4 ms·

This is missing the point. The choice you pose can only be made if we're all well informed and make that risk assessment, but we haven't been, so can't. Unless

by eadz 10y ago

This is missing the point. The choice you pose can only be made if we're all well informed and make that risk assessment, but we haven't been, so can't. Unless you can tell me how many people have died as a result of exposure to Roundup ( no one knows ), then I don't think your argument has any weight. As an aside, the farmers using these chemicals are the ones most at risk. Companies claiming their products are safe, when they are not is the real story here, and how even when scientists were warning of dangers in 2001, those warnings were not heeded by regulators in a serious enough manner that it's taken this long to "prove" that the chemicals are unsafe.

jbob2000 10y ago
What is your definition of "Safe"? Because, to a farmer, a huge piece of machinery that will shred you to pieces at a moments notice is much less safe than a chemical that might give you cancer in a few years.
- eadz 10y ago
  The huge piece of machinery will come with a huge warning telling you it will cut you to shreds. When you're well informed about the risks you can take precautions or change your behaviour. Monsanto has taken California to court to prevent such warnings on Roundup.
  - Oletros 10y ago
    > Monsanto has taken California to court to prevent such warnings on Roundup. Source for this?
    - Karunamon 10y ago
      http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-monsanto-glyphosate-idUSKCN0UZ2RN http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-monsanto-glyphosate-id... Aside: I get the sneaking suspicion that some high amount of "source?" requests are a more polite way of calling BS. ...especially when it would have taken roughly the same amount of effort to compose the comment as to type "monsanto sues california" into Google.
      - Oletros 10y ago
        That link doesn't say that Monsanto has sued California for not wanting that users are waring about Roundup risks. >...especially when it would have taken roughly the same amount of effort to compose the comment as to type "monsanto sues california" into Google. Oh, no, I have done that, and the only thing that has appeared is that Monsanto has sued California because they don't want Roundup being classified as carcinogenic. It is a totally different thing. So, I ask for the source, because I don't find anything. So, I repeat, source?
        Karunamon 10y ago
        That link doesn't say that Monsanto has sued California for not wanting that users are waring about Roundup risks. ? FTA: A listing would also require Monsanto and others offering products containing glyphosate to provide a "clear and reasonable warning" to consumers that the chemical is known to cause cancer, damaging Monsanto's reputation and violating its First Amendment rights, the company said. This seems pretty simple. Monsanto sued California because of bad testing results on Roundup's active ingredient, glyphosate. If the chemical gets added to the CA registry, then Monsanto would have to put the ubiquitous 'known to the state of California to cancer' notice on anything that contains it. Therefore, they sued to stop this from happening. Am I missing something?
        Oletros 10y ago
        Yes, you're missing that is not the same "Monsanto doesn't want consumers warned" and "Monsanto doesn't want its products to be listed as carcinogenic and put labels that say it causes cancer". Surely Roundup and other pesticides have instructions and safety warnings and procedures, isn't?
underbluewaters 10y ago
Agricultural workers die all the time using heavy machinery. If the increased risks from chemical exposure were similar in magnitude they would show up in epidemiological studies (which have been done). I don't doubt that these chemicals could cause cancer, but if they do it's at a rate that prevents easy detection. [Edit] -- And to be clear, I'm not advocating that Roundup is safe. Like everything in our food system it should be scrutinized and studied, trade secrets be damned.
- rsync 10y ago
  "Agricultural workers die all the time using heavy machinery. If the increased risks from chemical exposure were similar in magnitude they would show up in epidemiological studies (which have been done)." The heavy machinery that you speak of is used for a great many other things than simply weed/foliage control. So aren't you going to have that infrastructure, and those risks, regardless of what you do with your weeds ? The more serious problem with this line of reasoning is that the risks of the machinery are confined to the people doing the work, whereas the (possibly much smaller, but less understood) risks are potentially borne by the entire population around their use. What if your neighbors don't share your risk analysis ?
- iheartmemcache 10y ago
  The people who volunteer to be subject of those long-term studies tend to have little overlap with the demographic exposed to said chemicals. I.e., your average seasonal migrant who's going to work 8 years here then return to their South or Central American home. If they do stay here, they're more often than not seasonal migrants, sans documentation, not the type who'd volunteer to come into a university building twice a year for 20 years to be a medical subject of a study. (These guys likely don't even have base-level medical healthcare).

by eadz 10y ago

jbob2000 10y ago

What is your definition of "Safe"? Because, to a farmer, a huge piece of machinery that will shred you to pieces at a moments notice is much less safe than a chemical that might give you cancer in a few years.

eadz 10y ago
The huge piece of machinery will come with a huge warning telling you it will cut you to shreds. When you're well informed about the risks you can take precautions or change your behaviour. Monsanto has taken California to court to prevent such warnings on Roundup.
- Oletros 10y ago
  > Monsanto has taken California to court to prevent such warnings on Roundup. Source for this?
  - Karunamon 10y ago
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-monsanto-glyphosate-idUSKCN0UZ2RN http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-monsanto-glyphosate-id... Aside: I get the sneaking suspicion that some high amount of "source?" requests are a more polite way of calling BS. ...especially when it would have taken roughly the same amount of effort to compose the comment as to type "monsanto sues california" into Google.
    - Oletros 10y ago
      That link doesn't say that Monsanto has sued California for not wanting that users are waring about Roundup risks. >...especially when it would have taken roughly the same amount of effort to compose the comment as to type "monsanto sues california" into Google. Oh, no, I have done that, and the only thing that has appeared is that Monsanto has sued California because they don't want Roundup being classified as carcinogenic. It is a totally different thing. So, I ask for the source, because I don't find anything. So, I repeat, source?
      - Karunamon 10y ago
        That link doesn't say that Monsanto has sued California for not wanting that users are waring about Roundup risks. ? FTA: A listing would also require Monsanto and others offering products containing glyphosate to provide a "clear and reasonable warning" to consumers that the chemical is known to cause cancer, damaging Monsanto's reputation and violating its First Amendment rights, the company said. This seems pretty simple. Monsanto sued California because of bad testing results on Roundup's active ingredient, glyphosate. If the chemical gets added to the CA registry, then Monsanto would have to put the ubiquitous 'known to the state of California to cancer' notice on anything that contains it. Therefore, they sued to stop this from happening. Am I missing something?
        Oletros 10y ago
        Yes, you're missing that is not the same "Monsanto doesn't want consumers warned" and "Monsanto doesn't want its products to be listed as carcinogenic and put labels that say it causes cancer". Surely Roundup and other pesticides have instructions and safety warnings and procedures, isn't?

underbluewaters 10y ago

Agricultural workers die all the time using heavy machinery. If the increased risks from chemical exposure were similar in magnitude they would show up in epidemiological studies (which have been done). I don't doubt that these chemicals could cause cancer, but if they do it's at a rate that prevents easy detection. [Edit] -- And to be clear, I'm not advocating that Roundup is safe. Like everything in our food system it should be scrutinized and studied, trade secrets be damned.

rsync 10y ago
"Agricultural workers die all the time using heavy machinery. If the increased risks from chemical exposure were similar in magnitude they would show up in epidemiological studies (which have been done)." The heavy machinery that you speak of is used for a great many other things than simply weed/foliage control. So aren't you going to have that infrastructure, and those risks, regardless of what you do with your weeds ? The more serious problem with this line of reasoning is that the risks of the machinery are confined to the people doing the work, whereas the (possibly much smaller, but less understood) risks are potentially borne by the entire population around their use. What if your neighbors don't share your risk analysis ?
iheartmemcache 10y ago
The people who volunteer to be subject of those long-term studies tend to have little overlap with the demographic exposed to said chemicals. I.e., your average seasonal migrant who's going to work 8 years here then return to their South or Central American home. If they do stay here, they're more often than not seasonal migrants, sans documentation, not the type who'd volunteer to come into a university building twice a year for 20 years to be a medical subject of a study. (These guys likely don't even have base-level medical healthcare).