3 ms·

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

by 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

by oblib 9y ago

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