- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 37,442
Totally agree with this thoCourts are no place for analysis of science.
Totally agree with this thoCourts are no place for analysis of science.
Clearly unbiased. Guy who makes a living out of inventing pesticides does his own meta-analysis of (what quality?) studies that "he can find" and writes opinion piece that says "I don't think there's anything wrong". Well duh.
I'll stick with the WHO's analysis myself - that it's a "probable carcinogen".
But regardless - even if the WHO themselves say glyphospate is "unlikely" to cause cancer at levels found in the diet - the precautionary principle should still apply.
Given the advantages of smaller scale non-monoculture farming (from an ecological perspective) I personally think we should be moving towards that model of food production anyway. Reduced pesticide use, greater biodiversity, more varied (but more expensive) food.
More expensive? Maybe our habits need to change.**
**of course, being an utterly sanctamonious prick, I save and use all the bones from the meats we use and any vegetable matter that looks unappetising gets curried. Zero food waste in the house of scouse![]()
The biggest concern for GM is that corporations are in charge of pest evolution and thus our food supply on a level where if it goes tits up millions will starve...millions of poor people obviously.Why question the messenger rather than the message. The figures are there in the article. About the only thing you could conclude from the actual data is that farmers are more likely to get non-hodgkins-lymphoma but there's no reason to believe that glyphosate is the cause of that.
The WHO classifications are really silly and can so easily mislead but despite that they and the UN concluded that there's no reason to think that glyphosate in the amounts found in food is likely to be harmful:
Glyphosate unlikely to pose risk to humans, UN/WHO study says
Glyphosate is a herbicide, not a pesticide. It targets a pathway which only plants have. No animals have it. It is probably the most studied chemical safety-wise in history. There are hundreds of studies that point to there being no reason to think there is a risk.
On the slightly-related note of GM produce, many GM modifications are there to allow LESS usage of pesticides or herbicides. Roundup-ready corn can be treated with glyphosate much earlier than non-ready corn. Overall this leads to less glyphosate being used as you then don't need to apply it several time later when the weeds are more fully grown and hardier.
Bt Brinjal means much less pesticide is needed as the Brinjal are immune to their main pest.
Etc etc...
In this case I question the messenger because it's well-documented that people with a vested interest create findings that don't go against their vested interest. And this guy designs weedkillers - which is about as bad as it gets.Why question the messenger rather than the message. The figures are there in the article.
Yes. Please see my post above where I said exactly that - and still argued the precautionary principle should apply. Note the bolding of likely.they and the UN concluded that there's no reason to think that glyphosate in the amounts found in food is likely to be harmful
It may target a chemical pathway in plants very effectively but that in no way means that it can't have other effects. And it's been identified as a probable carcinogen. Not possible, but probable.Glyphosate is a herbicide, not a pesticide. It targets a pathway which only plants have. No animals have it
On the slightly-related note of GM produce, many GM modifications are there to allow LESS usage of pesticides or herbicides. Roundup-ready corn can be treated with glyphosate much earlier than non-ready corn. Overall this leads to less glyphosate being used as you then don't need to apply it several time later when the weeds are more fully grown and hardier.
Consider glyphosate, the powerhouse weed killer used ubiquitously in the United States to protect major crops like corn and soybeans. A bit more than 20 years ago, crops were genetically engineered to withstand glyphosate, allowing them to survive exposure to the chemical while weeds perished. By 2014, some 90 percent of planted U.S. corn, soybean and cotton crops were genetically modified to withstand glyphosate. Unfortunately, as the evolutionary arms race progresses, many weeds have figured out how to evolve resistance to glyphosate, making the chemical increasingly ineffective
In this case I question the messenger because it's well-documented that people with a vested interest create findings that don't go against their vested interest. And this guy designs weedkillers - which is about as bad as it gets.
The figures might be there - but from studies he's found, and an interpretation he's made - with no mention about quality of study, methodology etc. etc.
That standpoint is not even remotely controversial. Often there is a legal requirement for scientists to disclose if they have financial interests in the field that they're researching - because it's been proven time and again that financial interest brings in bias. Consciously or subconsiously.That is not an argument. He is a scientist in that field. Studying weeds and pesticides is his job. He is an expert.
So you say he can't be trusted because he has vested interests?
I wonder what else comes under the 'probably carcinogenic' label from IARC...
BACON!
Apply the precautionary principle to your frying pan.
Not quite sure what you're trying to say there @Job. Smoking kills two in three people who do it.Exactly.
Considering there is only a statistical link with cigarettes and lung cancer...the list of probable carcinogens is quite simply laughable.
Its just a list of risk levels.
You'd breathe from a bag full of asbestos dust would you?List of things that cause cancer
1. Life.
But theres no biological link...only statistics.Not quite sure what you're trying to say there @Job. Smoking kills two in three people who do it.
Way more than weedkillers.
Getting hit by a car at 30mph doesn't cause injury or death, it just increases the likelihood, eh?
It's all "just statistics" and therefore not real, or the fault of lawyers, or something.
All carcinogens are just risks.
They damage cells...
Yeah, that's not causing anything... you know, cells get damaged all the time. Oh, there goes another one, damaging itself. Seriously. Do you think about what you're even typing yourself? If something is causing damage, that's causing the problem. You can't say that if you break a window, the fact someone didn't fix it resulted in it breaking...They damage cells...
You need to look up what causes cancer.So that damage, it's not causal? I mean, if your head smashes against a car window, and you die, it wasn't caused by the car crashing into you, it's just unfortunate maths, right?
Well all get cancerous cells everyday, there is multiple layers of protection..self destruction..the immune sytem etc.Yeah, that's not causing anything... you know, cells get damaged all the time. Oh, there goes another one, damaging itself. Seriously. Do you think about what you're even typing yourself? If something is causing damage, that's causing the problem. You can't say that if you break a window, the fact someone didn't fix it resulted in it breaking...
Will make sure i continue to make you feel good then. My adblocker doesnt affect twatter.The fact that people still insist on using closed forms of "social media" despite now knowing that bookface, twatter et. al are just data-scraping, antidemocratic, millenial-baiting wankstains.
Still, makes me feel good when I see this on FH (with increasing regularity):
View attachment 39061
Looks like my adblocker and tracking protection is working just fine![]()
So that damage, it's not causal? I mean, if your head smashes against a car window, and you die, it wasn't caused by the car crashing into you, it's just unfortunate maths, right?