Europe still burns witches – if they’re named Monsanto
allianceforscience.cornell.edu
allianceforscience.cornell.edu
I am no expert on glyphosates, but that article has left me less than convinced that they are "safe".
While activists exaggerate to persuade people it's not safe because it might be carcinogenic, the author is on the other extreme: it's safe until proven otherwise.
It also sports a fair share of whataboutism: "what about bacon, that's also considered carcinogenic!?".
It's all about "how much?" and "over which time period?" and "where did you put it into your body?" to determine if something will kill you or cause cancer.
Also note that glyphosate is Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) by the FDA, which means that it can be used in any quantity. With that designation, arguments about dosage carry less weight for me. If a regulatory agency were concerned with dosages in final food products, I'd feel a lot more comfortable.
Thusly my argument on dosages in final food products hold and I feel fairly comfortable. I suggest either petitioning the FDA to introduce food safety standards or moving to another country with food safety standards.
Most natural pesticide and herbicide show bad affect on young people brain developpement. I would be really surprised if a chemical, more potent one was harmless.
If it barely or not at all goes through then there should be less of an impact.
Indeed it's the dosage and not the substance, even if it will sound stupid when somebody on your funeral says that you were crushed by a ton of cherries.
It's a poison, let's be clear about that. So treat it carefully and with respect. But when you do, the end result to human life is more save than bacon.
Basically, the article claims people don't understand HOW the IARC does its job, what its reports mean. And that its data is easily misused for fear mongering. Eg scary fact, did you know your water contains lots of dihydrogen monoxide?
First and foremost it judges on hazard, which is how much an effect it could be in the worst exposure cases. Only secondly is its job to assess risks, that is how much is the effect under normal/expected exposures.
Few things pisses me off as much as people saying you have to listen to science without presenting the science and in turn only use hyperbole and stupid arguments such as "Bacon causes cancer, so no worries... smoke your cigarettes"
More a social/political article about the toxicity of legal firms (in pursuit of class action lawsuits) paying activists along with the toxicity of non-scientific alarmist public opinion.
Wait, so Monsanto is a person, not a company? And they've been murdered by a mob?
Oh, wait, no, just their product was licensed for 5 years instead of 15. Yeah, I guess how that's similar to a mob grabbing women and murdering them by fire.
Herbicide can certainly be effective and at the same time not be dangerous to the human body simply because our body mass is higher and thus the effective dosage per kg of body mass is lower.
Or alternatively, herbicides can be made less effective against mammals but more effective against other animals/insects by disrupting cell chemistry not present in mammals (or humans if you want to be more specific on the chemical).
Of course, herbicide is not healthy if consumed in any large amounts, it's after all a poison, small dosages can be made safe for humans while still being dangerous to not-humans.
The solution is to not to have an expectation that vegetables should be free of any insect or animal contact. But not everybody likes caterpillar bite marks on their vegetables.
- Can we have similar output (quality/quantity/cost) without any pesticide at all?
- If not, are the alternative molecules better or worse?
Despite claiming your views are not effected by all the propaganda, you are biased against herbicides in a very propaganda smelling 2 dimensional manner.
Take antibiotics, which kill bacteria but have mild-to-none effects on humans (and most of the negative side effects on humans stem from their killing of even beneficial bacteria).
The author may not want to over-hype it, but successfully did so.
Using the same argument, the FDA ban is a witch-burning mob because of its ban on sodium cyclamate, despite its approval in the vast majority of other countries and despite the continued lack of evidence that it's a carcinogen.
Would anyone dispute that bacon and sun exposure are risk factors in cancer? Contrary to his assertion, Australia also ran a pretty well-funded campaign against sun exposure in the 80s and 90s.
The reasons why bacon and the sun aren't banned are simply that the former is that eating bacon is a decision people can take individually, and banning it would intrude on peoples' lives and culture much more strongly than banning a pesticide. As for the sun, it is really hard to ban, and has been shown to have benefits that counterweight the cancer risk.
Mocking the risk designation of "working as a hairdresser" is similarly hair-raising: Hair-dressers handle all sorts of chemicals, such as colouring agents. I wonder how easily the author could be convinced to expose himself to the lifetime exposure of a typical hairdresser.
The reason glyphosate isn't banned is simply that the decision to use is it is one people take individually, and banning it would intrude on people's lives and culture - for argument sake I assume farmers also count as people.
As for glyphosate, it is really hard to ban, and has been shown to have benefits the counterweight the cancer risk.
Also the authority and integrity of IARC is at question in this article.
I know it's used metaphorically, but it's just the wrong metaphor.