4 ms·

>The general public does not understand agriculture well, and I've noticed that this misunderstanding is stronger among those that have huge huge concerns about

by pydry 4y ago

>The general public does not understand agriculture well, and I've noticed that this misunderstanding is stronger among those that have huge huge concerns about seeds and GMOs. This is Monsanto's most frequent talking point. They're very emphatic that GMO foods designed to survive being doused in massive amounts of roundup are completely safe (true) before they are sprayed with massive amounts of the (carcinogenic*) roundup. The "objectors are ignorant anti science types" with the subtle mislead renders it an extraordinarily effective talking point. * https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/roundup-ingredient-probably-carcinogenic-humans https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/roundup-ingredient-proba...

bluGill 4y ago
> (carcinogenic) roundup Citation needed. Roundup has been studied a lot. Very few of those studies find it is carcinogenic - enough that meta analysis finds it is not.
- adamthedog 4y ago
  There is a little evidence (10.1186/s12940-021-00729-8) that a very particular form of non-Hodjkins lymphoma is associated with glyphospate exposure (occupationally!), but ultimately... it's hard to say. There's evidence of genotoxicity in human cell lines (10.1007/s13205-018-1464-z), but at possibly an unrealistic dose of glyphosphate-based herbicides. They are also demonstrably endocrine disruptors (10.1016/j.tox.2009.06.006), though again true in vivo exposure levels to glyphosphate is not well established it seems, so these studies are ultimately novel. However, it's clear that they should be given more care than they are now. Hell, it took me like.. two months? to get a pesticide applicator certification and now I can roundup the hell out of anyone's crops, and I barely know anything about the stuff.
epistasis 4y ago
I don't understand, is the talking point what you quotes from me, or their taking point about GMOs? Because I don't think what you quoted, or my comment in general, is a Monsanto taking point, and I don't understand the connection to Monsanto that you are trying to make.
- dudeofea 4y ago
  [flagged]

by pydry 4y ago

bluGill 4y ago

> (carcinogenic) roundup Citation needed. Roundup has been studied a lot. Very few of those studies find it is carcinogenic - enough that meta analysis finds it is not.

adamthedog 4y ago
There is a little evidence (10.1186/s12940-021-00729-8) that a very particular form of non-Hodjkins lymphoma is associated with glyphospate exposure (occupationally!), but ultimately... it's hard to say. There's evidence of genotoxicity in human cell lines (10.1007/s13205-018-1464-z), but at possibly an unrealistic dose of glyphosphate-based herbicides. They are also demonstrably endocrine disruptors (10.1016/j.tox.2009.06.006), though again true in vivo exposure levels to glyphosphate is not well established it seems, so these studies are ultimately novel. However, it's clear that they should be given more care than they are now. Hell, it took me like.. two months? to get a pesticide applicator certification and now I can roundup the hell out of anyone's crops, and I barely know anything about the stuff.

epistasis 4y ago

I don't understand, is the talking point what you quotes from me, or their taking point about GMOs? Because I don't think what you quoted, or my comment in general, is a Monsanto taking point, and I don't understand the connection to Monsanto that you are trying to make.

dudeofea 4y ago
[flagged]