Live data from Hacker News

Monsanto Weedkiller Is ‘Probably Carcinogenic,’ WHO Says

bloomberg.com

41–50 of 123 posts

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

#41

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.

Exactly. Especially since it's apples and oranges.

Water is not optional. Without it you die. Roundup is optional. Without it the world can still grow crops (we SOMEHOW have for thousands of generations). Dumping many many tons off chemicals designed to kill (however small the organism) all over our food and planet, let alone planting homogeneous, patented, and GM'd "basic" plants, is a recipe that likely isn't good for the planet over time.

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

#42
I encourage anyone who wants to know more about glyphosate to watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqWwhggnbyw

Stephanie Seneff is a Senior Research Scientist at the MIT Artificial Intelligence lab (BS in Biophysics, MS & EE in Electrical Engineering, PHD in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science) and she has done research suggesting glyphosate is responsible for a whole host of human health issues due to broad spectrum effects on our gut microbes.

Glyphosate doesn't affect any human systems as many may point out, but according to Seneff it does kill a lot of our gut bacteria, and I've seen a lot of articles suggesting how important our gut bacteria are to our health. Seneff suggests that gut bacteria effects are only seen at around the 4 month or later mark in humans, but says every official study has been 3 months or less because they only examined it for toxicity.

There are a lot of take down articles claiming she is a quack, but none I've seen that really call into question the science of what she claims. Most take down articles accuse her of working too far outside her field, as if her BS in biophysics followed by her several advanced degrees shows her unable to gather research in biology. Some people think her claims about autism and glyphosate prove she is not worth listening to, but I disagree that a scientist who does original research should be broadly ignored because a subset of their claims are hard to swallow. Even if the autism connection is false, there are many other issues.

She points out that glyphosate use has grown exponentially in the last 15 years since it went out of patent, and runoff from glyphosate (which kills plants) is causing real harm to our ecosystems. She also says they have new harvest techniques where they just spray the poison on wheat crops before harvest. It kills the wheat but I guess makes harvest easier. So if her claims are correct, your food could have been directly sprayed with this stuff right before it was taken from the farm to the factory. She then points out that until recently no studies of glyphosate occurrence in food have been done, nor had any studies of glyphosate in humans been done. A recent study found something like a third of european food and a fifth of europeans to have measurable levels of glyphosate in their urine.

So there's this chemical that everyone swears up and down is SO SAFE that we don't even need to study it. Meanwhile we have a clearly brilliant woman who makes a compelling case that spraying this stuff left, right and center on our food may be a bad idea.

I do not think the people who say "we shouldn't look into it" have a leg to stand on. Seneff may not be right, but the ONLY way to know is to examine her claims and prove or disprove them. We should examine the data she presents in the youtube talk linked above and try to see if her claims hold water.

If you disagree with me or know more than me, that's fine. I'm just sharing what I know. I'm not saying we shut down your farm, I'm just saying we should have the facts. Her talk has at least convinced me some facts are missing, including long term studies of glyphosate's effect on our gut microbes. If you can point me to a study of this, please do.

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

#43
post #21

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.

Don't feed the trolls.

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

#44
post #3

Waiting for the pro-GMO crowd to come forward calling all this "anti-science"...

What do you want to hear? Does Roundup "cause cancer"? Well, probably. You know what else causes cancer? Water. Oxygen. Sunrays. Coffee (on Monday, Wednesday and Friday; according to the news, it cures cancer on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday). It all depends on exposure. And yes, I'm willing to bet that all that "organic-certified" nasty crap people dump on their crops is even worse than Roundup . Study itself may b…

Yeah, and I can't get rid of water, but I can get rid of Roundup :D

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

#45

This interview about the topic (Glyphosate by Monsanto) is also quite telling: http://m.canalplus.fr/?vid=1122650 (English with French subtitles) Interviewee: It is completely safe and you could even drink it Interviewer: We got a glass of it here, you want to drink some Interviewee: No, of course not, I'm not an idiot and the interview is over now.

Yes, it's a good clip, I suggest watching it from the start to the very end and then making up your mind. The interview was apparently supposed to be about the golden rice, which is a topic that is completely unrelated to Monsanto in any way at all . Also, if I was in the shoes of the interviewee, I wouldn't drink it as well, even if I trusted it was completely safe for me - it probably doesn't taste well, and I don'…

Moore tells the interviewer that one "could drink a whole quart of [Roundup]" without any harm. When Moore is offered a glass of the weedkiller, however, he refuses and says "I'm not stupid." - Why did he bring it up when he was not going to follow it through.

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

#46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Company representatives are obligated to drink glassfuls of foul chemicals to prove that reasonable doses are nontoxic? Would you drink a glass of food coloring?

He is not even a company representative! He's some random environmentalist who wanted to talk about golden rice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_%28environmentali... It's sickening what passes on as journalism today.

Environmentalist is hardly the word I'd use to describe Patrick Moore. Professional contrarian, science denier and industry shill would be more accurate. He is certainly not some 'random environmentalist'.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patrick_Moore

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

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Company representatives are obligated to drink glassfuls of foul chemicals to prove that reasonable doses are nontoxic? Would you drink a glass of food coloring?

He is not even a company representative! He's some random environmentalist who wanted to talk about golden rice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_%28environmentali... It's sickening what passes on as journalism today.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Patrick_Moore

Patrick Moore is an ecologist who denies that humans cause climate change, and a corporate consultant through his firm Greenspirit Strategies. Moore has consulted for the Nuclear Energy Institute, and the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition. He has worked for the mining industry, the logging industry, PVC manufacturers, the nuclear industry and has worked in defense of biotechnology.

Although Moore was once (1981, 1986) a leading figure with Greenpeace Canada and subsequently with Greenpeace International, in 2008 Greenpeace issued a statement distancing itself from Moore, saying he "exploits long gone ties with Greenpeace to sell himself as a speaker and pro-corporate spokesperson, usually taking positions that Greenpeace opposes." [1]

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

#48
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.

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…

The ad-hominem attacks aren't necessary. I think this boils down to:

- has Monsanto been knowingly misleading about the toxicity of their products? If not, then this is a non-story.

- is this any worse than anything already sprayed on our food (or is it actually less toxic than the cocktail of herbicides used before Roundup?)

If you knew half the things sprayed on your crops you'd be appalled - but there are 7 billion people to feed and at least 300m of them expect their food to be exceedingly inexpensive (and look to the FDA to help define just how much toxic crap they can stomach before the trade-off is no longer worth it).

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

#49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Exactly. Especially since it's apples and oranges. Water is not optional. Without it you die. Roundup is optional. Without it the world can still grow crops (we SOMEHOW have for thousands of generations). Dumping many many tons off chemicals designed to kill (however small the organism) all over our food and planet, let alone planting homogeneous, patented, and GM'd "basic" plants, is a recipe that likely isn't good…

>Without it the world can still grow crops (we SOMEHOW have for thousands of generations).

Historical yields were tiny compared to what we get from contemporary farms. I don't know if we need Roundup in particular, but if we went back to traditional farming methods half the world would starve.

There's no going back.

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

#50
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's a good clip, I suggest watching it from the start to the very end and then making up your mind. The interview was apparently supposed to be about the golden rice, which is a topic that is completely unrelated to Monsanto in any way at all . Also, if I was in the shoes of the interviewee, I wouldn't drink it as well, even if I trusted it was completely safe for me - it probably doesn't taste well, and I don'…

Moore tells the interviewer that one "could drink a whole quart of [Roundup]" without any harm. When Moore is offered a glass of the weedkiller, however, he refuses and says "I'm not stupid." - Why did he bring it up when he was not going to follow it through.

He might have expected a modicum of respect from the interviewer, and not a gimmick to "win" an argument.
Post reply on HN