5 ms·

While glyphosate is only questionable, Round Up itself, which includes a variety of surfactants, seems to have a more pronounced effect - both cytotoxic and mut

by bri3d 9y ago

While glyphosate is only questionable, Round Up itself, which includes a variety of surfactants, seems to have a more pronounced effect - both cytotoxic and mutagenic. Many of the later documents in this dump center around formulated Round-Up's unexplained toxicity when compared to the survey of glyphosate studies in the literature, and a variety of understudied surfactants in the formulation. Ex (ignoring sensationalized document titles): http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/37-Monsanto-Executive-Admits-Studies-Demonstrate-Formulated-Roundup-Does-the-Damage.pdf http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/37-Monsanto... http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/38-Email-Shows-Former-Monsanto-Expert-Confirmed-Biological-Plausibility-of-Glyphosate-as-Carcinogen.pdf http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/38-Email-Sh... http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/42-Internal-Email-Shows-Monsanto-Aware-of-Surfactant-Toxic-Effects.pdf http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/42-Internal...

tptacek 9y ago
Sure! And this is a really good point. But then, how many of those surfactants (and other additives) are unique to Monsanto, versus things that are present in lots of other herbicides? Again: fuck Monsanto, I guess? My interest here is mostly in the notion that glyphosate is toxic, since that, along with "glyphosate is genetic engineering" and "Monsanto sues farmers for growing seeds that blow onto their fields" falls into the bucket of "things the Internet very strongly believes about Monsanto, despite being based on very incomplete information". Thanks for that clarification.
- RodericDay 9y ago
  I don't really understand why it's so hard for some "internet skeptics" to understand Monsanto is an awful corporation. Every single time there's someone "reluctantly" doing overtime in their defense.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    That's easy: the track record of claims against Monsanto is not great. When people proclaim very strong opinions about Monsanto, it's been a pretty reliable signal to me that they're basing their opinions off questionable sourcing.
    - plaguuuuuu 9y ago
      It makes me wonder whether a lot of the more ridiculous arguments against Monsanto are actually just memes spread by Monsanto itself in order to discredit detractors.
    - Retric 9y ago
      Monsanto Manufactured both PCBs and DDT well after the point they where known to be harmful. So, they had a negative reputation well before getting into biotechnology. Though with constant spinoffs and acquisitions it's arguable how consistent their corporate culture really is.
      - tptacek 9y ago
        Totally fair point! I'm only familiar with the Internet era of Monsanto complaints. I'm sure Monsanto is not a great company.
        mmjaa 9y ago
        The question I have for you, is why do you always pop up to defend Monsanto, no matter what, every single time? Its so obvious you are a supporter of the company, because every single time there is the word "Monsanto" on the HN front page, I can come to the article and search "tptacek" and see you defending the company, diverting the discussion, using a whole suite of tactics to avoid letting anyone make the conclusion that Monsanto is up to something nefarious. You've been called a shill for Monsanto before. I'm just curious why you seem to be so energetic about defending this particular company? I do understand: you like science. You like real science, real good. But at some point you have to look at your own track record and wonder if, perhaps, a scientific perspective wouldn't lead someone to conclude that you are, in fact, a Monsanto shill. I mean, there is a lot of data to support this fact, scientifically.
burntrelish1273 9y ago
There's a video where a Monsanto lobbyist spouts circular talking-points about how glyphosate was safe to drink, offered either Round Up or glyphosate and refused to drink it. https://youtu.be/QWM_PgnoAtA?t=25s https://youtu.be/QWM_PgnoAtA?t=25s It's irrelevant if glyphosate alone is cancerous or not, because 99.9999% of deployment is via sprays like Round Up. The combined product, in both animal and human models, need thorough mutagenic research. It's just news shows don't want to give Monsanto free advertising or face libel laws, so they conflate the generic compound with the product.
- parshimers 9y ago
  >There's a video where a Monsanto lobbyist spouts circular talking-points about how glyphosate was safe to drink, offered either Round Up or glyphosate and refused to drink it. But, you can actually watch a video of someone else drinking some! (at about 8:00) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8sgEhpHM4k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8sgEhpHM4k
  - burntrelish1273 9y ago
    LOL. That's actually stupid or actually fake. :)
  - briantakita 9y ago
    Here's a comment on the video by the user K SA: > The bar tender reaches down at 5:16 and brings up a different glass than the one he pours the chemicals in so this is a snow job. The two glasses have a different shape too and the new glass is greener. This is so fake. Why do the guys sprying this crap wear spacesuits if it is so safe?
    - Deestan 9y ago
      > Why do the guys sprying this crap wear spacesuits if it is so safe? The guy on the street outside wears thick waterproof pants and thick waterproof rubber boots when he cleans the street with a pressurized water hose. Water is generally considered safe [citation needed], but you still don't want to get hosed in it for hours on a daily basis. - Constantly wet feet catch fungus and foot rot. - Water lowers your body temperature, making you more susceptible to infection from and outbreak of common cold. - Containing water contamination to an surface - instead of your clothes and skin - makes it easier to rid yourself of surplus water when taking a break. - Wet clothes are highly impractical because they are heavy and shed water everywhere you go for hours after. TLDR; Protective clothing doesn't imply toxicity.

by bri3d 9y ago

tptacek 9y ago

Sure! And this is a really good point. But then, how many of those surfactants (and other additives) are unique to Monsanto, versus things that are present in lots of other herbicides? Again: fuck Monsanto, I guess? My interest here is mostly in the notion that glyphosate is toxic, since that, along with "glyphosate is genetic engineering" and "Monsanto sues farmers for growing seeds that blow onto their fields" falls into the bucket of "things the Internet very strongly believes about Monsanto, despite being based on very incomplete information". Thanks for that clarification.

RodericDay 9y ago
I don't really understand why it's so hard for some "internet skeptics" to understand Monsanto is an awful corporation. Every single time there's someone "reluctantly" doing overtime in their defense.
- tptacek 9y ago
  That's easy: the track record of claims against Monsanto is not great. When people proclaim very strong opinions about Monsanto, it's been a pretty reliable signal to me that they're basing their opinions off questionable sourcing.
  - plaguuuuuu 9y ago
    It makes me wonder whether a lot of the more ridiculous arguments against Monsanto are actually just memes spread by Monsanto itself in order to discredit detractors.
  - Retric 9y ago
    Monsanto Manufactured both PCBs and DDT well after the point they where known to be harmful. So, they had a negative reputation well before getting into biotechnology. Though with constant spinoffs and acquisitions it's arguable how consistent their corporate culture really is.
    - tptacek 9y ago
      Totally fair point! I'm only familiar with the Internet era of Monsanto complaints. I'm sure Monsanto is not a great company.
      - mmjaa 9y ago
        The question I have for you, is why do you always pop up to defend Monsanto, no matter what, every single time? Its so obvious you are a supporter of the company, because every single time there is the word "Monsanto" on the HN front page, I can come to the article and search "tptacek" and see you defending the company, diverting the discussion, using a whole suite of tactics to avoid letting anyone make the conclusion that Monsanto is up to something nefarious. You've been called a shill for Monsanto before. I'm just curious why you seem to be so energetic about defending this particular company? I do understand: you like science. You like real science, real good. But at some point you have to look at your own track record and wonder if, perhaps, a scientific perspective wouldn't lead someone to conclude that you are, in fact, a Monsanto shill. I mean, there is a lot of data to support this fact, scientifically.

burntrelish1273 9y ago

There's a video where a Monsanto lobbyist spouts circular talking-points about how glyphosate was safe to drink, offered either Round Up or glyphosate and refused to drink it. https://youtu.be/QWM_PgnoAtA?t=25s https://youtu.be/QWM_PgnoAtA?t=25s It's irrelevant if glyphosate alone is cancerous or not, because 99.9999% of deployment is via sprays like Round Up. The combined product, in both animal and human models, need thorough mutagenic research. It's just news shows don't want to give Monsanto free advertising or face libel laws, so they conflate the generic compound with the product.

parshimers 9y ago
>There's a video where a Monsanto lobbyist spouts circular talking-points about how glyphosate was safe to drink, offered either Round Up or glyphosate and refused to drink it. But, you can actually watch a video of someone else drinking some! (at about 8:00) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8sgEhpHM4k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8sgEhpHM4k
- burntrelish1273 9y ago
  LOL. That's actually stupid or actually fake. :)
- briantakita 9y ago
  Here's a comment on the video by the user K SA: > The bar tender reaches down at 5:16 and brings up a different glass than the one he pours the chemicals in so this is a snow job. The two glasses have a different shape too and the new glass is greener. This is so fake. Why do the guys sprying this crap wear spacesuits if it is so safe?
  - Deestan 9y ago
    > Why do the guys sprying this crap wear spacesuits if it is so safe? The guy on the street outside wears thick waterproof pants and thick waterproof rubber boots when he cleans the street with a pressurized water hose. Water is generally considered safe [citation needed], but you still don't want to get hosed in it for hours on a daily basis. - Constantly wet feet catch fungus and foot rot. - Water lowers your body temperature, making you more susceptible to infection from and outbreak of common cold. - Containing water contamination to an surface - instead of your clothes and skin - makes it easier to rid yourself of surplus water when taking a break. - Wet clothes are highly impractical because they are heavy and shed water everywhere you go for hours after. TLDR; Protective clothing doesn't imply toxicity.