151–160 of 302 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Glyphosate is used because it works.
It works at giving people chronic kidney disease and killing them. Probably it shouldn't be used or legal to use it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Glyphosate is used for only one reason, it’s profitable for Monsanto. It's used because it's effective broad-spectrum herbicide. My understanding it's quite a bit less toxic than its predecessors, and I understand there's no equivalent replacement on the horizon. IIRC, the problem was they marketed it as practically non toxic to humans, which is definitely not the case.
> the problem was they marketed it as practically nontoxic to humans, Has their marketing stance changed? Or does Glyphosate continue to be marketed as a relatively safe solution? Roundup is still for sale at Home Depot, they sell massive quantities of it every day .
>"We are sympathetic to Mr. Johnson and his family," Monsanto Vice President Scott Partridge said in a statement following the verdict. "Today's decision does not change the fact that more than 800 scientific studies and reviews ... support the fact that glyphosate does not cause cancer, and did not cause Mr. Johnson's cancer."
>He confirmed the company will appeal the decision "and continue to vigorously defend this product, which has a 40-year history of safe use and continues to be a vital, effective, and safe tool for farmers and others."
"Safe and effective"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Glyphosate is used because it works.
Not only does it work, it's by far the safest herbicide we've used so far. People love to complain about herbicides, pesticides and fungicides, but they're the same people who would complain if their food was suddenly 8x the price because farm yields would go back to the pitiful amount it was before we had these chemicals. I've worked in agriculture for a couple years while doing my Biology undergrad. People who used…
But the problem is that since as the safety improves so does how people use it. More safe means we can use more since it's not as scary.
It's so safe we can spray it on the wheat two weeks before harvest to make sure it's good and dry. Hopefully it doesn't rain!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, let us know if/when you or your kids get kidney disease or any of the other listed diseases associated with it. I feel knowing the dangers and using it anyway should auto opt-out one out of the class action settlement. Ever try a weed eater or gloves? Gasoline would work just as well, probably less toxic
You're a lot less likely to get roundup in your system from killing weeds outside than eating vegetables and fruits that have been bathed in it.
Remember when Bayer (who now owns Monsanto) intentionally sold HIV infected blood in South America? The people that own these companies would sell their own grandmother for $5. They’re poisoning the world, as science and litigation they couldn’t buy their way out of has evidenced, and we get people on here “hacktually”ing their defense. Glyphosate is used for only one reason, it’s profitable for Monsanto.
Farmers used to plough fields after harvest. This kills weeds. It also uses a lot of power, so burns a lot of diesel and releases CO2. Ploughing also allows carbon trapped in organic material in the soil to break down and releases yet more CO2 as well as destroying soil structure.
Low/no till farming seeds directly into last year's stubble. This uses much less diesel so releases much less CO2. Organic matter in the soil builds up, trapping more carbon, and improving soil health. But now the weeds grow unchecked and destroy the crop.
A common variation of the above low till method it to 'cultivate' (sort of scuff up) the surface of the soil after harvest. This causes weeds to germinate. Then you spray them with glyphosate (Roundup), and can almost immediately start sowing your crop. This allows you to farm with much less carbon released, lower fertilizer usage (also reducing carbon).
Roundup allows farming with lower inputs and better soil health and less carbon released. That is why so many people defend its use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the real debate is on whether the toxicity of fluoride outweighs the benefits of using it to prevent tooth decay. we know that it can cause issues. there are also issues that have not been measured. a lot of folks forget that unless the outcome of X is death or cancer etc ... it is often not studied. your quality of life can be greatly reduced by something but if it doesn't kill you then no one is looking at it.
Tooth decay can cause a whole litany of issues so it really is a weighing of pros and cons versus the long term effects of fluoride consumption.
Remember when Bayer (who now owns Monsanto) intentionally sold HIV infected blood in South America? The people that own these companies would sell their own grandmother for $5. They’re poisoning the world, as science and litigation they couldn’t buy their way out of has evidenced, and we get people on here “hacktually”ing their defense. Glyphosate is used for only one reason, it’s profitable for Monsanto.
> Glyphosate is used for only one reason, it’s profitable for Monsanto. Farmers love glyphosate because it kills weeds very effectively. It’s hard to exaggerate how much of a neat thing glyphosate was considered in the agricultural world when it appeared. That’s the reason it is used. Now, the reason it is produced and sold is that it is profitable for Monsanto, and regulation hasn’t stopped Monsanto.
I always think it's funny when glyphosate apologists come out in droves to defend their favorite poison manufacturer. Maybe they actually drank the stuff when Bayer/Monsanto said it was safe to drink?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Linked to Parkinsons and cancer. And it's still for sale next to fertilizer in the home box store so you can spray your yard and poison your family.
Actually because of these lawsuits it's becoming hard to find glyphosate in stores. Most roundup has a new cocktail of herbicides which will probably end up being 10x worse than the original glyphosate.
We are presently planting a new batch of trees and the weeds have grown faster than our farmhands ability to keep up and have strangled our saplings. Hopefully after the trees have matured, the amount of sunlight hitting the ground would reduce and this should in turn reduce the weeds ability to grow.
I am fortunate in that I can support the farming from other income sources, but a typical debt ridden farmer in this region would be completely unable to do so.
But using herbicide makes me a bit sad, from a lush biodiverse field we now have something I would describe as a barren wasteland minus our monocrop.
I wish there was another way.
Have y'all seen the movie "Don't Look Up"? It's a reference to the climate crisis but could very well be a reference to industrial agriculture. Then again, the climate crisis is largely rooted in our agricultural industrial complex. It's wild when I see folks defending the use of glyphosate... the movie does a great job demonstrating this sort of predicament. edit: looks like I am already being downvoted. outstanding…