5 ms·

> If you are going to be implying glyphosate causes autism, for some "extra fun" as you say, then you should perhaps reconsider this. No. The burden of proof i

> If you are going to be implying glyphosate causes autism, for some "extra fun" as you say, then you should perhaps reconsider this. No. The burden of proof is on those defending a chemical. Even if there's a 1/1000 chance that glyphosate explains 5% of autism cases, then it should be banned. The world doesn't need more food, America throws away half its food. The world needs better health -- the sperm count in America has dropped 50% in the last 30 years, autism is at about 1/52

dragonwriter 8y ago
> The world doesn't need more food Yes, it does. > America throws away half its food. Yes, global food delivery systems are inefficient with different sources of loss in different places (and, in the US, a big one is “people buy food and don't use it”.) In the absence of proven solutions to these inefficiencies, though, less food production means higher prices globally, which is particularly harmful for the poorest of the poor. Sure, solving the inefficiencies would reduce the needed production levels for any given price level, but the people fighting GMOs and/or products like glyphosate aren't solving the inefficiencies, they are just attacking production while diverting energy from solving the inefficiencies. “We don't need more food” is an attitude associated with the same privilege of wealth that leads to the US throwing away much of its food.
fredch 9y ago
Suicide is the purest expression of the precautionary principle. Think about it. Seriously, oxygen is a known carcinogen, responsible for the massive generation of free radicals in the body. Realize: look at how oxygen burns wood, it can even eat steel! And you're sucking this extremely hazardous and potent oxidizer into your body with every breath.
- insensible 9y ago
  You are demonstrating your ignorance of the Precautionary Principle. Hint: it's about tail risks.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> The world doesn't need more food Yes, it does. > America throws away half its food. Yes, global food delivery systems are inefficient with different sources of loss in different places (and, in the US, a big one is “people buy food and don't use it”.) In the absence of proven solutions to these inefficiencies, though, less food production means higher prices globally, which is particularly harmful for the poorest of the poor. Sure, solving the inefficiencies would reduce the needed production levels for any given price level, but the people fighting GMOs and/or products like glyphosate aren't solving the inefficiencies, they are just attacking production while diverting energy from solving the inefficiencies. “We don't need more food” is an attitude associated with the same privilege of wealth that leads to the US throwing away much of its food.

fredch 9y ago

Suicide is the purest expression of the precautionary principle. Think about it. Seriously, oxygen is a known carcinogen, responsible for the massive generation of free radicals in the body. Realize: look at how oxygen burns wood, it can even eat steel! And you're sucking this extremely hazardous and potent oxidizer into your body with every breath.

insensible 9y ago
You are demonstrating your ignorance of the Precautionary Principle. Hint: it's about tail risks.