> You are irrationally focusing on just one aspect of toxicity -- an IARC group. Yes, the only agency that has stated that it might be carcinogenic, the thing

> You are irrationally focusing on just one aspect of toxicity -- an IARC group. Yes, the only agency that has stated that it might be carcinogenic, the thing you have talked about. Perhaps the irrationally focusing and changing goalposts is you, not me. > and there are many other ways in which pesticides are more harmful to eat than normal food in addition to one potential classification of carcinogenicity. And? You have talked about carcinogenic effects, not other things > You are also completely ignoring issues of dosage. Me? Tell that to the IARC, they are the ones that doesn't talk about dosages. By the way, do you know the dosage? > Do you see where this falls down? Yes, talking about carcinogenic effects like you did, it is silly The first post, remember, the one talking about carcinogenic effects was you, not me. > What were you spraying Roundup for? Given that it might be carcinogenic, unless you're using it for something extremely important (a use case I'm struggling to come up with), it may be worth discontinuing usage. And if you talk about toxicity, do you know the relative toxicity of Roundup versus other pesticides? Perhaps you're advocating for substituting it by toher things more toxic