Intercept article was sloppy (or worse), then most likely your analysis is engaging in some form of cherry picking or other rhetorical manipulation, as well... so why should I bother?