3 ms·

I think this is pretty bias: http://www.snopes.com/monsanto-suppressing-evidence-of-cancerous-herbicide-in-food/ http://www.snopes.com/monsanto-suppressing-evi

• smt88 9y ago
  How so? They explain their reasoning, and it's independently verifiable. I was especially impressed by the note at the bottom: > "NOTE: This story has been updated based on discussions with a number of scientists in the field. It was originally listed as a MIXTURE, but we have now reclassified it as FALSE in response to concerns that our original narrative might have led viewers into taking the results of an activist group’s lab analyses as a scientifically rigorous addition to the debate."
  • oblib 9y ago
    It is bias because it ignores and dismisses information that is relevant. I'm not a fan of "Food Babe" but I have read up on what scientists who are not paid or influenced by Monsanto have said in their studies and how much Monsanto has done to discredit them as well. Here is "Food Babes" response to their "Fact Check". Look into it and follow up on what she says: https://foodbabe.com/2017/02/24/do-you-trust-snopes-you-wont-after-reading-how-they-work-with-monsanto-operatives/ https://foodbabe.com/2017/02/24/do-you-trust-snopes-you-wont...
    • smt88 9y ago
      But most of that hinges on IARC, which is (literally) a joke[1] in the scientific world, and that there are conflicts of interest among some (not all) researchers. The argument is just that glyphosate isn't dangerous at the doses found in food, and that seems to be true based on Wikipedia's summary of the existing research[2]. That's distinct from the argument that glyophosate is safe for the environment or that it's safe for workers handling it in large quantities. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Agency_for_Research_on_Cancer#Criticismhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Agency_for_Research_on_Cancer#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Agency_for_Resea... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Human https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Human
      • oblib 9y ago
        The distinction you point out is part of the problem I have with Snopes because those statements are not fully qualified. We really do not know the long term effects of exposure and to dismiss that aspect ignores the cautionary principal which has been ignored far too much in this debate. We can look at DDT as an example of what can happen when ignore and dismiss long term results. It is true DDT didn't affect those who wallowed in it and that was used to "prove" it was safe, but it is also true it affected their children, especially females, and not until they were adults did those effects become apparent. It is also true that eating food is not the only source of exposure for everyone. And it's also true that homeowners and farmers don't always follow the instructions and laws for using these products. So, if we read Snopes "Fact Check" on this issue it's very easy to come away thinking all those who've done independent research are wackos and glyphosate is "Safe" and may even lead some of them to say they believe it's "Safe to drink a quart of it" and therein lies the problem. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM
• kps 9y ago
  The word you want is ‘biased’.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • oblib 9y ago
    Indeed it was.