Hacker News Reader

Comment by killbrad | Hacker News Reader

I vaguely remember watching an interview with an exec from Monsanto saying RoundUp was perfectly safe, safe enough to drink. Then immediately refusing to drink it when offered, because of course it's poison.

View on HN

I remember that video as well but frankly it's a silly non-argument. There are plenty of things that are safe to eat and drink that will still be highly unpleasant, especially in concentrated form. I'm sure that drinking a glass of vinegar won't give me cancer but it doesn't mean that I will do it on cue. I also wonder how much table salt you need to eat before it starts having bad side effects but something tells me that it's less than a full glass.

Besides if the glyphosate truly is dangerous then the risk lies with microdosing it over a long period of time, I doubt farmers quaff bottles of Roundup when they're thirsty.

Salt is not safe to drink. Vinegar is to some extend (you can take several gulps)

Glyphosate is not. Claim was BS. Good journalists to challenge them on the spot. Bad Monsanto for making that claim. It is clearly not safe to drink. Not one gulp. Microdosing is not the point there, the claim was not made for microdosing, the claim was safe to drink.

The journalist was right to challenge him if the claim was BS but I disagree that asking him to drink a glass of roundup and him refusing is a good argument. I mean take the position of the Monsanto lobbyist, he most likely never attempted such a stunt before, he doesn't know how it tastes, he doesn't know if drinking a whole glass of it at once is going to cause digestive distress etc... Of course he's going to refuse even if he's honestly convinced that he's telling the truth.

Good journalism would've been to show how his claim is bullshit by citing sources disagreeing with the statement. But that doesn't make for good TV.

Also I disagree that the claim was that glyphosate was "safe to drink" like a soda or something, rather he said that it wasn't going to hurt you which is IMO not exactly the same thing, especially in the context which was that glyphosate was accused to cause cancer. I'm sure you could eat few spoonfuls of salt and it won't hurt you, I still don't advise doing it.

At this point I might sound a bit like a Monsanto lobbyist myself and I assure you I'm not, I'm just a bit annoyed that these types of stunts seem somehow more important than rational discussion and scientific studies. This guy is not even a Monsanto exec like claimed by the parent. I guess they revised their scripts after that.

  I disagree that asking
  him to drink a glass of
  roundup and him
  refusing is a good
  argument

Irrelevant to whether it’s a carcinogen, but it seems like a hell of a good argument if someone says it’s safe enough to drink.

I mean, the LD50 is something like a cup of the pure stuff. A bottle of concentrate is probably a lethal dose. Diluted 1 tbsp to a few gallons (like when spraying) a cup of it is probably fine. Granted, I personally wouldn’t drink it even if I prepared it myself, but I’m also not drinking a cup of bleach diluted well below a meaningful dose.

Wow, Monsanto is pretty good at SEO. Here's the first result that came up for a search of the video: https://i.imgur.com/JiZjlVL.png

Is that SEO, or them just paying to be there?

SEO

That one is seo, since it is not tagged as an ad

My dad, a retired farm manager, remembers a RoundUp salesman who used to drink the stuff as part of his sales routine. We wonder what happened to him.

Found the story you are thinking of. He wasn’t a Monsanto executive but otherwise correct. https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6956034

Well corrected on his affiliation. Great quote too... Drink RoundUp? "I'm not an idiot".

It’s been shown safe in like a hundred academic studies, though drinking it straight would be ill advised.

This judgement is absurd and not scientifically based, luckily the judge will reduce it.

The presecution claims it's not the active ingredient but the whole herbicide that's cancer causing. I think the studies are only on one of the ingredients, not on the whole herbicide?

Also, questions of exposure are not addressed here. This person was drenched in it couple of times by accident. If I use rat poison for my job vs have it rubbed or consumed in different doses, results can be quite different. Monsanto claims it's safe in any form and quantity but I don't think that's ever been verified. Level of exposure matters a great deal. There is a reason so many cleaning products have warnings on them about keeping them away from the body (though not for cancer)

> The presecution claims it's not the active ingredient but the whole herbicide that's cancer causing. I think the studies are only on one of the ingredients, not on the whole herbicide?

Yes, the claim neatly was crafted to render all the systematically gathered evidence only tangentially relevant, so what you are left is a lay jury deciding what they feel is more probable (the civil standard being a mere preponderance of the evidence, not the beyond a reasonable doubt standard of criminal law) on a complex scientific topic without strong scientific evidence and with plenty of opportunity for factors which roster to the likeability of the parties to influence the decision.

Whatever the arguments are that this is a necessary thing to accept in the legal system (and maybe even desirable, in that it disincentives certain antisocial corporate conduct), it doesn't really say much about the underlying facts.

What is better for society: a warning that says something is toxic, or pretending that a poison is perfectly harmless?

I'm confused. Are you also saying that any amount of exposure to this thing is completely fine? How is that fact? That's a claim. It is a mild poison after all.

They are punishing that level of arrogance. If they had a warning around it, they would be in way less trouble.

According to an op-ed [0] in The Guardian there was evidence that Monsanto was behind many false reports that RoundUp was safe:

> Testimony and evidence presented at trial showed that the warning signs seen in scientific research dated back to the early 1980s and have only increased over the decades. But with each new study showing harm, Monsanto worked not to warn users or redesign its products, but to create its own science to show they were safe. The company often pushed its version of science into the public realm through ghostwritten work that was designed to appear independent and thus more credible. Evidence was also presented to jurors showing how closely the company had worked with Environmental Protection Agency officials to promote the safety message and suppress evidence of harm.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/11/one-mans-su...

Edit: Could not find detailed information on the court case (among plenty of general articles), URL welcome.

Edit 2: jakewins had already provided a link to court proceedings: https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/toxic-tort-law/monsanto-round...

not defending monsanto here, but this particular argument is garbage. your urine is safe to drink - will you do it in front of me on camera right now?

For $289 million? ;)

I'm cheap, I'd probably do it for $10k (1/4oz)... If it's a recurring deal, I might even do it weekly for $5k each time...

I’m imagining you at a party in a smart dinner jacket holding some sort of cocktail.

“So, what do you do for a living?”

well, at least I don't work for Facebook or Google ;) /s

Glyphosate is about as toxic as salt, as measured by LD50.

Are you willing to drink an entire glass of soy sauce to prove its safety?

Acute toxicity and carcinogenic activity are not the same thing.

Plenty of things are safe yet you shouldn't drink a glass of it - vinegar, dish soap, sea water, urine.

Reminded me of this little gem. Seems there's a whole tradition of inventors of pesticides offering to eat it on camera.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtcXXbuR244

Everything is a poison at a high enough enough dose.

You can drink small amounts of acetone (nail polish remover). Your body actually produces acetone in small quantities as a ketone body.

However, I wouldn’t agree to drink it either.

Along with all the other explanations on this thread of why that's a silly argument, there is the fact that glyphosate isn't the only thing in commercial RoundUp weed killer solutions.

Who said anything about glyphosate?

Direct video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM

Arguably the main problem here is that he got defensive/hostile rather than refining or articulating his argument. Instead of saying "no, I'm not stupid", he maybe could have said "no, it would taste terrible and I'd probably throw up and and it may make me feel sick for a while, but the studies show that it wouldn't cause lasting damage to my body". (At least, I think that's his claim.) But then, he probably could have been more honest/clear in his original phrasing "you can drink a whole quart and it won't hurt you".

It's so rare that a journalist actually holds people to account for what they say nowadays, it's like an unexpected delicious lemonade stand on a hot day when you actually stumble upon those examples.

Drink of piss is also safe to drink. Just letting you know ;)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com