6 ms·

Whats your point? That the WHO are scare-mongering? That Monsanto shouldn't be held accountable for knowingly marketing a poisonous, carcinogenic substance an

Whats your point? That the WHO are scare-mongering? That Monsanto shouldn't be held accountable for knowingly marketing a poisonous, carcinogenic substance and profiting from it in the billions?

thaumasiotes 12y ago
You must get really worked up about the companies that make X-ray machines.
- fit2rule 12y ago
  Stay on topic. We're discussing Monsantos' culpability for poisoning the earth.
  - jholman 12y ago
    No, we're not. You might be, but no one else is. What people are generally discussing is whether or not Monsanto is poisoning humans, and meta-issues like whether or not the article does a good job of helping us understand whether or not Monsanto is poisoning humans. Although some (currently-absent) HN commenters probably feel otherwise, I don't see a single comment in this thread trying to downplay culpability (although not that many people are playing it up, either). And you're the only one talking about poisoning the earth (which is definitely an important subject, but not really relevant to the linked article, which is about the impact on human health). So why are YOU trying to change the topic? (Note, btw, that all of your comments in this thread-subtree have all been downvoted to hell. It appears to me that these same comments are sarcastic and nasty, and very poorly argued. On the other hand, your comment that begins with "The reason this is important to discuss is that..." is mostly pretty reasonable, and hasn't been smashed by downvotes. I think that's not a coincidence.)
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      > (Note, btw, that all of your comments in this thread-subtree have all been downvoted to hell. It appears to me that these same comments are sarcastic and nasty, and very poorly argued. On the other hand, your comment that begins with "The reason this is important to discuss is that..." is mostly pretty reasonable, and hasn't been smashed by downvotes. I think that's not a coincidence.) Indeed. I disagree with fit2rule all around the comment threads for this article and I upvoted that one - because it's reasonable and thoughtful.
      - fit2rule 12y ago
        In the meantime, the pro-Monsanto downvote brigade has been quenched by more who agree with me than don't...
        TeMPOraL 12y ago
        Cool. But how about just writing more of the constructive kind of comments? Then there will be no need for downvoting brigades for any side.
        fit2rule 12y ago
        I was calling into question the veracity by which some were willing to defend Monsanto, no matter the cost. I agree that the tone of responses can be moderated higher, but I also think that the reaction of the pro-Monsanto crowd has its own insidious nature, which must be dealt with - its a company well known for its own online PR tricks and campaigns, in an effort to manage its image. And it is not without its evil side, as a corporation. So I'll consider your feedback for the next time we have to discuss Monsanto's efforts to control the worlds food.
        TeMPOraL 12y ago
        In general I don't think Monsanto has a very strong support group here - most of the discussions about that company I read here was pointing out various evil things they're doing. I myself I'm not a fan of the company - but I believe in what I call 'high-resolution discourse' - i.e. focusing precisely on the actual problem. In case of Monsanto, most of the problems with them is about their business practices, not about the GMO technology - so it's fair to blame them for acting like assholes, but it's not fair to automatically assume the tech is bad (or to extend it to the entire field, e.g. "GMOs are bad because Monsanto is evil"). If the hypothetical pro- and anti-Monsanto crowd is willing to engage in a constructive, high-resolution discourse then I think it's only for the better - everyone can learn something new from it.
rmason 12y ago
I'm trying to provide a background because I have twenty plus years in the fertilizer business. I'm old enough that I remember when it was introduced. I don't know WHO's agenda but I've seen enough cycles on both pesticides and GMO's when someone makes a provocative statement based on early research and are usually proven wrong.
- kyrra 12y ago
  Side question. If I wanted to explain with studies to someone that GMO hate is unfounded, do you have a recommendation on a place to gather facts or recent studies on it?
  - soufron 12y ago
    Well begin by the website of Monsanto, lol.
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      Well, why not? There are first to know the good arguments for their solutions. You can start there and then go look for independent analysis and verification of the claims.
      - DataCreep 12y ago
        While we're at it, let's have BP teach us all why their oil spills and dumping of even more toxic chemicals into the ocean to cover those spills up are really no big deal.
  - ideonexus 12y ago
    I wrote a blog post defending GMOs awhile back, with examples of non-Monsanto GMOs that have saved papayas in Hawaii, promise to deliver food to Africa, and improve nutrition. The thing many people don't realize is that all food is GMO. There are no such things as tomatoes, peaches, apples, or corn in nature. These are all products of just a few thousand years of selective breeding. With GMOs, we are also constantly performing a massive ongoing experiment involving over 100 billion livestock animals, and livestock farmers have seen no deleterious effects in the health of their products: http://ideonexus.com/2011/12/05/gmo-foods-and-the-promise-a-second-green-revolution/ http://ideonexus.com/2011/12/05/gmo-foods-and-the-promise-a-...
healthisevil 12y ago
The acetaminophen in Tylenol ( a common over the counter pain and fever medication used by millions of children and adults every day ) is carcinogenic and hepatotoxic. " There are, however, published data giving clear evidence that paracetamol causes chromosomal damage in vitro in mammalian cells at high concentrations and indicating that similar effects occur in vivo at high dosages. Available data point to three possible mechanisms of paracetamol-induced genotoxicity: (1) inhibition of ribonucleotide reductase; (2) increase in cytosolic and intranuclear Ca2+ levels; (3) DNA damage caused by NAPQI after glutathione depletion. " "Paracetamol induced sister chromatid exchange in human cells in vivo, and it was aneugenic and induced chromosomal aberrations but not micronuclei in mammalian cells in vivo. It induced DNA single-strand breaks in mice treated in vivo. Paracetamol induced sister chromatid exchange and chromosomal aberrations in human cells in vitro. It weakly induced cell transformation in a mouse cell line. It induced chromosomal aberrations, micronuclei and sister chromatid exchange in mammalian cells in vitro. It did not induce gene mutation, and the results of tests in mammalian cells in vitro for unscheduled DNA synthesis and DNA damage were inconclusive. Overall, paracetamol was genotoxic in mammalian cells in vivo and in vitro. It was not mutagenic to insects but was clastogenic in plant cells." And here is an entry from the NIH TOXNET database about liver and bladder cancers induced by tylenol. http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cpdb/chempages/ACETAMINOPHEN.html http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cpdb/chempages/ACETAMINOPHEN.html Everything including water is toxic under the right conditions.
- fit2rule 12y ago
  Oh, well then, no need to worry about this at all .. everything is toxic in the right numbers, so there's no wrong-doing here in the slightest and we shouldn't stop big companies from polluting the planet, because .. after all .. its already all polluted. What a ludicrous position.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    More like "just because it's done by someone you don't like, doesn't mean it's wrong". Blame Monsanto for the evil things they do (there's plenty), but not everything else. Your argument is almost literally "Stalin believed 2+2=4, therefore 2+2 is 5".

Whats your point? That the WHO are scare-mongering? That Monsanto shouldn't be held accountable for knowingly marketing a poisonous, carcinogenic substance and profiting from it in the billions?

thaumasiotes 12y ago

You must get really worked up about the companies that make X-ray machines.

fit2rule 12y ago
Stay on topic. We're discussing Monsantos' culpability for poisoning the earth.
- jholman 12y ago
  No, we're not. You might be, but no one else is. What people are generally discussing is whether or not Monsanto is poisoning humans, and meta-issues like whether or not the article does a good job of helping us understand whether or not Monsanto is poisoning humans. Although some (currently-absent) HN commenters probably feel otherwise, I don't see a single comment in this thread trying to downplay culpability (although not that many people are playing it up, either). And you're the only one talking about poisoning the earth (which is definitely an important subject, but not really relevant to the linked article, which is about the impact on human health). So why are YOU trying to change the topic? (Note, btw, that all of your comments in this thread-subtree have all been downvoted to hell. It appears to me that these same comments are sarcastic and nasty, and very poorly argued. On the other hand, your comment that begins with "The reason this is important to discuss is that..." is mostly pretty reasonable, and hasn't been smashed by downvotes. I think that's not a coincidence.)
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    > (Note, btw, that all of your comments in this thread-subtree have all been downvoted to hell. It appears to me that these same comments are sarcastic and nasty, and very poorly argued. On the other hand, your comment that begins with "The reason this is important to discuss is that..." is mostly pretty reasonable, and hasn't been smashed by downvotes. I think that's not a coincidence.) Indeed. I disagree with fit2rule all around the comment threads for this article and I upvoted that one - because it's reasonable and thoughtful.
    - fit2rule 12y ago
      In the meantime, the pro-Monsanto downvote brigade has been quenched by more who agree with me than don't...
      - TeMPOraL 12y ago
        Cool. But how about just writing more of the constructive kind of comments? Then there will be no need for downvoting brigades for any side.
        fit2rule 12y ago
        I was calling into question the veracity by which some were willing to defend Monsanto, no matter the cost. I agree that the tone of responses can be moderated higher, but I also think that the reaction of the pro-Monsanto crowd has its own insidious nature, which must be dealt with - its a company well known for its own online PR tricks and campaigns, in an effort to manage its image. And it is not without its evil side, as a corporation. So I'll consider your feedback for the next time we have to discuss Monsanto's efforts to control the worlds food.
        TeMPOraL 12y ago
        In general I don't think Monsanto has a very strong support group here - most of the discussions about that company I read here was pointing out various evil things they're doing. I myself I'm not a fan of the company - but I believe in what I call 'high-resolution discourse' - i.e. focusing precisely on the actual problem. In case of Monsanto, most of the problems with them is about their business practices, not about the GMO technology - so it's fair to blame them for acting like assholes, but it's not fair to automatically assume the tech is bad (or to extend it to the entire field, e.g. "GMOs are bad because Monsanto is evil"). If the hypothetical pro- and anti-Monsanto crowd is willing to engage in a constructive, high-resolution discourse then I think it's only for the better - everyone can learn something new from it.

rmason 12y ago

I'm trying to provide a background because I have twenty plus years in the fertilizer business. I'm old enough that I remember when it was introduced. I don't know WHO's agenda but I've seen enough cycles on both pesticides and GMO's when someone makes a provocative statement based on early research and are usually proven wrong.

kyrra 12y ago
Side question. If I wanted to explain with studies to someone that GMO hate is unfounded, do you have a recommendation on a place to gather facts or recent studies on it?
- soufron 12y ago
  Well begin by the website of Monsanto, lol.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    Well, why not? There are first to know the good arguments for their solutions. You can start there and then go look for independent analysis and verification of the claims.
    - DataCreep 12y ago
      While we're at it, let's have BP teach us all why their oil spills and dumping of even more toxic chemicals into the ocean to cover those spills up are really no big deal.
- ideonexus 12y ago
  I wrote a blog post defending GMOs awhile back, with examples of non-Monsanto GMOs that have saved papayas in Hawaii, promise to deliver food to Africa, and improve nutrition. The thing many people don't realize is that all food is GMO. There are no such things as tomatoes, peaches, apples, or corn in nature. These are all products of just a few thousand years of selective breeding. With GMOs, we are also constantly performing a massive ongoing experiment involving over 100 billion livestock animals, and livestock farmers have seen no deleterious effects in the health of their products: http://ideonexus.com/2011/12/05/gmo-foods-and-the-promise-a-second-green-revolution/ http://ideonexus.com/2011/12/05/gmo-foods-and-the-promise-a-...

healthisevil 12y ago

The acetaminophen in Tylenol ( a common over the counter pain and fever medication used by millions of children and adults every day ) is carcinogenic and hepatotoxic. " There are, however, published data giving clear evidence that paracetamol causes chromosomal damage in vitro in mammalian cells at high concentrations and indicating that similar effects occur in vivo at high dosages. Available data point to three possible mechanisms of paracetamol-induced genotoxicity: (1) inhibition of ribonucleotide reductase; (2) increase in cytosolic and intranuclear Ca2+ levels; (3) DNA damage caused by NAPQI after glutathione depletion. " "Paracetamol induced sister chromatid exchange in human cells in vivo, and it was aneugenic and induced chromosomal aberrations but not micronuclei in mammalian cells in vivo. It induced DNA single-strand breaks in mice treated in vivo. Paracetamol induced sister chromatid exchange and chromosomal aberrations in human cells in vitro. It weakly induced cell transformation in a mouse cell line. It induced chromosomal aberrations, micronuclei and sister chromatid exchange in mammalian cells in vitro. It did not induce gene mutation, and the results of tests in mammalian cells in vitro for unscheduled DNA synthesis and DNA damage were inconclusive. Overall, paracetamol was genotoxic in mammalian cells in vivo and in vitro. It was not mutagenic to insects but was clastogenic in plant cells." And here is an entry from the NIH TOXNET database about liver and bladder cancers induced by tylenol. http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cpdb/chempages/ACETAMINOPHEN.html http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cpdb/chempages/ACETAMINOPHEN.html Everything including water is toxic under the right conditions.

fit2rule 12y ago
Oh, well then, no need to worry about this at all .. everything is toxic in the right numbers, so there's no wrong-doing here in the slightest and we shouldn't stop big companies from polluting the planet, because .. after all .. its already all polluted. What a ludicrous position.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  More like "just because it's done by someone you don't like, doesn't mean it's wrong". Blame Monsanto for the evil things they do (there's plenty), but not everything else. Your argument is almost literally "Stalin believed 2+2=4, therefore 2+2 is 5".