It's interesting how the discussion of Monsanto shifted. The discussion was about how Monsanto changed the seed/weed business from a buy model to a subscription/license model for farmers - which is a disruptive fundamental change.
Now the discussion is mainly ab Glyphosate.
Monsanto leaks suggest it tried to ‘kill’ cancer research about weed killer
91–100 of 131 posts
Re: Monsanto leaks suggest it tried to ‘kill’ cancer research about weed killer
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
>There's a video where a Monsanto lobbyist spouts circular talking-points about how glyphosate was safe to drink, offered either Round Up or glyphosate and refused to drink it. But, you can actually watch a video of someone else drinking some! (at about 8:00) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8sgEhpHM4k
Here's a comment on the video by the user K SA: > The bar tender reaches down at 5:16 and brings up a different glass than the one he pours the chemicals in so this is a snow job. The two glasses have a different shape too and the new glass is greener. This is so fake. Why do the guys sprying this crap wear spacesuits if it is so safe?
> Why do the guys sprying this crap wear spacesuits if it is so safe
They are protecting against a lifetime of large exposures.
Re: Monsanto leaks suggest it tried to ‘kill’ cancer research about weed killer
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly this. Every thread on GM quickly polarizes into useless for and against sides, when we need to be selective about it. And I've never bought the characterization of breeding/selection as a form of GM. Breeding is selection of a pathetically tiny set of modifications, but GM is on a whole other level. With GM we can write arbitrary binary strings of code into any organism. That's simply not comparable with bree…
I agree that the polarization is useless. However what you said about selective breeding vs GM is just wrong. Selective breeding introduces numerous mutations, including ones often not even related to the desired traits. In contrast human directed genetic modification often changes a single gene, the state of the art in research universities for specific modifications is only in the tens of genes. You can only say th…
Sorry but I didn't compare evolution with computer programming - it's very different to human code, but it is code and it is a computation.
In evolution there's no design, which implies prediction and a model of function. But evolution is far from "completely random". In fact evolution goes to great lengths to correct mutations and only allows mutation in certain carefully controlled sequences of the genome where variation is potentially useful. There are sequences in our genomes that are identical to those of yeast, having been faithfully copied, and error-corrected, for billions of years.
Re: Monsanto leaks suggest it tried to ‘kill’ cancer research about weed killer
#94It's weed killer. Literally poison. Can we just curb our faith in science just a little bit and use some common sense. It's incredibly likely that ingesting poison is bad for you. Let's leave open the possibility that it isn't, but I personally require that people prove it's safe rather than continuing to ingest it until proven otherwise.
It's honestly just baffling to me that people find it surprising that consistent, low doses of poison may cause cancer.
Re: Monsanto leaks suggest it tried to ‘kill’ cancer research about weed killer
#95Uh... My grandpa used to use Roundup in order to kill weeds in his cultivation land.
Is he alive? Did he die of cancer?
Re: Monsanto leaks suggest it tried to ‘kill’ cancer research about weed killer
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a video where a Monsanto lobbyist spouts circular talking-points about how glyphosate was safe to drink, offered either Round Up or glyphosate and refused to drink it. https://youtu.be/QWM_PgnoAtA?t=25s It's irrelevant if glyphosate alone is cancerous or not, because 99.9999% of deployment is via sprays like Round Up. The combined product , in both animal and human models, need thorough mutagenic research. It…
I think you'll find if someone who thinks you are evil offers you a glass of liquid of unknown providence you to would decline it as well.
> I think you'll find if someone who thinks you are evil offers you a glass of liquid of unknown providence you to would decline it as well.
This goes both ways - shouldn't we decline Monsanto's products, because they've shown they value profit over safety, and corporate control over farmer independence?
Re: Monsanto leaks suggest it tried to ‘kill’ cancer research about weed killer
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly this. Every thread on GM quickly polarizes into useless for and against sides, when we need to be selective about it. And I've never bought the characterization of breeding/selection as a form of GM. Breeding is selection of a pathetically tiny set of modifications, but GM is on a whole other level. With GM we can write arbitrary binary strings of code into any organism. That's simply not comparable with bree…
Modern breeding involves actively mutating known species with DNA-altering chemical mutagen and ionising radiation. Think fuzzing vs. static code analysis, which one would you do first when it comes to debugging? >Breeding is selection of a pathetically tiny set of modifications, but GM is on a whole other level. The truth is probably closer to the opposite of this: most GM species in the pipeline are rather unimagin…
Your argument is that GM is less powerful than breeding because people have been "unimaginative" with it ?
OK if you wanted to create, say, a fluorescent horse, which technique would you use:
* GM
* breeding with radiation and chemical mutagens
You have one month.
Re: Monsanto leaks suggest it tried to ‘kill’ cancer research about weed killer
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there a scientific consensus (or at least majority) as to the carcinogenic effect of the Roundup product?
There isn't. Glyphosate is well studied, and all evidence exonerate it. The constituent chemicals of Roundup may interact with each other to render the cocktail toxic. But that's not equivalent to carcinogenicity. And it's not well studied as yet.
>Glyphosate is well studied,
No. That is false.
https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-...
The studies on glyphosate are plenty, but most are inadequate.
Re: Monsanto leaks suggest it tried to ‘kill’ cancer research about weed killer
#99It's weed killer. Literally poison. Can we just curb our faith in science just a little bit and use some common sense. It's incredibly likely that ingesting poison is bad for you. Let's leave open the possibility that it isn't, but I personally require that people prove it's safe rather than continuing to ingest it until proven otherwise. It's honestly just baffling to me that people find it surprising that consisten…
Just because something is poisonous to the biology of plants, in doses typically used as a weed killer, doesn't make it toxic to humans.
That's not to say this doesn't cause cancer. Whether or not it does is irrelevant to the point that plant biology is not human biology — hell, other mammals' biology isn't human biology (see: cats and chocolate, grapes, macadamia nuts, and onions) — and making inferences based upon this hypothesis is not particularly likely to result in correct assessments.
Further, "the dose makes the poison". Alcohol is a poison. Oxygen is a poison in high enough doses. Is weed killer a poison? In some arbitrarily high dose, certainly. In some arbitrarily small dose, no. In the dose you're likely to encounter on the surface of produce? Possibly, perhaps even probably. But again, making inferences based on the fact that it kills weeds is faulty thinking. By that logic, one would be forgiven for avoiding onions at all cost; after all, they're cat poison.
Re: Monsanto leaks suggest it tried to ‘kill’ cancer research about weed killer
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that the polarization is useless. However what you said about selective breeding vs GM is just wrong. Selective breeding introduces numerous mutations, including ones often not even related to the desired traits. In contrast human directed genetic modification often changes a single gene, the state of the art in research universities for specific modifications is only in the tens of genes. You can only say th…
> In contrast human directed genetic modification often changes a single gene Even CRISPR-CAS9 is not perfect and introduces a lot of unwanted genetic changes when used. Further the big advantage of GM compared with selective breeding is that you can inject Transgenes. This makes them totally incomparable.
give it a chance - it's early days, and there are many other techniques and more in the works