Monsanto Leaks Suggest It Tried To Kill Cancer Research On Roundup Weed Killer (rt.com) 242
Danny Hakim reports via The New York Times (Warning: article may be paywalled; alternate source): Documents released Tuesday in a lawsuit against Monsanto raised new questions about the company's efforts to influence the news media and scientific research and revealed internal debate over the safety of its highest-profile product, the weed killer Roundup. The active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, is the most common weed killer in the world and is used by farmers on row crops and by home gardeners. While Roundup's relative safety has been upheld by most regulators, a case in federal court in San Francisco continues to raise questions about the company's practices and the product itself.
The documents underscore the lengths to which the agrochemical company goes to protect its image. Documents show that Henry I. Miller, an academic and a vocal proponent of genetically modified crops, asked Monsanto to draft an article for him that largely mirrored one that appeared under his name on Forbes's website in 2015. Mr. Miller could not be reached for comment. A similar issue appeared in academic research. An academic involved in writing research funded by Monsanto, John Acquavella, a former Monsanto employee, appeared to express discomfort with the process, writing in a 2015 email to a Monsanto executive, "I can't be part of deceptive authorship on a presentation or publication." He also said of the way the company was trying to present the authorship: "We call that ghost writing and it is unethical." Mr. Miller's 2015 article on Forbes's website was an attack on the findings of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a branch of the World Health Organization that had labeled glyphosate a probable carcinogen, a finding disputed by other regulatory bodies. In the email traffic, Monsanto asked Mr. Miller if he would be interested in writing an article on the topic, and he said, "I would be if I could start from a high-quality draft." The article appeared under Mr. Miller's name, and with the assertion that "opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." The magazine did not mention any involvement by Monsanto in preparing the article.
The documents underscore the lengths to which the agrochemical company goes to protect its image. Documents show that Henry I. Miller, an academic and a vocal proponent of genetically modified crops, asked Monsanto to draft an article for him that largely mirrored one that appeared under his name on Forbes's website in 2015. Mr. Miller could not be reached for comment. A similar issue appeared in academic research. An academic involved in writing research funded by Monsanto, John Acquavella, a former Monsanto employee, appeared to express discomfort with the process, writing in a 2015 email to a Monsanto executive, "I can't be part of deceptive authorship on a presentation or publication." He also said of the way the company was trying to present the authorship: "We call that ghost writing and it is unethical." Mr. Miller's 2015 article on Forbes's website was an attack on the findings of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a branch of the World Health Organization that had labeled glyphosate a probable carcinogen, a finding disputed by other regulatory bodies. In the email traffic, Monsanto asked Mr. Miller if he would be interested in writing an article on the topic, and he said, "I would be if I could start from a high-quality draft." The article appeared under Mr. Miller's name, and with the assertion that "opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." The magazine did not mention any involvement by Monsanto in preparing the article.
So What? (Score:5, Funny)
How is this news? It's called "capitalism".
Re:So What? (Score:5, Interesting)
When a discussion about genetically modified food comes up, I always say that the technology itself is great, but also, the management and some stock holders of Monsanto need to get a one way ticket to Siberia.
Re:So What? (Score:5, Interesting)
GMO is bad because of mono crop issues.
GMO is bad because resistance to herbicides induces over-use of them.
GMO is bad because GMO has been used to have plants make toxins. So GMO food can contain poison. And there are no regulations about this or any other use of GMO.
GMO is bad because it has been used to make kill-genes, even if only in the lab, and between that and mono-crop the results of a wide-spread release could cause massive destruction.
GMO is bad because Monsanto claims it's harmless, and when Monsanto says something, the opposite is more likely true.
But the pro-GMO crowd doesn't talk about the reasonable objections. Instead, it's all about the strawman.
Re:So What? (Score:5, Informative)
GMO will have great benefits if done properly. No poison crops, no cross breeding in the wild with related organisms, no self destruct genes. Do it smart in controlled environments ie highly genetically modified algae or more specifically kelp et al and you can grow anything you want in a salt water tank, any protein, sugar, carbohydrate, salt, any flavour or texture, low allergen because the plant does not need to protect itself as much growing in a protected environment. Done in major production facilities very close to demand and producing year round. As a bonus millions of hectares of farm land freed to become natural parks creating a healthier environment for us all. Energy is key.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So What? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not what he said or implied though. He pointed out that there are ways in which GMOs can be used correctly and for the benefit of everyone to get better food with less energy/demand on the soil.
The whole problem with the GMO-discussion is that people mix up 2 things, namely the scientific process of genetic modification, and the gigantic corporations that seek to make profit using the process - sometimes in ethically questionable ways.
All of the food we eat is 'genetically modified' in the sense that we've been breeding and artificially selecting for desirable traits in plants and animals for millenia, now it's just become possible to do it at way faster timescales and increasing accuracy. The fact that there is corporate greed and instances seeking to take advantage of this process for their own personal benefit at the expense of other people does not invalidate the process of gene modification itself anymore than criminals and scammers using the internet for malicious ends makes the whole of the internet a bad thing.
Re: (Score:3)
"They already have to prove that it's basically biologically indistinguishable from standard bananas before they can sell it."
Of course they can't prove that.
A GMO plat is biologically different by the biological definition of its difference. But bio-engineering companies can prove that any particular plant and its GMO version are legally identical because before they started selling GMOs for human consumption they went to court and won that ruling.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the GMOs are distinguishable in some respects, but the company selling one already needs to prove that those differences are essentially irrelevant to humans or any animals we plan to feed with the GMO. A GMO banana is a banana, so "Stephen Holstein" wants them to prove something that is true by definition.
Re: (Score:2)
So, because done right, it has benefits, that means that done wrong should be tolerated or encouraged? Since labor builds value, slavery should be legal.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Sorry to break it to you, but plants are whores. Pollen season is literally mass plant jizzing everywhere trying to find any and all possible mates. So, it's basically impossible to do GMO properly if it depends in any part on wild plants not cross breeding.
Re:So What? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Done right" for GMO sounds to me like "done right" for nuclear power - it's possible, but it'll never really happen because financial realities always make it fail.
Selective breeding has nature taking a hand in the outcome, and as such it far less likely to cause a problem that we find hard to solve (although exceptions occur, I guess). GMO research is frankly at the very beginning - we "think" a particular gene or whatever 'turns on and off' some feature of the plant, but honestly, we have no idea what else it does too. I strongly suspect that in a few decades people will wonder how on earth we ate any of the GMO food around today. Then they'll look into it and realise the only way people would buy it was if it was mixed in with non-GMO and not labelled as such.
I'm by no means saying we shouldn't research this stuff - I just seriously doubt we know even half of what we really need to know for it to be "done right".
Re: (Score:2)
GMO crops are like any other technology.
They're either a benefit or a hazard.
If they're a benefit, it's not a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
GMO will have great benefits if done properl
You mean if it's not implemented by a sociopathic bioweapons manufacturer with plans to dominate the world's food supply? Nope, can't argue with that.
Re: So What? (Score:2, Insightful)
"And there are no regulations about this or any other use of GMO."
And here's where we get to you spouting nonsense. GMO foodstuffs are the most heavily regulated of any crops. Also, it's interesting that you'll happily consume the exact same 'toxin' when it's produced in another plant, but use transgenesis to bring that same trait to a GMO crop to protect it against parasites, and you lose your mind?
I really should debunk you point by point since your entire argument is "they won't debate these perfectly fi
Re: So What? (Score:4, Informative)
Right. I'm glad you were able to provide an unbiased source which hasn't firebombed crops and has solid science to back up their general anti-GMO paranoia. An organisation which has saved tens of thousands of children from having to deal with the burden of sight, through blocking golden rice. If I knew your source was credible militant anti-science, anti-human Luddites, I would never have dared ask.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's crazy because if they would simply LABEL GMO (and what genes were added from what other plant/animal) instead of sneaking it in, then people wouldn't have rare allergic reactions and most would buy it if it were 10% cheaper.
Then after 5 years, they could raise the prices to be the same and folks would stay with it.
But as it is, they act so shady that it makes people suspicious.
Re: (Score:2)
Stupid thing is that simply adding extra copies of genes already in wheat you can boost yields by between 15-20% in a greenhouse (obviously not tested in a field yet)
https://www.newscientist.com/a... [newscientist.com]
Why anyone would be against this is utterly beyond me. However this is the insanity of blanket bans on GMO food, which for the record all the food and I mean *ALL* the food we eat is genetically modified.
Re: (Score:2)
"Stupid thing is that simply adding extra copies of genes already in wheat you can boost yields by between 15-20% in a greenhouse (obviously not tested in a field yet)"
We've already had this tech - it's called Colchicine and we've used it for DECADES on many various crops, from watermelon to cannabis.
Re: So What? (Score:3)
So GMOs cause peanut, soy, etc. allergies?
No wonder people used to be less freaked out about them.
Re: (Score:2)
So you have an anecdote. Yawn. Compare that to all the times that people have actually (not nearly) died because of unexpected or unlabeled allergens in their non-GMO foods.
Re: (Score:2)
Organic producers don't want to publicize that they use pesticides or have cultivars produced through mutagenic breeding using radiation or dna-damaging chemicals. Are they also being malicious?
In the US, only "organic" pesticides can be used on crops which carry the "organic" certification. These must also be grown from seeds which were certified "organic".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
GMO is bad because of mono crop issues.
Do you think that people would be rotating crops more without GMOs? Or are you misusing the term "mono crop".
GMO is bad because resistance to herbicides induces over-use of them.
Which is only even possible for herbicide-related traits, and why refuges are required, and why new traits dealing with different herbicides are developed - and this has also been a (minor, manageable) issue ever since we had herbicides.
GMO is bad because GMO has been used to have plants make toxins. So GMO food can contain poison.
BT is toxic only to insects, and is frequently used by organic farmers.
And there are no regulations about this or any other use of GMO.
Are you insane? You don't believe that the USDA, FDA, and EPA regulate GMOs?
GMO is bad because it has been used to make kill-genes, even if only in the lab, and between that and mono-crop the results of a wide-spread release could cause massive destruction.
So something that h
Re:So What? (Score:4, Insightful)
GMO is bad because Monsanto claims it's harmless, and when Monsanto says something, the opposite is more likely true.
Non sequitur.
You'd like to think that, but history shows us that Monsanto Always Lies. Kind of like TEPCO.
Re: (Score:3)
[Citation needed]
Citations are everywhere. They are not even difficult to find. They lied about PCBs [chemicalin...chives.org], They lied about Agent Orange [organicconsumers.org]... you name something Monsanto said was safe which wasn't safe and you can find a citation showing that they knew that it was hazardous.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn right. PCB's are STILL an absolute freaking nightmare anywhere they are found. On the merits of that situation alone Monsanto has proven they are forever unworthy of the merest smidgen of trust.
And why the hell am I always agreeing with you now drinkypoo? Whats up with that?
Re: (Score:2)
And why the hell am I always agreeing with you now drinkypoo? Whats up with that?
Don't worry, I'm sure to annoy you sooner or later, I have so very many opinions. But then again, many people find a little drinkypoo quite agreeable.
The legal and business model behind GMO are bad. (Score:5, Insightful)
Or lock the farmers into having to buy their seeds from one certain manufacturer. Essentially, GMO allow a few companies to control the world's food supply.
And then there's lawsuits due to patent and other forms of IP issues. "Sorry, you're gonna starve now because you infringed our copyright."
Re: (Score:3)
You mean the BT expressing crops? The ones that make crystal protein structures identical to what's made by the organic pesticide BT? You can drop the exact same stuff on organic crops and there's no limit to how much can be on a food crop at harvest. The stuff is so safe the FDA doesn't care if you eat it.
Re: (Score:2)
GMO is bad because of mono crop issues.
I like to forage on the weekends, and I have bad news for you. All of humanity is sustained off of mono-crops and has been so for thousands of years. The vast variety of edible plants in the wild is staggering, but we have selected and cross bread only a few over the centuries. And you might think we chose the best, but often times, we only chose the most convenient.
In a week or two I will go down to the creek bottoms and harvest pounds of pawpaw fruit. It is a delicious, plentiful and large fruit th
Re: (Score:2)
The other is that the pro-GMO people insist that anti-GMO means that if you eat GMO, that you die. GMO is bad because of mono crop issues. GMO is bad because resistance to herbicides induces over-use of them. GMO is bad because GMO has been used to have plants make toxins. So GMO food can contain poison. And there are no regulations about this or any other use of GMO. GMO is bad because it has been used to make kill-genes, even if only in the lab, and between that and mono-crop the results of a wide-spread release could cause massive destruction. GMO is bad because Monsanto claims it's harmless, and when Monsanto says something, the opposite is more likely true. But the pro-GMO crowd doesn't talk about the reasonable objections. Instead, it's all about the strawman.
Do you enjoy Canola oil, which is derived from GMO rapeseed?
Re: (Score:2)
GMO is bad because of mono crop issues.
Untrue, and a non-sequitur. GMOs come in different varieties for different plants, and the diversity will only grow as more and more variants for different conditions (heat, high salt, low water, etc.) are developed. More to the point, this is an issue with large-scale farming in general, not GMOs. Hell, GMOs allow us to more easily get around mono-crop issues.
GMO is bad because resistance to herbicides induces over-use of them.
This is mixed. Sometimes resistance allows farmers to use fewer herbicides, or smaller amounts, of more specific or less harmful ones. Sometimes they
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
GMO is bad because of mono crop issues.
As opposed to the Cavendish Banana, which was not genetically modified?
The left side of an implication is the sufficient, not the necessary condition.
Re: So What? (Score:4, Informative)
GMO is not sufficient to cause crop monoculture.
Re: (Score:2)
GMO contaminated crops are bad because organic farmers are sued for patent infringement [geneticlit...roject.org]
This has never happened.
I suggest that you read the article you linked to. That you are holding up a mythical bogeyman was in fact established in the court case the article is about (OSGATA v. Monsanto).
A need for global regulation (Score:5, Interesting)
This is yet another technology where there is a clear need for strong regulation, IMO. Gene manipulation is a technology that has huge potential implications, both good and bad; it can - and probably will in the future - be used to improve crop yields and add disease resistance, and it is of course already being tried out in gene therapies for a number of serious conditions. We could produce many important chemicals - drugs and other - in a cheap and easy way by modifying a suitable micro organism. But as Monsanto and others have demonstrated, companies and individuals driven by short-sighted greed can potentially cause enormous harm, not the least of which is the damage to public trust in this technology. Maybe this is too radical, but I am probably in favour on a complete ban on the commercial exploitation on gene editing technology until we have a set of strong and clear, global regulations in place; all research into this should be publicly funded and published in open access journals.
Re: (Score:2)
Only news is that hack writer is a hack... (Score:2)
The rest is just empty fluff and cherry picked quotes.
All basically amounting to what any scientist would say is proper description of what is currently known or unknown, based on current research.
"You cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen ... we have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement."
...
"we can make that statement about glyphosate and can infer that there is no reason to believe that Roundup would cause cancer."
Which is a quote cherry picked out of context from the actual email: [baumhedlundlaw.com]
As explanation for some of our edits - in many parts of the world there is no such formulation
being sold called "Roundup". In addition, in the US we have some lawn and garden products with the Roundup name on them but they contain other active ingredients in addition to glyphosate and they may have different properties from glyphosate.
That is why we were using the phrase Roundup herbicides or Roundup agricultural herbicides.
When possible it is preferable to use the name of the product that is actually being used and the data that supports that particular formulation.
The terms glyphosate and Roundup cannot be used interchangeably nor can you use "Roundup" for all glyphosate-based herbicides any more. ... we have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement.
For example you cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen
The testing on the formulations are not anywhere near the level of the active ingredient. We can make that statement about glyphosate and can infer that there is no reason to believe that Roundup would cause cancer.
Another case is quite literally cherry picked to make it sound like "See? They KNOW it causes cancer! AND THEY ARE HIDING IT FROM US!!!eleven1"
In a 2002 email, a Monsanto executive said, "What I've been hearing from you is that this continues to be the case with these studies - Glyphosate is O.K. but the formulated product (and thus the surfactant) does the damage."
Actual linked email [baumhedlundlaw.com] shows that one person summarizes an entire study as "glyphosate all basicially had
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't argue with 900 people who've been diagnosed with cancer. Really, you can't. Even though they're dead wrong, there's no arguing with them. It's too emotional and they're desperate for someone to blame. Comparing it to vaccinations and autism is pretty apt.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We all were probably right. Smoking doesn't cause cancer; it increases the risk of cancer.
Translation: It sometimes causes cancer.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that is not what it means. The cause of cancer is a DNA mutation in a cell, which are mostly caused by by replication errors and sometimes radiation.
Smoking is primarily a cancer problem because it lowers the chance of the body counteracting this before the replication runaway threshold is reached and it becomes a problem; it does not cause the mutations themselves, unless your smokes are high in radioactivity. But it certainly increases the risk of cancers rea
Re:So What? (Score:5, Interesting)
Those that cling to "glyphosate causes cancer" and "Monsatan is the devil" are the same folks who believe in chemtrails, vaccines causing autism, and countless other health conspiracies.
Not true. I don't know enough to have an opinion on glyphosate as a carcinogen, I don't believe in chemtrails, I advocate childhood vaccination, and I get flu shots every year. And I still say Monsanto is evil, because they've proved it over and over again. BTW, thanks for the "Monsatan" moniker - I'm definitely going to use that.
Re: So What? (Score:5, Funny)
No worries. Keep in mind, if the merger with Bayer goes ahead, we'll be switching across to "Bayerzebub".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fair point - not sure why you were modded down. In response to what you said, I suggest that perhaps a pattern of repeated, insistent, highly unethical behaviour, in the face of it being pointed out loudly and frequently, corresponds with a sort of consensus definition of evil. It certainly forms a large part of my own definition.
Re: (Score:2)
Saying "Monsanto isn't evil" can only being up a debate about the definition of evil. However, saying they are not unethical would be absurd.
Absurd, how? Can you enumerate a few of Monsanto's unethical acts? AFAICT, despite the popular theory that they are horrible, they're actually a pretty ordinary company as ethics go. Most of the beliefs people seem to have (e.g. that they sue farmers over accidental cross-pollination) are myths.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe Slashdot had an example today of their unethical behavior. You should check it out!I
Looks pretty ordinary to me, as well as cherry-picked. It looks like Henry I. Miller may have done something unethical by not disclosing a conflict of interest, or possibly shared authorship. John Acquavella told Monsanto that it would be unethical to do something, and Monsanto and Acquavella both say that they didn't in fact end up doing it. Is it unethical to propose something, have it characterized as unethical, and then choose not to do it?
Did you RTFA?
Re: (Score:2)
Exposure to glyphosate in massively high concentrations very likely does cause cancer, if the study on their factory workers is to be believed. The thing is, no one outside their factories is exposed at that level, and it doesn't accumulate in soil, since it breaks down completely.
Vaccines work. They don't cause autism.
Contrails exist. Chemtrails don't.
Monsanto is still one of the most evil companies on the planet.
Re: (Score:2)
Which study on their factory workers is that? And why should we believe it?
Re: (Score:2)
"Except nobody has ever died from glyphosate. The company tries to kill negative press about "glyphosate causing cancer" because it's bullshit that has been debunked again and again."
Glyphosate does cause cancer - just not by itself since it is generally unavailable for our bodies to properly absorb. Once you add in the other surfactants (all of these chemicals by themselves are generally relatively non-toxic and non-carcinogenic) toxicity jumps anywhere from 2 to 3 orders of magnitude, because they make th
Re: (Score:2)
Except nobody has ever died from glyphosate.
This is an untestable claim.
The company tries to kill negative press about "glyphosate causing cancer" because it's bullshit that has been debunked again and again.
Ends don't justify means.
Those that cling to "glyphosate causes cancer" and "Monsatan is the devil"
They are the devil.
Sure, Monsanto is a business and they want to protect their image
That train left station many many years ago.
Re:So What? (Score:4, Insightful)
Agent Orange isn't glyphosate. It doesn't contain any of the same active ingredients (besides water). Monsanto was one of several companies which manufactured the herbicide under contract to the US government. It was never safe for use on populations. Blaming Monsanto for Agent Orange is like blaming a firearms manufacturer for someone shooting up a gay nightclub.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Agent Orange isn't glyphosate. It doesn't contain any of the same active ingredients (besides water).
A-ha! There it is! Dihydrogen monoxide strikes again!
Re: (Score:2)
Blaming Monsanto for Agent Orange is like blaming a firearms manufacturer for someone shooting up a gay nightclub.
But you can blame Monsanto for shitty manufacturing processes that resulted in their Agent Orange being contaminated with Dioxin, one of the most potent carcinogens known to man.
Re: So What? (Score:2)
In both of those formulations, as in basically all others, water is an inert ingredient, not an active one.
Re: (Score:3)
Except nobody has ever died from glyphosate. .
You make claims you cannot POSSIBLY prove, as though you alone are privy to the truth.
I had buddies who were doused with Agent Orange in Viet Nam, and every single one of them died of related cancers.
I'd like to see you disprove that. But even more I'd like to see YOU stricken with terminal cancer. I hope it comes for you soon.
That's nice.
Agent Orange didn't harm people because of the herbicides, which, as black3d has explained, have nothing to do with glyphosate. It was the TCDD dioxin, which was a contaminant resulting from the manufacturing process. The government was in fact warned about this, and they chose to spray it anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Well I was on board with the "different pesticide" argument. But you mean to tell me you feel better about the fact that it wasn't the pesticide that killed people, but some unrelated manufacturing contaminate that the company mixed in?
If we can get food producers to separate plants that process peanuts and shell fish from the rest of their products, why can't we require processing of dangerous chemicals in plants separate from safe pesticides?
Re: (Score:2)
Well I was on board with the "different pesticide" argument. But you mean to tell me you feel better about the fact that it wasn't the pesticide that killed people, but some unrelated manufacturing contaminate that the company mixed in?
Welcome to the world of government contract manufacturing.
Monsanto didn't develop the manufacturing process for Agent Orange and didn't "mix in" the dioxin (nor were they the only company manufacturing it under this contract). They apparently even detected the dioxin contamination in the final formulation but weren't permitted to change the manufacturing process to remove it.
If we can get food producers to separate plants that process peanuts and shell fish from the rest of their products, why can't we require processing of dangerous chemicals in plants separate from safe pesticides?
We can and do, but in this particular case the requests by the manufacturing companies to revise the process and further purify the pr
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, the Johnson & Johnson claims keep getting over-turned on appeal. There have been plenty of claims, but they don't end up paying them out because the science doesn't support talc causing ovarian cancer. But yes, another jury of members of the public has found in favour of a claimant. Doubtless, it'll again be overturned on appeal. There's lots to read about this, but it is odd that the only 'scientific' studies that find there is a statistically significant link between un-contaminated talc pow
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Beyond just the health aspects, there are very significant environmental and ecological reasons for organic farming.
Please. Tell us the scientifically proven health advantages of food which has been classified "organic" over food which has not been classified "organic".
Reading comprehension is not a thing that you do, is it son?
Re: So What? (Score:4, Informative)
So that's a "no" then?
The health benefits aren't necessarily for the people who eat the food, but for everyone.
It's also worth pointing out here that "USDA Organic" is a bullshit farce. "Organic" includes the idea of cyclical systems where feces is returned to the fields and where community health is bolstered by soil health. If you want a meaningful organic certification you have to look to biodynamic, which also includes a bunch of mystical bullshit. There is no true organic farming certification which is worthy of the name. (Yes, it's a stupid name. I didn't make it up, so don't sue me.)
Re: (Score:2)
In short: There is No True Organic, so its defenders shouldn't be expected to explain why organic would be good for anybody.
Riiiight.
Re: (Score:2)
In short: There is No True Organic, so its defenders shouldn't be expected to explain why organic would be good for anybody.
If you want to educate yourself, even Wikipedia knows more about this than you do, and will back me up. If you go look for this information and can't find it, then I will go ahead and take you by the hand and teach you how to search like your mommy should have done.
Re: So What? (Score:4, Interesting)
"I buy it because it's a shortcut to confirming that a food product is all-natural."
You've been mislead by marketing bullshit and you'd better go re-read the entirety of the USDA certification for Organic status.
Because plenty of non natural things are allowed.
Re: (Score:2)
Please. Tell us the scientifically proven health advantages of food which has been classified "organic" over food which has not been classified "organic".
It leaves consumers with less money to buy more food than they need.
Re: (Score:2)
No evidence? Do you even subscribe to scientific journals or just even use Google Scholar?
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.o... [semanticscholar.org]
https://www.researchgate.net/p... [researchgate.net]
Both of those coming straight out of Universities. The first link is almost TWENTY FUCKING YEARS OLD.
I mean, it literally takes two seconds to type this shit into Google and find dozens of cited reports, and there are probably HUNDREDS more, many of them done by REAL RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the part of the article saying that the only possible link between glyphosate and cancer is a possible increase in likliehood of non-Hodgkins Lymphoma, while linking to the actual report from the EPA which concluded:
" The available data at this time do no support a carcinogenic process for glyphosate. Overall, animal carcinogenicity and genotoxicity studies were remarkably consistent and did not demonstrate a clear association between glyphosate exposure and outcomes of interest related to carcino
Re: So What? (Score:2)
So you disregard any source which doesn't agree with your viewpoint, as being part of a grand conspiracy? Chalk one up for confirmation bias.
If you're against Monsanto because "chemiKILLZ", then likely there's no rationale that will convince you, as you really don't care about the science, you just want an echo chamber to agree with your unfounded fears. Don't worry, there's plenty of crazy internet out there for you.
a "high-quality draft" (Score:2)
uh, yeah. Sounds like he'd be interested getting a fat check for signing a prepared statement on the bottom line. That goes way beyond '"ghost writing" when you can't even be bothered to write up the biased opinion yourself.
It's good to see how some of them rebuffed the offer though. This looks like a good example of all the colors of the ethics rainbow.
Other things that are probable carcinogens (Score:5, Informative)
Just for a bit of perspective:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Nitrates, which are found in pretty much any kind of meat or leafy vegetable
Nearly everything that comes out of the tailpipe of a car
An organic compound found in most essential oils and grapefruit juice
Rubber
The topical medicine used to kill lice
A compound formed when cooking any meat
An organic compound found in algae and kelp
A compound used to make synthetic glycerol used in medical applications
Ironically, some of the chemicals used to treat certain types of cancers
An antibiotic on the WHO's list of essential medications
Most steroids
One of the most popular drugs used to treat diabetes
Most fire retardants, including the one usually used in solar cells
The drink Mate
Pretty much anything that is fried
Re: (Score:3)
Local man uses wikipedia in plea for perspective. Goes up in flames.
"Who cares about your so-called "study"? I HAVE WIKIPEDIA DAMMIT."
Re: (Score:2)
If Wikipedia is wrong about any of those being grouped by IARC alongside glyphosate as "probable carcinogens", you can go fix it. If you're just going to complain about someone pointing to Wikipedia, without any evidence that Wikipedia is wrong, you're going to look pretty foolish.
Re: (Score:3)
Not ironic at all. A lot of cancer treatments are about killing any fast growing cells, which is mostly going to be the cancer. They are powerful poisons designed to kill but work as a treatment because they don't kill you all at once. If there is enough of you left after all the cancer has been killed off you are cured.
Re: (Score:3)
You forgot sunlight.
Sunlight is a Group 1 carcinogen, the highest ranking there is.
Re:Other things that are probable carcinogens (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is that they tried to suppress the research.
The question is how risky is glycophosphate that they felt the need to try to suppress research.
This is like Donald Trump and Jared Kushak's meeting with the russians.
A) no meeting reported...
B) there was a meeting with one russian lawyer about adoptions and was meaningless.
C) uh.. okay so there was a meeting with 2 russians.
DEF) Increasingly more russians.
G) Okay so it was supposed to be about russians providing damaging clinton/DNC information
H) Uh.. Okay so I do have a relationship with the participants going back for years and I did say, "I love it!" when I thought it was about clinton.
I) Oops.. some of the russians are ex intelligence officers and/or have intelligence training.
Monsanto is at step B).
Is it going to turn out that glycophosphates are as carcinogenic as saccharine (not much/really have to literally eat the stuff by the handful) or is it going to be as carcinogenic as dioxins (which were also wonderful and safe until they were not).
Do we stop at step B.. or are we going to step R?
Re: (Score:2)
Current evidence suggests that glyphosate is closer to saccharin than dioxin. For example, a meeting of the WHO on pesticide residues [who.int] "concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to be genotoxic at anticipated dietary exposures", and that while good on-topic studies in rats were not available, "glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet".
Manufacturing Death (Score:5, Insightful)
The real problem is not discovering yet another corporation lying about how dangerous their product is. The real problem is nothing is being done about it. There's not a fucking thing that will come out of these latest "shocking" revelations. Never has. Never will.
You want to know how insane it is? If sanctions were actually taken against Monsanto for poisoning food crops and killing people, their lawyers would point to the tobacco industry and say, "Hey! No fair! How come they get to kill people and we can't?!?"
Greed N. Corruption runs capitalism today, and the lack of action taken against deadly corporations shows that it is sanctioned at the highest levels. The reason is quite simple; resource management is a responsibility held by every government, and population control is a key component of that responsibility.
Before you label that a conspiracy, take a good hard look at how many deadly products are legal today. Why would Greed ever want to cure cancer? There's trillions to be made treating it instead and it ensures deaths. Outlaw tobacco? Yeah right. That's another Win-Win industry.
Death is no longer merely a side-effect of life. It is now manufactured.
Well, of course (Score:2)
Monsanto is, after all, one of the nastiest, sociopathic and evil corporations on the planet.
Why isn't the performing of research double-blind? (Score:2)
You can't guarantee unbiased research when money and politics are involved. The anti-Monsanto crowd will fund potentially flawed research to destroy Monsanto. Monsanto has to fund research to defend themselves against politically-motivated smear campaigns. Both sides are going to accuse each other of bias and they are both neither correct nor incorrect on those accusations.
So, the only way to make this work is for the researchers themselves to be part of a double-blind study. They can't be allowed to kn
completely misleading headline (Score:2)
The headline states: "Monsanto Leaks Suggest It Tried To Kill Cancer Research On Roundup Weed Killer"
The summary goes on to make various aspersions about authorship credit, which is not the same thing at all! Sheesh, while I know this is Slashdot, it is unusual for the reading comprehension to be THIS bad.
The article itself is a bunch of selective misquoting in an attempt to portray a narrative that they desperately want to believe in. I have to say I'm very disappointed in the NYT. Some of the more importa
Regulations (Score:2)
So tell me how getting rid of regulations will make businesses more honest and ethical so they don't try to deceive the scientific community or the public.
I sincerely do want an explanation of the sequence, the cause and effect, that will occur to prompt businesses to behave better.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
What is our FUCKING RESPONSE when a corporation willfully TRIES TO KILL AMERICAN CITIZENS FOR PROFIT?
What's really amazing is how they're able to KILL AMERICAN CITIZENS with a horrible carcinogen whose use has increased thousands of percent in the last two decades, while still having the actual cancer rate decline in the same period of time. Dastardly!
https://seer.cancer.gov/statfa... [cancer.gov]
Using statistical models for analysis, rates for new cancer of any site cases have been falling on average 1.1% each year over the last 10 years. Death rates have been falling on average 1.5% each year over 2005-2014.
Re: (Score:2)
What's really amazing is how they're able to KILL AMERICAN CITIZENS with a horrible carcinogen whose use has increased thousands of percent in the last two decades, while still having the actual cancer rate decline in the same period of time. Dastardly!
So what you're saying is that everyone else is making major efforts to reduce carcinogens, except Monsanto?
Re: (Score:2)
"while still having the actual cancer rate decline in the same period of time. " You didn't prove that's related whatsoever.
Not only did i not prove that's related, i didn't even claim it.
You fail statistics.
Not really, but you fail basic reading comprehension.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You did claim that.
No, i really didn't.
The parent claimed Monsanto was KILLING AMERICAN CITIZENS. I merely wonder where the piles of dead people are. I suspect it is news to the AC that cancer in the U.S. has been declining steadily for a long time.
Re: (Score:2)
while still having the actual cancer rate decline in the same period of time.
You didn't say that?
Re: (Score:2)
while still having the actual cancer rate decline in the same period of time.
You didn't say that?
You apparently didn't get the point. I didn't say the fact that cancer is declining is evidence that Monsanto is somehow saving people. I'm asking for evidence that they're killing them. The presumption here is that Roundup is causing fatal cancers, and since Roundup use is way up since the advent of RR crops, we should expect a dramatic signal in cancer rates if that is the case. So where are the victims? In fact, most people believe there has been an increase in the cancer rate (many think it is skyrocket
Re: (Score:2)
His fundamental point is accurate. If Monsanto and Round-Up are giving cancer to so many people, why haven't we noticed?
Re: (Score:2)
Banning advertisements thus banning new competition to the market and adding more tax.
that's the response something else got so..
basically I guess it would be like banning others from making similar chemicals and then just skimming more money from roundup sales.
Re: (Score:2)
Monsanto is hardly the only, first, or last corporation who is willing to risk innocent lives in pursuit of profit. This is a time-worn tradition.
So we know our response: nothing at all.
Re: Turn back, thread full of astroturph (Score:2)
"Anyone who values science over fear is a corporate shill". Gotcha.
Re: (Score:3)
I know there's negatives to round-up, but considering how much more efficient farmers are these days, was it a positive?
That depends on how you define positive.
Some may not see biodiversity going down as positive.
Some may not see glyphosate resistant weeds as positive.
And some may not see family farms closing down or being transformed to agricultural factories as positive.
Re: (Score:2)
That depends on how you define positive.
Some may not see biodiversity going down as positive.
By protecting yield, intensification methods such as GMOs improve biodiversity by reducing the amount of land area required for agriculture, which leaves more land to the wild.
Some may not see glyphosate resistant weeds as positive.
Weeds adapt to every form of control. Pull them by hand and they break off at the stem and regrow. Roundup is one tool among many.
And some may not see family farms closing down or being transformed to agricultural factories as positive.
Family farms comprised 99% of U.S. farms in 2016, which is up from 97% in 2012.
https://www.ers.usda.gov/publi... [usda.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Family farms comprised 99% of U.S. farms in 2016, which is up from 97% in 2012.
Count acreage or stop.
Re: (Score:3)
Family farms comprised 99% of U.S. farms in 2016, which is up from 97% in 2012.
Count acreage or stop.
Why? The claim was that family farms are being shut down or being turned into factories.
Nonetheless, family farms accounted for 88% of farmland in 2012, and 94% in 2016.
Re: (Score:2)
Some may not see biodiversity going down as positive.
Biodiversity goes down because of market forces, economies of scale, and distribution logistics. It was happening long before GMOs ever entered the picture. Now, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but the solution isn't banning GMOs. You have to do something to address the economic pressures if you want to see change.
Some may not see glyphosate resistant weeds as positive.
Herbicide-resistant weeds existed long before GMOs. Combating them is always an arms race between developing a better (read "more effective") herbicide and the spread of resistance. A lot o
Re: (Score:2)
People on thrones don't get 2.86 million MORE "consent of the governed" that grants the legitimate right to exercise power.