Monsanto man Roundup ready?

[overthere]

Would you drink a quart of of blood? What no? We should ban blood then because it is obviously toxic...

She would drink a gallon of Harpers blood, while it was still in his body.

[WIP]

As I mentioned above he did not say what concentration he was talking about. Also, the guy would have to be an idiot to trust the glass was not laced with something guaranteed to make him puke since he was confronted with a couple of religious nuts trying to stage a propoganda stunt.

You're still making excuses for his own stupidity and arrogance! Would you be creating hypothetical alibis for someone, if the sides were reversed, and it was an environmentalist, for example?

A paper that does not pass the basic tests to determine if it has any credibility:

http://www.sci-phy.com/detecting-bogus-scientific-journals/

Not that I'm a fan of new, open source online science journals; but the established journals are losing credibility as the years go by, because they are becoming less willing to challenge research created by big pharma and big ag sources. All things being equal, I'm going to go with the presumption that a lot of brand new chemicals and organic materials that never existed before in the history of life on Earth, may have low to moderate levels of toxicity when combined with all of the other crap that's just carelessly dumped into landfills, waterways, and into the atmosphere!

There is too much evidence growing that our declining levels of health from so called 'lifestyle' aillments, is connected with these mass produced cheap food products that don't even have to be on food labels...unless you live in Europe apparently. If all of the pesticides, herbicides, GMO's...especially GMO's designed to grow in soils doused with higher levels of Roundup....if all of this garbage was really as good and as harmless as claimed, then there wouldn't be such a well-financed campaign to keep the public from having the right to choose/or not choose them on the supermarket shelf.

This is just another example of environmentalists inventing villains because that is their doomsday cult requires them to do.

I don't want to stray off on a topic that scientists...except for those financed by petroleum interests...are trying to figure out right now (what happens in the next couple of years when we have ice-free Arctic summers), but doomsday is looking more and more like something this present generation has to worry about, and not have the luxury of pushing it off any further for the coming generations to have to deal with!

I am not saying we don't need to have a rational discussion of cost/benefit whenever a substance designed to kill things is used, however, environmentalists can't handle nuance. Something is either "toxic" and must be completely banned or "safe" and can be used anywhere. The kind of black and white thinking helps no one and can often cause more harm that the alleged dangers.

I was sort of touching on the subject of how our capitalist economics has successfully externalized most of the costs of future damages from their products, by just dumping the wastes and leaving it up to people living near toxic wastes to deal with. When the wastes contaminate entire oceans, like the Pacific, then it could be a problem for the entire world to try to cope with....if at all possible. All of these chemicals that were never subjected to more than limited testing before approval for market, along with all of the plastics which could remain in the oceans for hundreds or thousands of years doing who knows what.....and, it's too late since the cows left this barn some time after WWII, but the precautionary principle should have been the guiding rule before all of this crap was approved. The chemical producers should have had the burden of proof that their products were completely safe, instead of the opposite situation where...after 20 or 30 years, they are still dismissing evidence connecting their products with a whole range of illnesses and environmental problems.

The problem with Roundup is, after it's out there and everywhere in the environment, trying to determine percentage wise, how much of the problems are due to their product, and how much from other toxins, or a whole bunch of them having combined effects on soils, plants, animals...and US, is a mess worse than trying to sift through evidence from this latest airplane crash scene in the Alps.

[guyser]

The guy was a classic BS idiot.

He made the claim, he couldnt /wouldnt back it up. As for anyone tainting the Roundup, totally preposterous and without a shred of merit.

Bill Gates promoted a fliter for water from tainted sources and then drank it on camera. So have many others.

Funny how that works.

Edited March 28, 2015 by Guyser2

[TimG]

The chemical producers should have had the burden of proof that their products were completely safe, instead of the opposite situation where...after 20 or 30 years, they are still dismissing evidence connecting their products with a whole range of illnesses and environmental problems.

The games with shifting the onus are not useful. Humans needs technology to advance. Technology always comes with unknown risks that are not going to be fully understood until the technology is widely used no matter how much testing is done. Once the risks are known we need to make sure the benefit exceeds the harms and in many cases that could mean limiting the use rather than banning a product. For example, antibiotics kill things like herbicides. If misused or overused they can cause all kinds of problems but that is not argument for banning antibiotics. That is argument for limiting their use to those situations where they provide maximum benefit. The same discussion should be had about herbicides. We can't have that discussion as long as people insist on slotting everything into a black and white toxic/safe matrix. Edited March 28, 2015 by TimG

[TimG]

He made the claim, he couldnt /wouldnt back it up. As for anyone tainting the Roundup, totally preposterous and without a shred of merit.

Would you drink a quart of undiluted acetic acid? You would have to be stupid if you did yet acetic acid is considered to be an "organic herbicide". Here are a list of expect if you did: http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Detail_Chemical.jsp?Rec_Id=PC32883

My point is it was ridiculous for any to ask someone to drink a quart of undiluted herbicide and it is even more ridiculous for people to conclude that his refusal provides any information about the safety of the product.

Edited March 28, 2015 by TimG

[guyser]

Would you drink a quart of undiluted acetic acid?

Oh I certainly would.......if I made the claim that 'one can drink a whole glass of it and be safe".

But I didnt, so the question is moot.

My point is it was ridiculous for any to ask someone to drink a quart of undiluted herbicide and it is even more ridiculous for people to conclude that his refusal provides any information about the safety of the product.

Your point is ridiculous and you know it, but for some reason logic escapes you here.

"ridiculous for people to conclude that his refusal provides any information about the safety of the product.

"

See ^....what is idiotic is to make the claim and then fail to back it up.His refusal to drink abosolutely makes his product he is shilling not safe to drink...otherwise he would have.

Monumental stupidity is shooting your mouth off with nothing to back it up.

Edited March 28, 2015 by Guyser2

[TimG]

Oh I certainly would.......if I made the claim that 'one can drink a whole glass of it and be safe".

You make the claim that you can drink a liter of vinegar. I give you a liter of 100% asctic acid and you refuse to drink it. Who is wrong? You for making the reasonable claim that you could drink a typical 5% solution or me for assuming you meant the pure undiluted form?

[guyser]

You make the claim that you can drink a liter of vinegar.

Good thing I am not a Dr like the guy in the video, nor am I a paid shrill like him because that would mean I make really stupid claims of " one can drink a quart of this or that and be safe."

Tim, seriously, stop this insanity.

He made the claim. He wouldnt back it up. WOuldnt take even a sip. Period. Full stop

Dance all you want but it was a dumb thing for him to say and he wears it now.

[Moonbox]

He made the claim. He wouldnt back it up. WOuldnt take even a sip. Period. Full stop

I'm not surprised that you think that. You and jacee have never really demonstrated strong reasoning or critical thinking skills. I would happily say that dish soap isn't causing cancer. If you told me to back that claim up by drinking a glass of it, I'd tell you to screw off. It tastes terrible and what do I have to prove to you? You can't argue way out of a soggy paper bag.

Similarly, this pathetic excuse of a journalist asked to interview someone for one topic, and then ambushed him with hostile and completely unrelated questions, proceeding to demand he drink a cup of chemicals that were never meant for direct consumption.

You LITERALLY don't get a better example of unprofessional/unethical journalism.

Edited March 29, 2015 by Moonbox

[jacee]

Unh ... listen to it again.

Doofus pompous ass outrageously claims "you could drink a quart of it!"

Any good journalist is going to challenge that.

.

[drummindiver]

Patrick Moore was there to be interviewed regarding Golden Rice, and the fact that it would save 2 million children dying and another 500,000 going blind due to Vitamin A deficiency. He has never worked for Monsanto, which has nothing to do with GR. I don't believe milk is toxic, and I wouldn't drink a quart of it either.

edited gallon to quart. my bad

Edited March 29, 2015 by drummindiver

[drummindiver]

Don't you ever get tired making excuses for pure evil?

Monsanto Man got caught stepping in his own bullshit, plain and simple! He said:"you can drink a whole quart of it and it won't hurt you." He just wasn't expecting to be confronted with the opportunity to put up or shut up.

Forty years ago, when Monsanto introduced Roundup, the FDA testing was limited to cancer risks, and in recent years, the FDA like the rest of the U.S. regulating agencies have been turned into toothless tigers, who have their jobs threatened by bought-and-paid-for politicians, if they come down too hard on their paymasters...like Monsanto.

Glyphosate, and other...what were believed to be inert chemicals in Roundup, are being connected with many long term health problems on the increase, as well as environmental effects on soil microbes.

Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases^†

Long, multi-topic critical article on Glysophate effects from Permaculture Research Institute:

Why Glyphosate Should Be Banned – A Review of its Hazards to Health and the Environment

If you did any research at all, you would know this is utter rubbish. If you don't like these, there is oodles more.

.https://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/05/04/roundup-and-gut-bacteria/

http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/01/10-studies-proving-gmos-are-harmful-not-if-science-matters/

[drummindiver]

I'm not surprised that you think that. You and jacee have never really demonstrated strong reasoning or critical thinking skills. I would happily say that dish soap isn't causing cancer. If you told me to back that claim up by drinking a glass of it, I'd tell you to screw off. It tastes terrible and what do I have to prove to you? You can't argue way out of a soggy paper bag.

Similarly, this pathetic excuse of a journalist asked to interview someone for one topic, and then ambushed him with hostile and completely unrelated questions, proceeding to demand he drink a cup of chemicals that were never meant for direct consumption.

You LITERALLY don't get a better example of unprofessional/unethical journalism.

lol. Couldn't agree more with your assessment

Drinking dishwashing detergent or shampoo out of the container, for example, is not advised, because these chemical products contain surfactants that should not be intentionally consumed, yet low levels of dishwashing detergent and shampoo residues are consumed daily off of cups, plates and utensils and during showering, without adverse health effects. And rightfully so, people are not concerned about use or consumption of trace amounts of detergents.

The same is true for herbicides. Roundup-brand products also contain surfactants like those found in dishwashing detergents and shampoos and, like these consumer products, should not be intentionally consumed. However, low levels of these surfactants and the active ingredient in Roundup-brand products (glyphosate), which gives it its weed-killing power, ingested from the food we eat are well below what has been determined acceptable for daily human consumption.

[Bryan]

The lying over who was even being interviewed, and the context over which his remarks were made is laughable. Patrick Moore doesn't work for Monsanto in any capacity. He's not an expert on Glyphosate, nor did he purport to be one. He agreed to an interview about golden rice, was ambushed with an irrelevant misdirection.

[On Guard for Thee]

Guess if he was ambushed he should have bowed out before making the statements he made. Or he should have at least sipped the juice.

[Bryan]

The statement he made is consistent with opinions expressed by people who are experts in that field. Just because someone "could" drink it, doesn't mean he specifically would want to. When dealing with an activist with an agenda like he was, it would be particularly unwise to take a drink of ANYTHING that was being offered. It was clearly a set-up, not an honest interview. Moore has a reason to be upset by the trick.

[PrimeNumber]

The statement he made is consistent with opinions expressed by people who are experts in that field. Just because someone "could" drink it, doesn't mean he specifically would want to. When dealing with an activist with an agenda like he was, it would be particularly unwise to take a drink of ANYTHING that was being offered. It was clearly a set-up, not an honest interview. Moore has a reason to be upset by the trick.

Was moore privy to the question before hand? Honestly why would the interviewer have a cup of chemical ready for him to drink, prior to him making the statement. It's not like the question was a trap, he made the statement on his own terms.

Edited March 29, 2015 by PrimeNumber

[jacee]

The statement he made is consistent with opinions expressed by people who are experts in that field. Just because someone "could" drink it, doesn't mean he specifically would want to.

Then they should stop saying stupid stuff like that. Their claims make it clear that it's ok for 'those other people' to be exposed to it but they won't expose themselves.

When dealing with an activist with an agenda like he was, it would be particularly unwise to take a drink of ANYTHING that was being offered. It was clearly a set-up, not an honest interview.

He made a dishonest claim and refused to back it up.

Monsanto needs to stop making claims they can't back up.

Glyphosate "Probably" Causes Cancer: But Patrick Moore Says Drinking A Quart Does No Harm (Before Storming Out Of TV Interview)

Edited March 29, 2015 by jacee

[Bryan]

Then they should stop saying stupid stuff like that. Their claims make it clear that it's ok for 'those other people' to be exposed to it but they won't expose themselves.

He made a dishonest claim and refused to back it up.

Monsanto needs to stop making claims they can't back up.

.

Monsanto was not the one making that particular claim, Patrick Moore was -- he does not work for Monsanto. That said, it's not a dishonest claim. The science has not shown harmful effects due to ingestion by humans.

http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-carcinogenicity-classification-of-five-pesticides-by-the-international-agency-for-research-on-cancer-iarc/

Prof. Sir Colin Berry, Emeritus Professor of Pathology at Queen Mary University of London, said:

“I have served on a number of regulatory bodies for the UK, EU and WHO and I am well used to sifting wheat from chaff in the analysis of pesticides. What is missing in this new assessment is balance in the consideration of the studies.

“There are over 60 genotoxicity studies on glyphosate with none showing results that should cause alarm relating to any likely human exposure.

Saying that it's possible to ingest a given substance without it bringing harm to you (and/or that the evidence doesn't support that it would) is not the same thing as recommending that anyone do it, nor does it mean that anyone would want to. It's safe to eat spiders. That I can tell you this, yet I will still refuse to eat them if you presented them to me is not a contradiction.

Edited March 29, 2015 by Bryan

[Bob Macadoo]

Saying that it's possible to ingest a given substance without it bringing harm to you (and/or that the evidence doesn't support that it would) is not the same thing as recommending that anyone do it, nor does it mean that anyone would want to. It's safe to eat spiders. That I can tell you this, yet I will still refuse to eat them if you presented them to me is not a contradiction.

I agree but we're not dropping coatings of spiders on people either which I believe people would have a valid protest for.......and GMO paid scientists saying....."stop your whining, spiders can be eaten."

[drummindiver]

Then they should stop saying stupid stuff like that. Their claims make it clear that it's ok for 'those other people' to be exposed to it but they won't expose themselves.

He made a dishonest claim and refused to back it up.

Monsanto needs to stop making claims they can't back up.

Glyphosate "Probably" Causes Cancer: But Patrick Moore Says Drinking A Quart Does No Harm (Before Storming Out Of TV Interview)

Jacee, please. vodka is rated in a higher, more likely to cause cancer category. Monsanto did not make the claim. What Moore said was not meant literally. It's like me saying that drum solo blew me away. You are taking this out of context because you have no scientific proof to back your prejudices against Monsanto. It seems ok that you want to vilify a man for wanting to feed millions of starving people and stop kids from going blind due to your own ignorant agenda. Sad, really.

[drummindiver]

I agree but we're not dropping coatings of spiders on people either which I believe people would have a valid protest for.......and GMO paid scientists saying....."stop your whining, spiders can be eaten."

GMO scientists? Who are we talking about here? What?

[jacee]

Jacee, please. vodka is rated in a higher, more likely to cause cancer category. Monsanto did not make the claim. What Moore said was not meant literally. It's like me saying that drum solo blew me away. You are taking this out of context because you have no scientific proof to back your prejudices against Monsanto. It seems ok that you want to vilify a man for wanting to feed millions of starving people and stop kids from going blind due to your own ignorant agenda. Sad, really.

Oh puleeeez! Cue the sappy music ... :/

My point is that if Monsanto and friends don't want to be challenged to drink the stuff, THEY SHOULDN'T CLAIM THAT YOU CAN DRINK IT!

.

[drummindiver]

You can keep repeating your mantra, caps locks and all, it still means nothing. I never heard Moore say "hey, I want to be challenged to drink a cup of this". He was there to save lives. I would think you, of all the ppl I've read on this site, would be supporting that. They literally have a food to stop kids from going blind, and saving pregnant woman's lives. Sappy music? Really, cue it. I'm for helping the poorest people, the people who can't afford vegetables and fresh food. Are you kidding me with cue the music? Nice social responsibility on you. Shamefull.

[WIP]

The games with shifting the onus are not useful. Humans needs technology to advance.

Technology always comes with unknown risks that are not going to be fully understood until the technology is widely used no matter how much testing is done.

Once the risks are known we need to make sure the benefit exceeds the harms and in many cases that could mean limiting the use rather than banning a product. For example, antibiotics kill things like herbicides. If misused or overused they can cause all kinds of problems but that is not argument for banning antibiotics. That is argument for limiting their use to those situations where they provide maximum benefit. The same discussion should be had about herbicides. We can't have that discussion as long as people insist on slotting everything into a black and white toxic/safe matrix.

Define "advance." Because one of the greatest myths in our time is the myth of progress....which generally follows a narrative that we...as a species, were mired by deprivation until the wonders of the Enlightenment in Europe - when great European thinkers - Descartes and Francis Bacon started pointing the way to a new era in human history of unending progress and discovery, accompanied by technological progress. The myth of progress has had to come to grips with the fact that right from the beginning of the modernity - the age of agriculture - it was a great leap backwards for many, many generations of farmers...as their poor, limited diet and long hours of backbreaking work led to declining health for thousands of years, that didn't end for the majority until the past century.

Even the 'dark ages' weren't quite as dark as we are continually told...or at least compared to the age of factory sweatshops that came after the imposition of enclosure acts to force people off their lands and into the cities to work in factories...a process that's still going on today in Africa and Asia! As Ian Welsh puts it: Serfdom Is Better Than What the West is Heading For

2. Yes, technology often comes with unknown risks. Which is exactly why new technologies and new innovations in production should be assessed for possible risks before they are dumped on the market, and declared too important to give up afterwards! If that means a slowdown in "progress," so be it!

"Progress" is killing us right now because of the role wide application of new, untested products have on the environment. It would have been nice if the precautionary principle was applied at the end of WWII, before all of the wartime chemical manufacturers shifted to introducing new plastics and other chemical compounds into the environment, in the greatest scientific experiment in human history.....and we're all lab rats today! How dangerous and devastating will waste dumps like the Pacific Gyre be for the future? Who knows; but there's virtually nothing that can be done to stop the role it plays in destroying the food chain.

3. If the harms include the gradual poisoning of soils and the life dependent on them, how do you propose to assess those harms against the short term benefits? And, you know as well as I do, that the majority in today's ADHD culture can't contemplate anything more than a few years in advance. But, at least that's better than the corporate vision, which only sees the future in quarterly reports to shareholders!