Which researchers and funded by whom? This is the line Monsanto brings out every time. It turns out their corrupt research couldn't convince a court, who decided glyphosate was to blame for cancer, to the tune of $300M c.f. Johnson v. Monsanto Co.
And it's not just roundworms https://sites.psu.edu/soilmicrobiology/projects/glyphosate-i...
This chemical is bad news and the only reason it's legal is regulatory capture by Monsanto/Bayer.
What makes you think a jury of 6-12 laypeople are better qualified to make conclusions on the available evidence than scientists?
That doesn't answer the question. What makes you think that a jury of 6-12 laypeople are better able to determine the truth from 2 conflicting teams of experts, than a team of experts versed in the relevant field?
>Also "scientists" are not uniformly on the side of Monsanto/Bayer/glyphosate, as your comment seems to suggest.
They seem to be uniformly on the side of Monsanto/Bayer/glyphosate, according to wikipedia.
>The consensus among national pesticide regulatory agencies and scientific organizations is that labeled uses of glyphosate have demonstrated no evidence of human carcinogenicity. [...]
there's more but I'm not going to quote the whole paragraph
> The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment toxicology review in 2013 found that with regard to positive correlations between exposure to glyphosate formulations and risk of various cancers, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma, "the available data is contradictory and far from being convincing".[11] A meta-analysis published in 2014 identified an increased risk of NHL in workers exposed to glyphosate formulations.[12] In March 2015, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic in humans" (category 2A) based on epidemiological studies, animal studies, and in vitro studies.[8][13][14][15] In contrast, the European Food Safety Authority concluded in November 2015 that "the substance is unlikely to be genotoxic (i.e. damaging to DNA) or to pose a carcinogenic threat to humans", later clarifying that while carcinogenic glyphosate-containing formulations may exist, studies "that look solely at the active substance glyphosate do not show this effect."[16][17] In 2017, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) classified glyphosate as causing serious eye damage and as toxic to aquatic life, but did not find evidence implicating it as a carcinogen, a mutagen, toxic to reproduction, nor toxic to specific organs.[18]
Personally I trust a jury of 6-12 laypeople or the *European Chemicals Agency* over a company with a vested interest in keeping their product on the market.
I'm glad that you quoted the whole paragraph, but this seems to put a damper on your conclusion
>"the available data is contradictory and far from being convincing"
>Personally I trust a jury of 6-12 laypeople or the European Chemicals Agency over a company with a vested interest in keeping their product on the market.
Their conclusion is:
>the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) classified glyphosate as causing serious eye damage and as toxic to aquatic life, but did not find evidence implicating it as a carcinogen
How is that any better, considering you just have more scientists that may randomly lean one way or another.
The American Cancer Association doesn't list talc at all when talking about risk factors for ovarian cancer: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/ovarian-cancer/about/new-resea...
J&J is winning most of the cases in court, or having large verdicts overturned on appeal, but there are supposedly something like 38,000 cases out there and each one has an outside chance to end up being like the one they lost in Wisconsin state court which initially awarded over $4.69bn to 22 plaintiffs (reduced to $2.11bn on appeal).
Just look at the junk science of the FBI crime labs - and that stuff is being measured at the higher "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.
no, their budget is capped at the amount that they're suing for. If you're getting sued for $1M there's no point in spending more than $1M on lawyers.
>versus this school groundskeeper and their case was so bad they still lost.
According to the court filings for the appeal, Johnson was represented by
>The Miller Firm, LLC Michael J. Miller, Curtis G. Hoke, Jeffrey A. Travers;
>Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, P.C.; R. Brent Wisner, Pedram Esfandiary;
>Audet Partners LLP, Mark E. Burton
Something tells me that he wasn't paying for all of this out of pocket.
If it affects future worldwide business, they can spend more to protect overall business.
I don't believe, unlike many, that they are comically evil guys. Just playing a god for profit with stuff they probably understand only in lower 90 percentile range, especially second, third etc. order effects. And probably too over-invested in direction company took decades ago, so nobody looking at bonuses as drive will change its direction dramatically.
> for Monsanto
GP isn’t making their comment “for Monsanto”, but for the sake of seeking the truth on this specific issue. You will continue to be shocked until you change your perspective on how we ought to evaluate nuanced issues. Especially when those issues have to do with global food production.
I don't disagree with you, I also don't think we should be using the product when the truth is as clouded as it is. So ban it until the truth comes out.
Okay but given that we have endless studies already, it seems like "until the truth comes out" really means "until my preferred conclusion comes out".
Glyphosate has been around for almost 5 decades. Wikipedia says "The consensus among national pesticide regulatory agencies and scientific organizations is that labeled uses of glyphosate have demonstrated no evidence of human carcinogenicity"[1]. If you think this is not "conclusively" enough, how much longer/more evidence do you need? Is this a standard that we should apply to everything[2], or just chemicals made my evil multinational corporations? Maybe we should delay rolling out cell phones for a few decades just to be sure that they don't cause brain cancer?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate
[2] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demand...
Not something you can do with mass produced food which at this point is almost all food most people can buy. On top of that, have you seen, ever, a label on food stating that it contains ingredients on which Round up was used, how much etc?
Let's stop comparing apples to mortar bricks and have some factual discussions on such serious issues, not just random whataboutisms to divert topic.
The people with EMI sensitivity and/or oppose 5G deployments beg to differ.
>Not something you can do with mass produced food which at this point is almost all food most people can buy.
Easy choice here would be to buy organic
none of us would be alive without such mass produced food in the first place
At the same time I think there is a limit to how bad roundup can be to have fought off criticism in EVERY country and remain on the market.
People have been talking shit about jurors for 2 millennia, one of the oldest plays in history was dedicated to talking about how awful jurors were, and yet they stick around. I still value them merely on the basis of their relative resistance to corrupt influences compared to scientific institutions.