5 ms·

It's not a "scientifically proven fact".

by 0xbear 9y ago

xenophonf 9y ago
0xbear, it helps to cite the relevant scientific research: http://www.who.int/foodsafety/jmprsummary2016.pdf?ua=1 http://www.who.int/foodsafety/jmprsummary2016.pdf?ua=1 https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVo... The short version is that glyphosate is unlikely to cause cancer in consumers or farm workers: https://www.wired.com/2016/05/monsantos-roundup-herbicide-cause-cancer-not-controversy-explained/ https://www.wired.com/2016/05/monsantos-roundup-herbicide-ca...
- quuquuquu 9y ago
  Why is there a class action lawsuit on TV telling me that people who are exposed to it have higher rates of cancer?
  - dmoy 9y ago
    Because, like Oracle lawyers coincidentally enough, they're probably fishing for a settlement.
  - 0xbear 9y ago
    Protip: don't believe everything you see on TV.
    - quuquuquu 9y ago
      Allow me to remix my earlier statements: While not scientifically proven, the State of California currently classifies RoundUp as "probably carcinogenic". More than 800 cancer patients have joined the lawsuit against Monsanto. I don't know about you, but being exposed, for years and years, to something that requires a mask to administer. Hmmm gonna have to go with "more cancerous than a banana".
      - 0xbear 9y ago
        Lots of things are more cancerous than a banana. Fries and steak for example. And sure, if you're spraying it without the proper precautions for "years and years", it probably will negatively affect your health, though even there the cancer link is not clear. But in spite of tons of research all over the world no one was able to establish a causal link for dietary glyphosate residue. The herbicides before glyphosate were truly vile, look it up. Glyphosate is very targeted for plants, and based on its mechanism of action it's unlikely to be toxic or carcinogenic in humans or animals, including even fish and invertebrates. So my money is on State of California being full of shit as usual. Put simply, between glyphosate and the alternatives it's not even a question that glyphosate is much safer.
        quuquuquu 9y ago
        I agree with you that we don't have the evidence for dietary exposure. My polemic generalization in my earlier comment didn't make it clear that I was only speaking about "commercial and heavy-residential use", that is to say, people whose job or hobby it is to spray RoundUp for hundreds or even thousands of hours a year. Much like how you shouldn't weld without a mask, you shouldn't spray RoundUp without a mask. But the difference is that things that can be inhaled are very tricky compared to things that are just bright. So even the right precautions can still lead to problems. If someone who worked at a fiberglass plant told me not to breathe in fiberglass splinters, I would believe them, regardless of what the research has confirmed.

It's not a "scientifically proven fact".

by 0xbear 9y ago

It's not a "scientifically proven fact".

0xbear, it helps to cite the relevant scientific research: http://www.who.int/foodsafety/jmprsummary2016.pdf?ua=1 http://www.who.int/foodsafety/jmprsummary2016.pdf?ua=1 https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVo... The short version is that glyphosate is unlikely to cause cancer in consumers or farm workers: https://www.wired.com/2016/05/monsantos-roundup-herbicide-cause-cancer-not-controversy-explained/ https://www.wired.com/2016/05/monsantos-roundup-herbicide-ca...

quuquuquu 9y ago
Why is there a class action lawsuit on TV telling me that people who are exposed to it have higher rates of cancer?
- dmoy 9y ago
  Because, like Oracle lawyers coincidentally enough, they're probably fishing for a settlement.
- 0xbear 9y ago
  Protip: don't believe everything you see on TV.
  - quuquuquu 9y ago
    Allow me to remix my earlier statements: While not scientifically proven, the State of California currently classifies RoundUp as "probably carcinogenic". More than 800 cancer patients have joined the lawsuit against Monsanto. I don't know about you, but being exposed, for years and years, to something that requires a mask to administer. Hmmm gonna have to go with "more cancerous than a banana".
    - 0xbear 9y ago
      Lots of things are more cancerous than a banana. Fries and steak for example. And sure, if you're spraying it without the proper precautions for "years and years", it probably will negatively affect your health, though even there the cancer link is not clear. But in spite of tons of research all over the world no one was able to establish a causal link for dietary glyphosate residue. The herbicides before glyphosate were truly vile, look it up. Glyphosate is very targeted for plants, and based on its mechanism of action it's unlikely to be toxic or carcinogenic in humans or animals, including even fish and invertebrates. So my money is on State of California being full of shit as usual. Put simply, between glyphosate and the alternatives it's not even a question that glyphosate is much safer.
      - quuquuquu 9y ago
        I agree with you that we don't have the evidence for dietary exposure. My polemic generalization in my earlier comment didn't make it clear that I was only speaking about "commercial and heavy-residential use", that is to say, people whose job or hobby it is to spray RoundUp for hundreds or even thousands of hours a year. Much like how you shouldn't weld without a mask, you shouldn't spray RoundUp without a mask. But the difference is that things that can be inhaled are very tricky compared to things that are just bright. So even the right precautions can still lead to problems. If someone who worked at a fiberglass plant told me not to breathe in fiberglass splinters, I would believe them, regardless of what the research has confirmed.