4 ms·

> sake of seeking the truth on this specific issue I don't disagree with you, I also don't think we should be using the product when the truth is as clouded as

• gruez 4y ago
  >So ban it until the truth comes out. Okay but given that we have endless studies already, it seems like "until the truth comes out" really means "until my preferred conclusion comes out".
  • soperj 4y ago
    My preferred conclusion would be that it's actually safe, since we're using a massive amount of it already and we're all exposed.
  • drekk 4y ago
    It took decades to prove conclusively that cigarettes cause cancer in humans. Similarly to tobacco companies Monsanto is subsidizing research that just happens to find no harms with RoundUp. I'm sure it's fine though, no big deal that trace amounts can be found in urine samples from 80% of Americans. https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/09/weedkiller-g https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/09/weedkiller-g...
    • gruez 4y ago
      >It took decades to prove conclusively that cigarettes cause cancer in humans. Glyphosate has been around for almost 5 decades. Wikipedia says "The consensus among national pesticide regulatory agencies and scientific organizations is that labeled uses of glyphosate have demonstrated no evidence of human carcinogenicity"[1]. If you think this is not "conclusively" enough, how much longer/more evidence do you need? Is this a standard that we should apply to everything[2], or just chemicals made my evil multinational corporations? Maybe we should delay rolling out cell phones for a few decades just to be sure that they don't cause brain cancer? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate [2] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demands-for-rigor/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demand...
      • mike00632 4y ago
        But only when the advent of RounUp ready crops have we started spraying RoundUp directly onto food. Previously we only consumed RoundUp in trace amounts. It's extremely misleading to exclude the facts.
        • gruez 4y ago
          I appreciate the correction. That said, it doesn't affect the argument that much. At best it changes "almost 5 decades" to "almost 3 decades". I think it's reasonable to say that if people aren't willing to wait 5 decades to "prove conclusively that [thing] causes cancer", that they're not willing to wait 3 decades either. Let me re-ask the question from my prior comment: should delay rolling out cell phones for a few decades just to be sure that they don't cause brain cancer?
          • saiya-jin 4y ago
            Again very misleading argument - anybody can choose to not use phone, or have loud calls and never, ever put any phone closer to 0.5/1m from their head if they are concerned. Not something you can do with mass produced food which at this point is almost all food most people can buy. On top of that, have you seen, ever, a label on food stating that it contains ingredients on which Round up was used, how much etc? Let's stop comparing apples to mortar bricks and have some factual discussions on such serious issues, not just random whataboutisms to divert topic.
            • gruez 4y ago
              >Again very misleading argument - anybody can choose to not use phone, or have loud calls and never, ever put any phone closer to 0.5/1m from their head if they are concerned. The people with EMI sensitivity and/or oppose 5G deployments beg to differ. >Not something you can do with mass produced food which at this point is almost all food most people can buy. Easy choice here would be to buy organic
            • ekianjo 4y ago
  • p_j_w 4y ago
    The overall picture from those studies sounds pretty murky, though.
• ekianjo 4y ago
  there is no rampant epidemy of cancers striking farmers who use round up. let the market decide based on the available data.