3 ms·

This press article is mostly void of substance. Yes, Monsanto do everything, even semi illegal things to defend it's economical interests. I actually learned

This press article is mostly void of substance. Yes, Monsanto do everything, even semi illegal things to defend it's economical interests. I actually learned they hired fake journalists. But nothing about the real issue: is glyphosate carcinogenic and if so, how much compared to very common carcinogenics. By far most independent studies (listed on Wikipedia) conclude that glyphosate is not or is unlikely to be carcinogenic. This is solid evidence of glyphosate being of little worry, especially when we have far more worrying carcinogens in our everyday life. The FTI-written letter declared that glyphosate “does not cause cancer,” accused the IARC of peddling “bunk science,” and threatened a reassessment of the NIH budget to ensure that the agency is “committed to only funding organizations that produce information and conclusions based on sound science, robust processes, and credible methodology.” How solid scientifically are the IARC reviews? Nobody adress this real question. Btw everybody talk about potential lives that Monsanto indirectly maybe killed. Monsanto is often considered as evil. But thanks to their scientific innovations, they feed the world. It's difficult to realize how many lives they have saved or improved, but they are probably on the top 10 list of most impactful entities for increasing well being and diminishing suffering.

wickedwiesel 7y ago
> But thanks to their scientific innovations, they feed the world. It's difficult to realize how many lives they have saved or improved, but they are probably on the top 10 list of most impactful entities for increasing well being and diminishing suffering. How can you be so sure about this? Monsanto's GMOs depend on the use of their tailored pesticides. It's their whole USP. The negative impact of the current use of pesticides, of which roundup is a bestseller, is _immense_. The vicious cycle of pesticide use, GMOs and debt is horrible for farmers in low- medium-income countries and often leads to suicide. Just pesticide poisoning accounts for a yearly death toll of 200,000 to 250,000 people according to the UN [0] and the WHO [1]. This does not even go into the topic of loss of biodiversity where pesticides play a vital role. According to the OHCHR, if we were to eliminate bees by using neonicotinoid pesticides as usual, we will likely see a collapse of "the very basis of agriculture as 71% of crop species are bee-pollinated."[2] Monsanto and its practice have been directly linked to the demise of bee populations [3]. Monsanto and the like are again, cashing in all our chips for short-term gain. This is not innovation. This is a growth hacking at its worst. [0] - 2017, https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G17/017/85/PDF/G1701785.pdf?OpenElement https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G17/017/85/PDF... "pesticides are responsible for an estimated 200,000 acute poisoning deaths each year" [1] - 2006, https://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/en/PesticidesHealth2.pdf https://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/en/Pest... Worldwide, an estimated three million cases of pesticide poisoning occur every year, resulting in an excess of 250,000 deaths. [2] - https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=21306 https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N... [3] - https://www.globalresearch.ca/death-and-extinction-of-the-bees/5375684 https://www.globalresearch.ca/death-and-extinction-of-the-be...
- jcranberry 7y ago
  You haven't mentioned any evidence which would inculpate Monsanto. Pesticides are used for both GMO and non-GMO crops. What is so vicious about the cycle of 'pesticide, GMOs, and debt' which is less vicious for 'pesticide, non-GMOs and debt'?
  - wickedwiesel 7y ago
    This is a two-part answer. First, the big difference about GMOs is that "farmers must purchase fresh seeds as retailers sell them only as hybrid cultivars, which prevents growers from replanting them the following year." [3] You can imagine that this makes a huge difference in how farmers need to operate. Farmers do not store seed anymore like they used to but need to buy new seed ever year. If world market prices of their commodities drop they will not even be able to afford new seed & pesticides for the next crop, especially since prices for GMO seeds and brand-specific pesticides are a multiple of non-GMO seeds. With non-GMOs, farmers retain the possibility and the legal right to the re-seed next year. That is why this cycle is more vicious, especially for low-income countries where credits and loan are hard to come by. > You haven't mentioned any evidence which would inculpate Monsanto. Secondly, I explicitly linked an article titled "Death and Extinction of the Bees. The Role of Monsanto?" which is one of many others like the Guardian, citing University of Texas research [0], the German Office for Environmental Protection [1] highlighting the negative effect of RoundUp/Glpyhosat. All of these detail the negative impact of Monsanto's product on biodiversity in general and bees more specifically. So the evidence is not only about the negative impact of Monsanto's main product RoundUp on bee population but also Monsanto's documented efforts to prevent effective regulation and scientific discussion. For instance, the so-called 'Monsanto papers' "reveal Monsanto-sponsored ghostwriting of articles published in toxicology journals and the lay media, interference in the peer review process, behind-the-scenes influence on retraction and the creation of a so-called academic website as a front for the defense of Monsanto products."[5] Monsanto doesn't really help here and became the first company that has been "banned from entering the European parliament after the multinational refused to attend a parliamentary hearing into allegations of regulatory interference" [4]. [0] - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/24/monsanto-weedkiller-harms-bees-research-finds https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/24/monsanto... [1] - https://www.bfn.de/fileadmin/BfN/landwirtschaft/Dokumente/20180131_BfN-Papier_Glyphosat.pdf https://www.bfn.de/fileadmin/BfN/landwirtschaft/Dokumente/20... [3] - https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/gallery/2014/may/05/india-cotton-suicides-farmer-deaths-gm-seeds https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/gallery/2014/... [4] - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/28/monsanto-banned-from-european-parliament https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/28/monsanto... [5] - https://www.sci-hub.tw/10.3233/JRS-180028 https://www.sci-hub.tw/10.3233/JRS-180028
alexandercrohde 7y ago
>> By far most independent studies (listed on Wikipedia) conclude that glyphosate is not or is unlikely to be carcinogenic. Well, if there was no concern about the objectivity of the science that might be more relevant. Unfortunately the whole article is pointing out that the science done may not be accurate, as Monsanto has been putting financial incentives against honest research. We may like to tell ourselves that scientific studies are beyond corruption, but that's plainly not true. There was even a time when a "scientific study" concluded leaded gasoline was safe. This is why financial backers must be disclosed in respected research. As a consumer, if a CEO wants to consistently subject himself to a 10x dose of the chemical that will be remaining on/in my food, maybe I'd have more faith that our incentives align.

wickedwiesel 7y ago

> But thanks to their scientific innovations, they feed the world. It's difficult to realize how many lives they have saved or improved, but they are probably on the top 10 list of most impactful entities for increasing well being and diminishing suffering. How can you be so sure about this? Monsanto's GMOs depend on the use of their tailored pesticides. It's their whole USP. The negative impact of the current use of pesticides, of which roundup is a bestseller, is _immense_. The vicious cycle of pesticide use, GMOs and debt is horrible for farmers in low- medium-income countries and often leads to suicide. Just pesticide poisoning accounts for a yearly death toll of 200,000 to 250,000 people according to the UN [0] and the WHO [1]. This does not even go into the topic of loss of biodiversity where pesticides play a vital role. According to the OHCHR, if we were to eliminate bees by using neonicotinoid pesticides as usual, we will likely see a collapse of "the very basis of agriculture as 71% of crop species are bee-pollinated."[2] Monsanto and its practice have been directly linked to the demise of bee populations [3]. Monsanto and the like are again, cashing in all our chips for short-term gain. This is not innovation. This is a growth hacking at its worst. [0] - 2017, https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G17/017/85/PDF/G1701785.pdf?OpenElement https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G17/017/85/PDF... "pesticides are responsible for an estimated 200,000 acute poisoning deaths each year" [1] - 2006, https://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/en/PesticidesHealth2.pdf https://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/en/Pest... Worldwide, an estimated three million cases of pesticide poisoning occur every year, resulting in an excess of 250,000 deaths. [2] - https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=21306 https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N... [3] - https://www.globalresearch.ca/death-and-extinction-of-the-bees/5375684 https://www.globalresearch.ca/death-and-extinction-of-the-be...

jcranberry 7y ago
You haven't mentioned any evidence which would inculpate Monsanto. Pesticides are used for both GMO and non-GMO crops. What is so vicious about the cycle of 'pesticide, GMOs, and debt' which is less vicious for 'pesticide, non-GMOs and debt'?
- wickedwiesel 7y ago
  This is a two-part answer. First, the big difference about GMOs is that "farmers must purchase fresh seeds as retailers sell them only as hybrid cultivars, which prevents growers from replanting them the following year." [3] You can imagine that this makes a huge difference in how farmers need to operate. Farmers do not store seed anymore like they used to but need to buy new seed ever year. If world market prices of their commodities drop they will not even be able to afford new seed & pesticides for the next crop, especially since prices for GMO seeds and brand-specific pesticides are a multiple of non-GMO seeds. With non-GMOs, farmers retain the possibility and the legal right to the re-seed next year. That is why this cycle is more vicious, especially for low-income countries where credits and loan are hard to come by. > You haven't mentioned any evidence which would inculpate Monsanto. Secondly, I explicitly linked an article titled "Death and Extinction of the Bees. The Role of Monsanto?" which is one of many others like the Guardian, citing University of Texas research [0], the German Office for Environmental Protection [1] highlighting the negative effect of RoundUp/Glpyhosat. All of these detail the negative impact of Monsanto's product on biodiversity in general and bees more specifically. So the evidence is not only about the negative impact of Monsanto's main product RoundUp on bee population but also Monsanto's documented efforts to prevent effective regulation and scientific discussion. For instance, the so-called 'Monsanto papers' "reveal Monsanto-sponsored ghostwriting of articles published in toxicology journals and the lay media, interference in the peer review process, behind-the-scenes influence on retraction and the creation of a so-called academic website as a front for the defense of Monsanto products."[5] Monsanto doesn't really help here and became the first company that has been "banned from entering the European parliament after the multinational refused to attend a parliamentary hearing into allegations of regulatory interference" [4]. [0] - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/24/monsanto-weedkiller-harms-bees-research-finds https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/24/monsanto... [1] - https://www.bfn.de/fileadmin/BfN/landwirtschaft/Dokumente/20180131_BfN-Papier_Glyphosat.pdf https://www.bfn.de/fileadmin/BfN/landwirtschaft/Dokumente/20... [3] - https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/gallery/2014/may/05/india-cotton-suicides-farmer-deaths-gm-seeds https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/gallery/2014/... [4] - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/28/monsanto-banned-from-european-parliament https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/28/monsanto... [5] - https://www.sci-hub.tw/10.3233/JRS-180028 https://www.sci-hub.tw/10.3233/JRS-180028

alexandercrohde 7y ago

>> By far most independent studies (listed on Wikipedia) conclude that glyphosate is not or is unlikely to be carcinogenic. Well, if there was no concern about the objectivity of the science that might be more relevant. Unfortunately the whole article is pointing out that the science done may not be accurate, as Monsanto has been putting financial incentives against honest research. We may like to tell ourselves that scientific studies are beyond corruption, but that's plainly not true. There was even a time when a "scientific study" concluded leaded gasoline was safe. This is why financial backers must be disclosed in respected research. As a consumer, if a CEO wants to consistently subject himself to a 10x dose of the chemical that will be remaining on/in my food, maybe I'd have more faith that our incentives align.