Roundup is an herbicide, so I’m not sure why you’re bringing pesticides into the equation.
Benjamin T. Awesome

Roundup is an herbicide, so I’m not sure why you’re bringing pesticides into the equation.

Roundup is a pesticide classified as an herbicide, or weed killer. There are many classifications of pesticides, just citing ‘pesticide’ does not inform pest being controlled (insect?weed?fungus?etc).

My personal favorite solution for this would be to end farm subsidies so that so much space isn’t wasted feeding animals. Let the price of meat move up to where it should be. People will eat less meat, and more acres of farmland can be used to feed people instead of animals.

You did not address my question, but posed a scenario that would displace farm land being used for feed crops (mostly corn), for human food crops with still no explanation of how farmers can optimize yields without using pesticides, since you appear to be against them.

In regards to farm subsidies, I also don’t care for them. However, in addition to feed corn, another big driver has been to produce corn for ethanol, which I think has also been a huge waste of taxpayer money. In regard to your meat eating point, I am not a vegetarian, but in general I think our society is becoming a nation of overweight and unhealthy people due to a culture of excess and easy access to fast food and processed junk food. Overall, we need less food than we are actually eating.

Roundup does not solely comprise glyphosate. Even if your links about glyphosate are accurate, there are multiple other chemicals present in Roundup. Actual science suggests they may not be as safe as they have been billed. Just because Monsanto calls them inert doesn’t mean they really are inert.

No kidding. It also needs a binder, so that it will stick and stay on weeds, which, from my understanding, is more likely to make you sick than actual glyphosate. However, as the key active ingredient, most research and studies on RoundUp effects or safety revolve around glyphosate. Stating there are multiple other chemicals or inert ingredients really does not prove anything about safety. Everything is made up of chemicals, some chemicals are toxic to humans, some not. But then you link to a page that sites a study by French scientist Seralini, whose works have been roundly criticized and debunked by his peers. You linking to a Seralini study automatically calls your credibility into question, as does your attempt to degrade my information presented by suggesting that the Genetic Literacy Project is somehow dishonest. Name one smidgin of evidence that disqualifies information published on their site as somehow false or inaccurate.

It has nothing to do with identity and everything to do with skepticism. You state that “the truth will come out” in this trial. What makes you so sure? Do you have some fundamental trust in government, courts, and judges? I don’t, and I am not in the business of making faith-based claims about whether the truth will or will not come out in a given trial. I also am skeptical of corporations, and of people who make claims about products after receiving funding from the producers of said products. If you believe such people, maybe you should also ask Michael Jordan for his unbiased opinion of Air Jordans.

Based upon your analogy, none of us can put trust into anything at all. Of course large entities such as corporations and government agencies are going to be as moral as the people that are in them. My contention is that the facts and evidence, as best can be determined using sound methods, will show this lawsuit to be bogus, and a waste of taxpayer money. Obviously, if you are an anarchist, by definition you will distrust corporations, governments and most forms of authority, and probably subscribe to a plethora of conspiracy theories. I would rather live in a free country, but one still controlled by laws and government elected by the people. We need laws and regulations to keep those in check you choose to misbehave and cause harm to others, but at the end of the day, the current system is what we have to work with, and I trust it is able to be fair and just a majority of the time. I prefer having that over chaos. I’m sure you would disagree, considering your ideology.

Ultimately, I do not put blind faith in institutions, be they private or public, and I definitely do not consider non-replicated studies scientific. Inherent in the claim of science to be able to make predictive determinations based on empirical data is the requirement that experiments and studies should be replicable, but the majority of studies presented as science cannot be replicated and are false. We may live in the Information Age, but we are inundated daily with pseudo-science and propaganda.

I don’t put blind faith into institutions either, you are putting words in my mouth. I have worked both for government and large corporations, and have seen my share of unethical behavior and corruption, I am well aware of the there being flaws in just about anything that humans are involved in. As long as we are a species that continue to exist, there will always be some bad apples that succumb to greed or self-interest that cause harm to others, and they should be found, tried, and punished according to the rule of law, for the protection of the rest of us who just want to do the best we can to love and support ourselves and our families, and hopefully make some type of positive contribution to the world.

I agree that experiments that are not peer reviewed and results that cannot be replicated should not be labeled as sound science, but then you link an article about a Seralini study, I known anti GMO and pseudo-scientist. Or let me guess, the only science experiments or studies that can be considered ‘sound’ are those that appear to support your ideology.

Don’t get me wrong; I’m glad these people are getting their day in court, and that some of Monsanto’s practices and products will be put under the microscope and judged, but I see no reason to assume that the judgment rendered by the court will be correct. Courts make incorrect rulings all the time, because courts are staffed by people, and people are fallible. That’s one of the reasons we have an appeals process.

I’m sure if the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, then you’ll say it was ‘correct’, and if in favor of defendant, ‘incorrect’ and should be appealed. Whatever fits your ideological narrative, right? I am not a Monsanto apologist, just someone who can’t stand BS when I see it…

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.