6 ms·

No the World Health Organisation didn't say that. The IARC did, basing their decision on a hazard criteria, not a risk based one. The WHO and FAO's statement is

by 7sigma 9y ago

No the World Health Organisation didn't say that. The IARC did, basing their decision on a hazard criteria, not a risk based one. The WHO and FAO's statement is that it is not carcinogenic [0]. Most regulatory agencies follow a risk based approach that takes into account real world exposure. Also, the IARC apparently ignored data on farmer exposure to glyphosate [1] [0] http://www.who.int/foodsafety/jmprsummary2016.pdf?ua=1 http://www.who.int/foodsafety/jmprsummary2016.pdf?ua=1 [1] http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/glyphosate-cancer-data/ http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/glyphosat...

tonyedgecombe 9y ago
You have an interesting comment history.
- DarkKomunalec 9y ago
  Good catch. Almost entirely composed of defending agribusiness...
  - 7sigma 9y ago
    Just because i'm mainly interested in a certain issue doesn't mean i work for the agribusiness industry (see my other comment, I don't have any links). While it looks like i'm defending the agribusiness industry to you, to me its more to do with countering bad science and propaganda about GM food.
evolve2k 9y ago
I think you've miss-read my comment. That was the summary of the video not a statement of opinion, and I think it's an accurate TLDR of the video. As the other commenter highlighted, seems you mainly comment on this issue. For my part I have no commercial connection to this industry/issue. Any industry connection you want to disclose?
- 7sigma 9y ago
  Sorry, i missed the TLDR part, the rest just jumped at me, because i've seen it so many times before. I don't have any industry connections at all whatsoever (I'm a plain old software dev). I'm mainly interested in the whole anti GMO movement and related issues. As I see it there is a lot of misinformation out there, partly as a result anti GMO organisations pushing an anti science agenda and employing similar tactics to ones used by climate change denying groups. So when I see those inaccurate claims repeated, I'm inclined to comment, always trying to cite reliable sources. So I do understand if my comment history looks like i'm some kind of industry shill (i've been called that on social media lots of times before).
  - evolve2k 9y ago
    Sure, no worries. I think we all don't want industry shills hyjacking discussions. Thanks for clearing that up.
  - mannykannot 9y ago
    While I am dismayed by blanket anti-GMO pseudo- and non-science, the possible toxicity of glyphosate is absolutely a scientifically valid concern with regard to this particular genetic modification.
    - 7sigma 9y ago
      What do you mean by "valid concern" though? And what do you mean by "this particular genetic modification"?

by 7sigma 9y ago

tonyedgecombe 9y ago

You have an interesting comment history.

DarkKomunalec 9y ago
Good catch. Almost entirely composed of defending agribusiness...
- 7sigma 9y ago
  Just because i'm mainly interested in a certain issue doesn't mean i work for the agribusiness industry (see my other comment, I don't have any links). While it looks like i'm defending the agribusiness industry to you, to me its more to do with countering bad science and propaganda about GM food.

evolve2k 9y ago

I think you've miss-read my comment. That was the summary of the video not a statement of opinion, and I think it's an accurate TLDR of the video. As the other commenter highlighted, seems you mainly comment on this issue. For my part I have no commercial connection to this industry/issue. Any industry connection you want to disclose?

7sigma 9y ago
Sorry, i missed the TLDR part, the rest just jumped at me, because i've seen it so many times before. I don't have any industry connections at all whatsoever (I'm a plain old software dev). I'm mainly interested in the whole anti GMO movement and related issues. As I see it there is a lot of misinformation out there, partly as a result anti GMO organisations pushing an anti science agenda and employing similar tactics to ones used by climate change denying groups. So when I see those inaccurate claims repeated, I'm inclined to comment, always trying to cite reliable sources. So I do understand if my comment history looks like i'm some kind of industry shill (i've been called that on social media lots of times before).
- evolve2k 9y ago
  Sure, no worries. I think we all don't want industry shills hyjacking discussions. Thanks for clearing that up.
- mannykannot 9y ago
  While I am dismayed by blanket anti-GMO pseudo- and non-science, the possible toxicity of glyphosate is absolutely a scientifically valid concern with regard to this particular genetic modification.
  - 7sigma 9y ago
    What do you mean by "valid concern" though? And what do you mean by "this particular genetic modification"?