You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: tox-blog #2: Glyphosate and the problem of conflicting studies.

in #science7 years ago

Sure! Sign me up! Why wouldn't I, considering the quality of the "research" that show it to be harmful. Research? Pure propaganda more like it. Those rats with the huge tumors, they are specifically bred so that 80% have those by the time they're adults. Sorry rats, our bad. The data in that "study" is presented in such a muddled way as to obscure what it really shows... that rats that drink Roundup contaminated water will actually live longer than ones with fresh water. Every study I've looked at is like that, just awful. So who's behind all this? There are scads of lawyers lining up to file massive class-action suits (and they have already hired the scientists behind that IARC report to be "expert testimony". Then there's the organic food lobby, and oh how the idiots laughed when I mentioned "Big Organic" which actually has sales figures larger than Monsanto's, and with a much higher profit margin. Monsanto, of course, doesn't own the patent on glyphosate anymore, so why are they the bogey-man here? Roundup is amazing stuff. You apply it before seeding and rarely have to re-apply. It's even led to the development of no-till agriculture, so instead of dead soil tilled by burning diesel you've got biodiversity, living soil, less carbon in the atmosphere, it goes on and on. But certain ideologically driven activist groups simply will not listen to the facts, but work to create their own. These are the same people who condemn half a Million children to blindness each year!!! Sickening, but to them it's better than having a solution in "Golden Rice", a GMO product.
Disclosure: I live in rural Manitoba, Canada, where we have been slopping the stuff around for forty years. No cancer, no flipper-babies, no problem.