6 ms·

I'm not asking you to believe anything from Monsanto. There is a vast field of researchers that care deeply about what causes cancer and what can be done to pr

I'm not asking you to believe anything from Monsanto. There is a vast field of researchers that care deeply about what causes cancer and what can be done to prevent and treat it. Most of us aren't for sale. There are sensitive, objective and simple tests for determining whether or not a compound causes genetic mutations in cells (Ames test). There are tests for whether or not a compound induces chromosome abnormalities in mammalian cells. There are lifetime feeding tests for determining whether or not any cancers can be induced with wildly unrealistic dosing regimes. Lastly, there are epidemiological studies that monitor whether workers using glyphosate demonstrate increased occurrences of particular cancers. For glyphosate, there is no evidence of mutagenicity or genotoxicity, there is no evidence of teratogenic potential in mammals. There are no statistically significant epidemiological correlations with exposure. Glyphosate is poorly absorbed by human guts, poorly absorbed by human skin, and does not accumulate in tissues. This is the scientific consensus: there is no good evidence that N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine is a carcinogen, there is a mountain of evidence that it is not. But at the end of the day, whether I'm arguing with GMO-skeptics or climate-change-skeptics, I can't prove that this scientific consensus is worthy of your respect. You can always retreat into a more hardline epistemological skepticism, you can always cast aspersions at the entire enterprise.

sametmax 10y ago
I'm not arguing against the science, I'm arguing against the people. E.G: I think GMO have a fantastic potential. It's a powerful technology. And like any powerful technology, it has a huge potential of destruction as well. And I don't trust the people making money with it to take the necessary precautions to avoid a catastrophy. There are so many past and present events where money won over the benefit of the human specie. I trust people like you, that are dedicated to analyze things and share conclusions. But between you and the public, there is an army of people whose job is to hide/distort informations that will make them loose money, and show off informations that will make them win money. And they are better are it that the public is at critical thinking. You talk about climat skepticism, and it's a good example of a generalized propaganda that entities with an interest in fossil fuel and live stock keep pushing. And it works. There are people that doubt climate change. There are leaders that act on it. When there is an obvious conflict of interest in an entity of huge influence, one should ALWAYS be suspicious by default. The entity has to prove, over, and over again that it's doing the right thing. Right now entities are usually, as they grow, turning into systems that buy PR campaign to tell you they are doing the right things instead of doing it. Let me pull out this little gem from the WHO archives: http://www.who.int/tobacco/media/en/TobaccoExplained.pdf http://www.who.int/tobacco/media/en/TobaccoExplained.pdf In there you can read the statment from the tobacco industry: 1. That medical research of recent years indicates many possible causes of lung cancer. 2. That there is no agreement among the authorities regarding what the cause is. 3. That there is no proof that cigarette smoking is one of the causes. 4. That statistics purporting to link smoking with the disease could apply with equal force to any one of many other aspects of modern life. Indeed the validity of the statistics themselves are questioned by numerous scientists. Like I said, they are very good at controlling the story. Defending them because that's the intellectually moral thing to do - while I understand that's something intelligent reasonable people wants to do - is not working in our favor. Now you tell me that up to now, nothing is hinting that N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine is dangerous. But Monsanto still decided to have research about it ghostwritten. Such behavior is an alarm signal to me, and should trigger new investigations and tests for the next 10 years.
- alevskaya 10y ago
  You don't need to convince me of the potential malfeasance of US corporate interests - I grew up in West Virginia, a state that's more or less been run by the coal industry for a century. :) We should always remain vigilant of unappreciated risks, both health and ecological, from existing practices and chemicals. However, scientific studies are not cheap. In a world with an endless supply of serious problems, we have to prioritize research spending on science and engineering that's likely to actually improve life for the most people. Redoing the same experiments we've been doing to death for decades probably isn't the best use of limited science funding from a purely utilitarian standpoint. Industrial agriculture has quite a few more serious public health issues than glyphosate. (e.g. antibiotic abuse in animals)
  - sametmax 10y ago
    Monsanto is not running out of money any time soon. We can always tax it specifically to finance more research. They want to play with dangerous techs ? Ok, well it's going to be long and expensive. And again and again and again. Any other way would be foolish.
  - ConfuciusSay02 10y ago
    So you're advocating against long term human studies? That's... odd.
adsfqwop 10y ago
You fail to account for the possibility of unknown unknowns, and again you're displaying biased cognitive dissonance. You can't determine generational toxicity from LD50 profiles. You are simplifying everything way too much. Glyphosate is an analog to glycine. You know, the building blocks for proteins. DuPont did a study in 2007 that shows glyphosate is integrating in protein structures. Does that not worry you? Glyphosate is also a chelating agent. Glyphosate impacts the shikimate pathway, and is said to be non-toxic because humans do not possess the shikimate pathway. Yet the shikimate pathway is present in bacteria, archaea, and eukarya, and all of them are harmed by Glyphosate. Do we have bacteria in our guts utilizing the shikimate pathway? Yes we do. You are running with the base assumption that Monsanto is benevolent and honest. This is where your cognitive dissonance stems from.
- jpttsn 10y ago
  If only people remembered to check for unknown unknowns.
  - sametmax 10y ago
    That would be ideal, but it's hard to see what you can't see, right ?
  - NikolaeVarius 10y ago
    And that doesn't apply to the "Organic" Industry because...?
    - sametmax 10y ago
      Nobody said it doesn't. But the whole purpose of organic is to do it in a way that has been tested by darwin natural selection for a long time in a very complex system. Of course that doesn't mean the organic industry is doing things properly nor does it mean that this type of culture doesn't some other negative side effects. But globally, I'll bet on the farmer cooperative that want to avoid pesticide to be less evil than a mega corporation that produce the Agent Orange. Does that sound silly ? I really don't get how much you are willing to reverse this attack from Monsanto to organic sellers. Sure nobody is perfect. And yes, the whole debate is tainted by pseudo science and bad faith. But come on, it's not even on the same scale.
eeZah7Ux 10y ago
> whether I'm arguing with GMO-skeptics or climate-change-skeptics, I can't prove that this scientific consensus is worthy of your respect What about GMO-skeptics that belong to the scientific community?
- TillE 10y ago
  Americans literally, honestly, do not know that they exist. Which is a fantastic achievement by Monsanto, tbh. People who care should really look into why GMOs are banned in the EU.
  - sambe 10y ago
    They aren't banned in the EU. Do you have a link to any individual nation state bans being based on scientific evidence rather than public/media outrage? Because the EFSA has been against the bans.
  - cholantesh 10y ago
    Because of political pressure. Trade bans aren't issued by scientists. They don't have that power.
- alevskaya 10y ago
  Hence the word 'consensus'. There are plenty of scientists that don't believe in climate change. Most of them don't work on climate data. I've met vanishingly few biologists that think GMOs pose a health risk to humans.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ConfuciusSay02 10y ago
Note that this poster, Anselm Levskaya, did his post doc at Stanford, a university that receives hundreds of millions of dollars per year in "funding" from private (secret) sources, among them, companies like Monsanto and Cargill.
- alevskaya 10y ago
  You're shouting conspiracy because I studied neuroscience at Stanford? Dude. Just glad you didn't dig up my links to the International Order of the Prismatic Leopard.

sametmax 10y ago

I'm not arguing against the science, I'm arguing against the people. E.G: I think GMO have a fantastic potential. It's a powerful technology. And like any powerful technology, it has a huge potential of destruction as well. And I don't trust the people making money with it to take the necessary precautions to avoid a catastrophy. There are so many past and present events where money won over the benefit of the human specie. I trust people like you, that are dedicated to analyze things and share conclusions. But between you and the public, there is an army of people whose job is to hide/distort informations that will make them loose money, and show off informations that will make them win money. And they are better are it that the public is at critical thinking. You talk about climat skepticism, and it's a good example of a generalized propaganda that entities with an interest in fossil fuel and live stock keep pushing. And it works. There are people that doubt climate change. There are leaders that act on it. When there is an obvious conflict of interest in an entity of huge influence, one should ALWAYS be suspicious by default. The entity has to prove, over, and over again that it's doing the right thing. Right now entities are usually, as they grow, turning into systems that buy PR campaign to tell you they are doing the right things instead of doing it. Let me pull out this little gem from the WHO archives: http://www.who.int/tobacco/media/en/TobaccoExplained.pdf http://www.who.int/tobacco/media/en/TobaccoExplained.pdf In there you can read the statment from the tobacco industry: 1. That medical research of recent years indicates many possible causes of lung cancer. 2. That there is no agreement among the authorities regarding what the cause is. 3. That there is no proof that cigarette smoking is one of the causes. 4. That statistics purporting to link smoking with the disease could apply with equal force to any one of many other aspects of modern life. Indeed the validity of the statistics themselves are questioned by numerous scientists. Like I said, they are very good at controlling the story. Defending them because that's the intellectually moral thing to do - while I understand that's something intelligent reasonable people wants to do - is not working in our favor. Now you tell me that up to now, nothing is hinting that N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine is dangerous. But Monsanto still decided to have research about it ghostwritten. Such behavior is an alarm signal to me, and should trigger new investigations and tests for the next 10 years.

alevskaya 10y ago
You don't need to convince me of the potential malfeasance of US corporate interests - I grew up in West Virginia, a state that's more or less been run by the coal industry for a century. :) We should always remain vigilant of unappreciated risks, both health and ecological, from existing practices and chemicals. However, scientific studies are not cheap. In a world with an endless supply of serious problems, we have to prioritize research spending on science and engineering that's likely to actually improve life for the most people. Redoing the same experiments we've been doing to death for decades probably isn't the best use of limited science funding from a purely utilitarian standpoint. Industrial agriculture has quite a few more serious public health issues than glyphosate. (e.g. antibiotic abuse in animals)
- sametmax 10y ago
  Monsanto is not running out of money any time soon. We can always tax it specifically to finance more research. They want to play with dangerous techs ? Ok, well it's going to be long and expensive. And again and again and again. Any other way would be foolish.
- ConfuciusSay02 10y ago
  So you're advocating against long term human studies? That's... odd.

adsfqwop 10y ago

You fail to account for the possibility of unknown unknowns, and again you're displaying biased cognitive dissonance. You can't determine generational toxicity from LD50 profiles. You are simplifying everything way too much. Glyphosate is an analog to glycine. You know, the building blocks for proteins. DuPont did a study in 2007 that shows glyphosate is integrating in protein structures. Does that not worry you? Glyphosate is also a chelating agent. Glyphosate impacts the shikimate pathway, and is said to be non-toxic because humans do not possess the shikimate pathway. Yet the shikimate pathway is present in bacteria, archaea, and eukarya, and all of them are harmed by Glyphosate. Do we have bacteria in our guts utilizing the shikimate pathway? Yes we do. You are running with the base assumption that Monsanto is benevolent and honest. This is where your cognitive dissonance stems from.

jpttsn 10y ago
If only people remembered to check for unknown unknowns.
- sametmax 10y ago
  That would be ideal, but it's hard to see what you can't see, right ?
- NikolaeVarius 10y ago
  And that doesn't apply to the "Organic" Industry because...?
  - sametmax 10y ago
    Nobody said it doesn't. But the whole purpose of organic is to do it in a way that has been tested by darwin natural selection for a long time in a very complex system. Of course that doesn't mean the organic industry is doing things properly nor does it mean that this type of culture doesn't some other negative side effects. But globally, I'll bet on the farmer cooperative that want to avoid pesticide to be less evil than a mega corporation that produce the Agent Orange. Does that sound silly ? I really don't get how much you are willing to reverse this attack from Monsanto to organic sellers. Sure nobody is perfect. And yes, the whole debate is tainted by pseudo science and bad faith. But come on, it's not even on the same scale.

eeZah7Ux 10y ago

> whether I'm arguing with GMO-skeptics or climate-change-skeptics, I can't prove that this scientific consensus is worthy of your respect What about GMO-skeptics that belong to the scientific community?

TillE 10y ago
Americans literally, honestly, do not know that they exist. Which is a fantastic achievement by Monsanto, tbh. People who care should really look into why GMOs are banned in the EU.
- sambe 10y ago
  They aren't banned in the EU. Do you have a link to any individual nation state bans being based on scientific evidence rather than public/media outrage? Because the EFSA has been against the bans.
- cholantesh 10y ago
  Because of political pressure. Trade bans aren't issued by scientists. They don't have that power.
alevskaya 10y ago
Hence the word 'consensus'. There are plenty of scientists that don't believe in climate change. Most of them don't work on climate data. I've met vanishingly few biologists that think GMOs pose a health risk to humans.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

ConfuciusSay02 10y ago

Note that this poster, Anselm Levskaya, did his post doc at Stanford, a university that receives hundreds of millions of dollars per year in "funding" from private (secret) sources, among them, companies like Monsanto and Cargill.

alevskaya 10y ago
You're shouting conspiracy because I studied neuroscience at Stanford? Dude. Just glad you didn't dig up my links to the International Order of the Prismatic Leopard.