5 ms·

>Do you have any facts to back up your claims? Because it is the widely publicized scientific consensus. But if you insist. EFSA : http://www.efsa.europa.eu/e

by searine 10y ago

>Do you have any facts to back up your claims? 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: https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/glyphosate https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/glyp... 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... > Seralini is a fraud according to who? Every scientist I've ever talked to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair >And why should I trust your judgement over WHO on carcinogenicity? Because they don't have proof glyphosate is a carcinogen, just general harm classifications. Glyphosate is in a class of carcinogens similar to dietary meat, and other everyday minor exposures. >You come off as immature and it hurts your credibility Sometimes you have to be crass to put a spotlight on bullshit.

sndean 10y ago
Another good reference for the current lack of a connection between cancer (specifically Hodgkin lymphoma referenced in the article) and glyphosate: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27015139 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27015139 Just published, meta-reviews are generally best, and the authors are pretty well-regarded.
esaym 10y ago
Read the article, it is not pointing the finger at Roundup's main ingredient "glyphosate". But they are putting toxic chemicals in their products without listing it anywhere on the label: "POEA — officially an “inert” ingredient — was between 1,200 and 2,000 times more toxic to cells than glyphosate, officially the “active” ingredient."
- searine 10y ago
  See the following review : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15862083 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15862083 "There is insufficient evidence to conclude that glyphosate preparations containing POEA are more toxic than those containing alternative surfactants" Surfactants, in general, are toxic. There is nothing special about POEA. Used properly, surfactants can be of good use and result in safe improvement of agriculture.
  - esaym 10y ago
    oh, well then. Good I guess since I use weed killers around my house...
dang 10y ago
> Sometimes you have to be crass to put a spotlight on bullshit. The issue isn't being crass in the sense of profane, but of calling names and using uncivil rhetoric in arguments. You can't do that here. This holds regardless of how right one is, or believes one is, or how wrong someone else is. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html Your comment history unfortunately includes a great deal of incivility, though not usually as egregious as in this thread. Please edit all that kind of thing out when commenting here. If you want, you can set the 'delay' property in your profile to give yourself up to 10 minutes to edit your comments before they appear to other users. (That's what I do.)

by searine 10y ago

sndean 10y ago

Another good reference for the current lack of a connection between cancer (specifically Hodgkin lymphoma referenced in the article) and glyphosate: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27015139 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27015139 Just published, meta-reviews are generally best, and the authors are pretty well-regarded.

esaym 10y ago

Read the article, it is not pointing the finger at Roundup's main ingredient "glyphosate". But they are putting toxic chemicals in their products without listing it anywhere on the label: "POEA — officially an “inert” ingredient — was between 1,200 and 2,000 times more toxic to cells than glyphosate, officially the “active” ingredient."

searine 10y ago
See the following review : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15862083 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15862083 "There is insufficient evidence to conclude that glyphosate preparations containing POEA are more toxic than those containing alternative surfactants" Surfactants, in general, are toxic. There is nothing special about POEA. Used properly, surfactants can be of good use and result in safe improvement of agriculture.
- esaym 10y ago
  oh, well then. Good I guess since I use weed killers around my house...

dang 10y ago

> Sometimes you have to be crass to put a spotlight on bullshit. The issue isn't being crass in the sense of profane, but of calling names and using uncivil rhetoric in arguments. You can't do that here. This holds regardless of how right one is, or believes one is, or how wrong someone else is. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html Your comment history unfortunately includes a great deal of incivility, though not usually as egregious as in this thread. Please edit all that kind of thing out when commenting here. If you want, you can set the 'delay' property in your profile to give yourself up to 10 minutes to edit your comments before they appear to other users. (That's what I do.)