3 ms·
> Glyphosate is used for only one reason, it’s profitable for Monsanto. It's used because it's effective broad-spectrum herbicide. My understanding it's quite
by tivert 3y ago
> Glyphosate is used for only one reason, it’s profitable for Monsanto.
It's used because it's effective broad-spectrum herbicide. My understanding it's quite a bit less toxic than its predecessors, and I understand there's no equivalent replacement on the horizon.
IIRC, the problem was they marketed it as practically nontoxic to humans, which is definitely not the case.
- m00x 3y agoSo far, there is monumental evidence that it's non-toxic to humans at normal doses. This study doesn't prove it's toxic. It only introduces the aspect that it might be associated to kidney disease. Everything is toxic to humans at the right dose, even water.
- LorenPechtel 3y agoI would call causing chronic kidney disease to be toxic. It sounds like they evaluated the chemical itself but didn't evaluate what could happen to the chemical once it was in the environment.
- throwaway290 3y ago> It sounds like they evaluated the chemical itself but didn't evaluate what could happen to the chemical once it was in the environment. I bet that's most of evaluations and it's probably not even required to take into consideration the environment and how it can change the response...
- cvccvroomvroom 3y agoAnd I would hazard a guess that this "mountain of evidence" was bought and paid-for by Monsanto.
- faeriechangling 3y agoI would hazard to guess that it’s been on the market for over half a century and has been controversial for eons and mountains of independent research has been done on it by this point notably by national health orgs. Of course Monsanto is putting its finger on the scales of both the research that is done and the research that is seen but they are not some sort of omnipotent evil.
- mardifoufs 3y agoSo there's just no way to convince you then, right? Well for my part I say that all the anti glyphosate studies (not that there are many of them) are financed by competitors in the herbicide market. Just super convenient
- throwaway290 3y agoAnother alternative is that no one did any studies because there's finite amount of people and a lot of other topics to study, topics which are better financed by various conglomerates;)
- bumby 3y agoPart of this case was that Monsanto “bullied” scientists into favorable reports.
- metadat 3y ago> the problem was they marketed it as practically nontoxic to humans, Has their marketing stance changed? Or does Glyphosate continue to be marketed as a relatively safe solution? Roundup is still for sale at Home Depot, they sell massive quantities of it every day.
- improv 3y agohttps://www.npr.org/2018/08/10/637722786/jury-awards-terminally-ill-man-289-million-in-lawsuit-against-monsanto https://www.npr.org/2018/08/10/637722786/jury-awards-termina... >"We are sympathetic to Mr. Johnson and his family," Monsanto Vice President Scott Partridge said in a statement following the verdict. "Today's decision does not change the fact that more than 800 scientific studies and reviews ... support the fact that glyphosate does not cause cancer, and did not cause Mr. Johnson's cancer." >He confirmed the company will appeal the decision "and continue to vigorously defend this product, which has a 40-year history of safe use and continues to be a vital, effective, and safe tool for farmers and others." "Safe and effective"
- tptacek 3y agoThey're not making up the weight of the scientific evidence there.
- improv 3y agoWhy do you think the jury ruled the way it did then?
- bumby 3y agoIt’s possible the jury is not scientifically literate. One of the damning emails said “you can’t say Roundup doesn’t cause cancer.” To a layman, this may be heard as “Roundup can cause cancer.” To a scientist, this may simply mean “There isn’t sufficient data to make a strong claim.” Same words, two very different interpretations. That’s why lawyers fight so hard for jury selection.