7 ms·

So Monsanto were selling a dangerous pesticide and intentionally obfuscating its effects. It doesn't matter what part of the composition was toxic in this conte

by bri3d 8y ago

So Monsanto were selling a dangerous pesticide and intentionally obfuscating its effects. It doesn't matter what part of the composition was toxic in this context. It's not pertinent in the real world whether gyphosate or something else was toxic, the substance in question is Round Up. If you're trying to have a debate about the merits of glyphosate that's a different subject. I think I linked you to the emails from the discovery for this case in another thread, where the scientists involved clearly knew that something was toxic and were scrambling to discover what at the same time that their superiors were scrambling to cover it up.

tptacek 8y ago
Sure? My point is just that the case wasn't about glyphosate but about a particular Monsanto product. I sort of don't care what happens to Monsanto.
- bri3d 8y ago
  Point taken in that respect, I agree with you that glyphosate hasn't proven to be toxic or mutagenic across quite a lot of research, but if there's no non-toxic delivery vehicle for it it doesn't matter much :)
  - cptskippy 8y ago
    Is it possible that neither chemical is toxic alone but when used together they are?
- dionidium 8y ago
  > I sort of don't care what happens to Monsanto. And yet you comment on every thread that mentions them :)
  - tptacek 8y ago
    I do, because they are full of nonsense, and I am like a moth to the buglight with that kind of thing.
    - tripzilch 8y ago
      It's unfortunate that your continued vehemence with "that kind of thing" doesn't translate to being generally right as often, or even making for a pleasant discussion, participating or just reading along. I see your name at the top of a thread, I just know I'm in for reading a huge thread that isn't much about the topic at hand (that alone should give you sufficient pause for thought), but about you trying to prove people wrong about an increasingly narrow question that you framed yourself. In the end, you technically get to be right, and nobody learned anything.
      - tptacek 8y ago
        Sorry. Never mind. I'm wrong. Glyphosate is a carcinogen, Monsanto sues every farmer within a 10 mile radius of one of their Roundup-Ready customers, the IARC and California carcinogenicity warnings are entirely reputable and based on only the soundest of science, and if you work for a corporation, prosecutors have to prove your boss didn't order you to commit a crime before they can come after you. Sorry for obstructing those truths. :)
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
np76 8y ago
> So Monsanto were selling a dangerous pesticide and intentionally obfuscating its effects. The same Monsanto that manufactured PCBs and Agent Orange? That's a crazy coincidence.
- dionidium 8y ago
  Well, no, not the same Monsanto that did any of that. They spun off their chemical division in 1996. [0] More philosophically (and despite what SCOTUS has to say about it), companies aren't people; they are run by people. "Monsanto" can't do anything. The people running Monsanto have agency. And the people who did the things you mention here are dead. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/11/business/monsanto-plans-to-sell-or-spin-off-chemical-unit.html https://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/11/business/monsanto-plans-t...
  - atlantic 8y ago
    That's sophistry. You can take that line of argument to absolve anyone or anything from responsibility. For example, none of the cells in my body are the same as ten years ago, ergo this is not the same body as a decade ago. Or, there is no continuity between my thoughts then and now, therefore mentally I am not the same entity. Or, all of the individuals composing a company when it committed an environmental crime are now retired, therefore it is no longer the same company. Seriously? What about the continuity of corporate culture and management processes?
    - dionidium 8y ago
      In your frenzy to hold Monsanto culpable for their “corporate culture and management processes” (whatever that means), you’re making arguments that you wouldn’t yourself endorse in any other context. The son is not responsible for the sins of the father, no matter how much of the father’s “culture” he picked up along the way. Agent Orange has nothing to do with GMOs or glyphosate. It just doesn’t. Full stop.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]

by bri3d 8y ago

tptacek 8y ago

Sure? My point is just that the case wasn't about glyphosate but about a particular Monsanto product. I sort of don't care what happens to Monsanto.

bri3d 8y ago
Point taken in that respect, I agree with you that glyphosate hasn't proven to be toxic or mutagenic across quite a lot of research, but if there's no non-toxic delivery vehicle for it it doesn't matter much :)
- cptskippy 8y ago
  Is it possible that neither chemical is toxic alone but when used together they are?
dionidium 8y ago
> I sort of don't care what happens to Monsanto. And yet you comment on every thread that mentions them :)
- tptacek 8y ago
  I do, because they are full of nonsense, and I am like a moth to the buglight with that kind of thing.
  - tripzilch 8y ago
    It's unfortunate that your continued vehemence with "that kind of thing" doesn't translate to being generally right as often, or even making for a pleasant discussion, participating or just reading along. I see your name at the top of a thread, I just know I'm in for reading a huge thread that isn't much about the topic at hand (that alone should give you sufficient pause for thought), but about you trying to prove people wrong about an increasingly narrow question that you framed yourself. In the end, you technically get to be right, and nobody learned anything.
    - tptacek 8y ago
      Sorry. Never mind. I'm wrong. Glyphosate is a carcinogen, Monsanto sues every farmer within a 10 mile radius of one of their Roundup-Ready customers, the IARC and California carcinogenicity warnings are entirely reputable and based on only the soundest of science, and if you work for a corporation, prosecutors have to prove your boss didn't order you to commit a crime before they can come after you. Sorry for obstructing those truths. :)
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]

np76 8y ago

> So Monsanto were selling a dangerous pesticide and intentionally obfuscating its effects. The same Monsanto that manufactured PCBs and Agent Orange? That's a crazy coincidence.

dionidium 8y ago
Well, no, not the same Monsanto that did any of that. They spun off their chemical division in 1996. [0] More philosophically (and despite what SCOTUS has to say about it), companies aren't people; they are run by people. "Monsanto" can't do anything. The people running Monsanto have agency. And the people who did the things you mention here are dead. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/11/business/monsanto-plans-to-sell-or-spin-off-chemical-unit.html https://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/11/business/monsanto-plans-t...
- atlantic 8y ago
  That's sophistry. You can take that line of argument to absolve anyone or anything from responsibility. For example, none of the cells in my body are the same as ten years ago, ergo this is not the same body as a decade ago. Or, there is no continuity between my thoughts then and now, therefore mentally I am not the same entity. Or, all of the individuals composing a company when it committed an environmental crime are now retired, therefore it is no longer the same company. Seriously? What about the continuity of corporate culture and management processes?
  - dionidium 8y ago
    In your frenzy to hold Monsanto culpable for their “corporate culture and management processes” (whatever that means), you’re making arguments that you wouldn’t yourself endorse in any other context. The son is not responsible for the sins of the father, no matter how much of the father’s “culture” he picked up along the way. Agent Orange has nothing to do with GMOs or glyphosate. It just doesn’t. Full stop.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]