3 ms·
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 ro
by 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 agoThat 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 agoYes, 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?