51–60 of 90 posts
Why do they even bother answering allegations? If the other group believes whatever they believe in, any answer or evidence will only bolster their claims because they are already way into the pseudoscience camp. I don't like the taste of it but by golly I am going to support these new fangled vegan stuff: they are doing the right thing. Without GMOs a billion people in India will not be alive today. So let's not giv…
This isn't helpful. I don't like use of pesticides and I think there's a reasonable controversy to be had about the dangers of Glyphosate. But the environmental impact of meat production is so enormous desastrous, we should welcome every possible alternative. Whatever the Glyphosate (and GMO) concerns are, they are tiny in comparison.
Kind of like the conspiracy theory that some conspiracy theories are made up by governments to make theorists look ridiculous, sometimes I wonder if science-blind anti-GMO sentiment was manufactured by these big agriculture companies to draw legitimate attention away from truly studying the pesticides we're using.
If I were pushing the implication soy, potato and coconut oil as a healthy alternative to anything, I would make sure to have good opposition PR in place to cast people who question the product as crazy.
Impossible is very careful to emphasize the environmental mumbo-jumbo and avoid any mention of health beyond the standard nutritional data on their website, while implying that it's better. It's similar to supermarkets that package chicken in white and green trays, empathize "hormone free" and merchandise it next to the organic chicken.
Why do they even bother answering allegations? If the other group believes whatever they believe in, any answer or evidence will only bolster their claims because they are already way into the pseudoscience camp. I don't like the taste of it but by golly I am going to support these new fangled vegan stuff: they are doing the right thing. Without GMOs a billion people in India will not be alive today. So let's not giv…
"Mom's Across America" is a well known science denying hotbed who stoke fear of GMOs, chemicals, and vaccines. They don't care whether or not glyphosate is safe or not. They care that impossible foods is getting headlines, and they want to get a piece of it by introducing FUD. Impossible is 100% right to do a hard reply to this. These people aren't interested in honest debate or product safety and the world needs to…
I wouldn't discount glyphosate just because Moms Across America is a radical or delusional organization. I don't care about teams or taking sides. All I care about is my health. If Glyphosate is safe, there needs to be a lot of experimental evidence supporting that conclusion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, I'm certainly not an expert on this, but my understanding was that WHO had identified it as probably a carcinogen. https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/MonographVolu... Other studies show the link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S138357421... Now, admittedly, I don't have a strong background to stand on here, so I'm open to being convinced otherwise. And I would agree with the overa…
My understanding --- this is from memory, so correct me if I'm wrong --- is that IARC published a report classifying glyphosate as a 2A carcinogen (joining a long list of common substances that occur in food both naturally and as a result of processing), but that the broader WHO did not back this assessment up. Reuters also ran a story based on an earlier draft of the IARC report showing that evidence against the car…
My original question was legitimately not a rhetorical question (although that appears to be how it's been taken). I assume Monsonto has some of the best legal representation out there, so I assumed if they couldn't defend it, the case must be fairly compelling.
I'll put my skeptical hat back on. Appreciate the feedback.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They also came from farmers who were using glyphosate solutions that included many other chemicals, and no doubt came into contact with a variety of other pesticides. A direct link between glyphosate and actual illness has not been established.
>has not been established Then why are lawsuits that claim those links have been established winning regularly in courts now?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kind of like the conspiracy theory that some conspiracy theories are made up by governments to make theorists look ridiculous, sometimes I wonder if science-blind anti-GMO sentiment was manufactured by these big agriculture companies to draw legitimate attention away from truly studying the pesticides we're using.
That was the first thought I had when I saw the title of the organization "Moms Across America". Sounds like it was named by a corporate team of lawyers, PR and Marketing professionals for politically charged yet monetarily motivated attacks against "ankle biter" companies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kind of like the conspiracy theory that some conspiracy theories are made up by governments to make theorists look ridiculous, sometimes I wonder if science-blind anti-GMO sentiment was manufactured by these big agriculture companies to draw legitimate attention away from truly studying the pesticides we're using.
This comment really struck me. I've personally always found the anti-GMO crowd to be nonexistent by every metric I have available to me, but I've always assumed I'm just not seeing it wherever it is. The most extreme opinions I ever encounter on the subject are the occasional individual merely wondering out loud if GMOs are bad for you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm just glad I got to read this comment before r/vegan showed up and downvoted it into oblivion. Such is the current state of discourse around this subject on HN. We need to eat less meat, we need to look after animals better and we need to do it in a much more eco-friendly and sustainable manner. We don't all need to go vegan. Going from one extreme to another is never the answer.
> Going from one extreme to another is never the answer. Why not?
To be honest, I'm one of those waiting for my promised future superalgae and Euglina's food pills, so...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kind of like the conspiracy theory that some conspiracy theories are made up by governments to make theorists look ridiculous, sometimes I wonder if science-blind anti-GMO sentiment was manufactured by these big agriculture companies to draw legitimate attention away from truly studying the pesticides we're using.
This comment really struck me. I've personally always found the anti-GMO crowd to be nonexistent by every metric I have available to me, but I've always assumed I'm just not seeing it wherever it is. The most extreme opinions I ever encounter on the subject are the occasional individual merely wondering out loud if GMOs are bad for you.
The only strong opinions that I've heard are from farmers, and that's more about the economics than anything else. Let's face it, nobody gives a flying hoot about what farmers think.