Monsanto Weedkiller Is ‘Probably Carcinogenic,’ WHO Says • Hacker News Board

Re: Monsanto Weedkiller Is ‘Probably Carcinogenic,’ WHO Says

#31

Post by pdkl95 » Sat, Mar 28, 2015, 10:45 AM UTC

soufron wrote: post #6

thomasfoster96 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GMOs have very little to do with weed killers.

Well not when it comes to Round-up Ready. It's Roundup Resistant GMO + Roundup = we kill everything in the field except the crops.

Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" crops are not the only place roundup (glyphosate) is used.

If engineering herbicide resistance into plants is such a bad thing, what's your alternative? Do you want to return to the methods we used before we discovered modern genetics?

Monsanto has done some nasty things in the modern era, but their genetics (including their "Roundup Ready" products) are not one of them. If you want to complain about Monsanto, I suggest starting with the changes that Romney (Bain & Company) made to the companies business practices.

Re: Monsanto Weedkiller Is ‘Probably Carcinogenic,’ WHO Says

#32

Post by fit2rule » Sat, Mar 28, 2015, 10:55 AM UTC

healthisevil wrote: post #26

fit2rule wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whats your point? That the WHO are scare-mongering? That Monsanto shouldn't be held accountable for knowingly marketing a poisonous, carcinogenic substance and profiting from it in the billions?

The acetaminophen in Tylenol ( a common over the counter pain and fever medication used by millions of children and adults every day ) is carcinogenic and hepatotoxic. " There are, however, published data giving clear evidence that paracetamol causes chromosomal damage in vitro in mammalian cells at high concentrations and indicating that similar effects occur in vivo at high dosages. Available data point to three po…

Oh, well then, no need to worry about this at all .. everything is toxic in the right numbers, so there's no wrong-doing here in the slightest and we shouldn't stop big companies from polluting the planet, because .. after all .. its already all polluted.

What a ludicrous position.

Re: Monsanto Weedkiller Is ‘Probably Carcinogenic,’ WHO Says

#33

Post by fit2rule » Sat, Mar 28, 2015, 10:56 AM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #15

fit2rule wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whats your point? That the WHO are scare-mongering? That Monsanto shouldn't be held accountable for knowingly marketing a poisonous, carcinogenic substance and profiting from it in the billions?

You must get really worked up about the companies that make X-ray machines.

Stay on topic. We're discussing Monsantos' culpability for poisoning the earth.

Re: Monsanto Weedkiller Is ‘Probably Carcinogenic,’ WHO Says

#34

Post by soufron » Sat, Mar 28, 2015, 10:59 AM UTC

kyrra wrote: post #24

rmason wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm trying to provide a background because I have twenty plus years in the fertilizer business. I'm old enough that I remember when it was introduced. I don't know WHO's agenda but I've seen enough cycles on both pesticides and GMO's when someone makes a provocative statement based on early research and are usually proven wrong.

Side question. If I wanted to explain with studies to someone that GMO hate is unfounded, do you have a recommendation on a place to gather facts or recent studies on it?

Well begin by the website of Monsanto, lol.

Re: Monsanto Weedkiller Is ‘Probably Carcinogenic,’ WHO Says

#35

Post by fit2rule » Sat, Mar 28, 2015, 11:01 AM UTC

rmason wrote: post #21

fit2rule wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whats your point? That the WHO are scare-mongering? That Monsanto shouldn't be held accountable for knowingly marketing a poisonous, carcinogenic substance and profiting from it in the billions?

I'm trying to provide a background because I have twenty plus years in the fertilizer business. I'm old enough that I remember when it was introduced. I don't know WHO's agenda but I've seen enough cycles on both pesticides and GMO's when someone makes a provocative statement based on early research and are usually proven wrong.

That "usually proven wrong" argument works both sides. The point is this: there is evidence that glyphosates' are carcinogenic, and the WHO - whose job it is to report these things - is reporting it, based on a scientific and impartial process.

What's your point in attempting to refute this position, from the perspective of PR of Monsanto - who has a history of covering up its failed science in order to reap profits - with anecdotes and "good ol' boy farmer"-style arguments?

Re: Monsanto Weedkiller Is ‘Probably Carcinogenic,’ WHO Says

#36

Post by TeMPOraL » Sat, Mar 28, 2015, 11:02 AM UTC

rl3 wrote: post #30

TeMPOraL wrote: post #23

This article (not the study) is total trash. Every other thing on this planet - from water to oxygen to sunlight to common cold[0] to turning a light on when you go pee at night [1] apparently causes cancer. People read bullshit like that, start being afraid of everything they interact with, and then newspapers are surprised we have anti-vaccine movements, or that the general population doesn't trust science at all.…

> If anything is a serious danger to humans here, it's not Roundup, it's reporting like this. What exactly is so horrible about Bloomberg's reporting in this instance? Did you even read the article? Half of it is essentially defending Roundup.

I did. It doesn't really defend or accuse Roundup, it just gives a bunch of quotes from both sides. And that's ok.

My issue is that there's no attempt at specifying the significance of the problem. Saying "it (maybe) causes cancer" doesn't say absolutely anything about how dangerous it actually is - both in absolute terms and relative to alternatives.

I think that "X causes cancer" articles should be considered harmful.

Re: Monsanto Weedkiller Is ‘Probably Carcinogenic,’ WHO Says

#37

Post by fit2rule » Sat, Mar 28, 2015, 11:05 AM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #23

This article (not the study) is total trash. Every other thing on this planet - from water to oxygen to sunlight to common cold[0] to turning a light on when you go pee at night [1] apparently causes cancer. People read bullshit like that, start being afraid of everything they interact with, and then newspapers are surprised we have anti-vaccine movements, or that the general population doesn't trust science at all.…

The reason this is important to discuss is that Roundup is out there, in massive quantities, and if it is determined that it can cause cancer in much higher rates than previously expected - then something must be done about it, because of the sheer magnitude of the market penetration of this product. If it is discovered that Roundup-poisoned regions have extraordinarily high rates of cancer - and this is yet to be determined - then there is indeed an industry- and culture- changing event on the horizon.

We don't get to that horizon unless we discuss the issues - so why are you attempting to thwart discussion of this issue by people who are intelligent enough to understand the science behind the conundrum?

Re: Monsanto Weedkiller Is ‘Probably Carcinogenic,’ WHO Says

#38

Post by TeMPOraL » Sat, Mar 28, 2015, 11:05 AM UTC

fit2rule wrote: post #32

healthisevil wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The acetaminophen in Tylenol ( a common over the counter pain and fever medication used by millions of children and adults every day ) is carcinogenic and hepatotoxic. " There are, however, published data giving clear evidence that paracetamol causes chromosomal damage in vitro in mammalian cells at high concentrations and indicating that similar effects occur in vivo at high dosages. Available data point to three po…

Oh, well then, no need to worry about this at all .. everything is toxic in the right numbers , so there's no wrong-doing here in the slightest and we shouldn't stop big companies from polluting the planet, because .. after all .. its already all polluted. What a ludicrous position.

More like "just because it's done by someone you don't like, doesn't mean it's wrong". Blame Monsanto for the evil things they do (there's plenty), but not everything else.

Your argument is almost literally "Stalin believed 2+2=4, therefore 2+2 is 5".

Re: Monsanto Weedkiller Is ‘Probably Carcinogenic,’ WHO Says

#39

Post by tiquortoo » Sat, Mar 28, 2015, 11:07 AM UTC

fit2rule wrote: post #32

healthisevil wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The acetaminophen in Tylenol ( a common over the counter pain and fever medication used by millions of children and adults every day ) is carcinogenic and hepatotoxic. " There are, however, published data giving clear evidence that paracetamol causes chromosomal damage in vitro in mammalian cells at high concentrations and indicating that similar effects occur in vivo at high dosages. Available data point to three po…

Oh, well then, no need to worry about this at all .. everything is toxic in the right numbers , so there's no wrong-doing here in the slightest and we shouldn't stop big companies from polluting the planet, because .. after all .. its already all polluted. What a ludicrous position.

I'm not sure that was the point. The word "carcinogenic" has lost some of its impact when we learned over time that nearly everything is carcinogenic. We need to know a degree and likelihood and manner of action to really know what that means. You can be cynical about big companies, but this sort of health research is full of inaccuracies as well.

Re: Monsanto Weedkiller Is ‘Probably Carcinogenic,’ WHO Says

#40

Post by fit2rule » Sat, Mar 28, 2015, 11:07 AM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #36

rl3 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If anything is a serious danger to humans here, it's not Roundup, it's reporting like this. What exactly is so horrible about Bloomberg's reporting in this instance? Did you even read the article? Half of it is essentially defending Roundup.

I did. It doesn't really defend or accuse Roundup, it just gives a bunch of quotes from both sides. And that's ok. My issue is that there's no attempt at specifying the significance of the problem. Saying "it (maybe) causes cancer" doesn't say absolutely anything about how dangerous it actually is - both in absolute terms and relative to alternatives. I think that "X causes cancer" articles should be considered harmf…

>I think that "X causes cancer" articles should be considered harmful.

Well then your opinion is highly un-intelligent and socially specious, because cancer sucks and if people can avoid it by being educated about the nature of what causes it, thats a good thing. Why would you like the world to get more cancer?