See, I thought they were suing farmers for accidental contamination, using the legal system as a bludgeon, that was my main beef with them. I'm not convinced that they're not doing that - juries are not infallible - but it certainly seems like their rep for the behavior is overblown, if nothing else.
Are you going to cover corn subsidies and sugar tariffs and Archer-Daniels Midland? :)
I wasn't planning to cover things like corn subsidies, because they're not directly related to GMO safety or biotechnology. They're largely matters of politics, not agricultural science.
Once again...just...thank you for these posts. If just a few people read and believe the truth, that's a few more that maybe will try to understand that conventional farmers are not trying to kill people, they're trying to FEED them!!
The notion that glyphosate is bad is accepted as self-evident by many folks who oppose GMOs, and I've often heard a circular argument used in discussions about glyphosate resistance: Monsanto is evil because they make glyphosate, and glyphosate is evil because it's made by Monsanto.I think that in this point you may be attacking a strawman; Monsanto's main product is glyphosate-resistent crop, so it's kind of moot whether they produce the Roundup themselves or license it out: glyphosate is inherent in their business model, and it's classed a probable human carcinogenic by the WHO
( ... )
There's something a bit funny about that classification as a "probable human carcinogen:" it's not backed up by case control studies. It's based only on a statistical analysis that makes no attempt to control for confounding factors. And it shows lower, not higher, cases for most cancers among people who handle glyphosate. Here's the WHO's raw data:
Comments 9
Are you going to cover corn subsidies and sugar tariffs and Archer-Daniels Midland? :)
Reply
Reply
Reply
They don't have to pay them all, just enough to sow doubt. It's much cheaper that way.
Reply
Sincerely,
A Conventional Farmer
Reply
Reply
Reply
( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment