Personaly, I believe this post has heads-up value for those concerned about the (multitude of) carcinogens in our environments, and/or absence of corresponding regulator protections.
I don’t agree with your argument. All products have a trade off including mechanical control methods. It is correlative but not causative regarding all the lawsuits ( which in US have more lawyers looking for suit opportunities). If you are looking for $ gain in promotion, one then has to look at who funded and politically pushed for the WHO cancer arm to declare Roundup as “possibly “ cancer causing. It was large law firms in the US. You also have to separate the molecules in Roundup. The active is glyphosate but a surfactant is part of the mix and on its own glyphosate molecule is one of the safest molecules around.
It has changed the ability to produce more on less ground and contribute to huge soil conservation on the prairies where no till and min till conserve moisture and topsoil.
Stress is thought to cause cancer and millions of other things, so in our world there are tradeoffs. That is a more complete discussion about costs/benefit trade offs.
So, ONE study has been found fraudulent. ONE. Out of dozens.
And, true to form, the quacks promoting “natural” this and “natural” that are going, “Ooooh, a smoking gun!”
Science doesn’t hinge on a single study. Scientific “consensus,” to the extent that it even exists, is based on multiple studies all yielding the same result.
Money will always sway politicians. Hopefully the final judgement will find them guilty of “crimes against humanity “! Unfortunately those who profit the most are chemical companies, big ag including farmers, and the creatures who reside in the government both in states and federal. Recently two states moved to provide immunity to the chemical companies.
Personaly, I believe this post has heads-up value for those concerned about the (multitude of) carcinogens in our environments, and/or absence of corresponding regulator protections.
Weed Killer; no ?
I don’t agree with your argument. All products have a trade off including mechanical control methods. It is correlative but not causative regarding all the lawsuits ( which in US have more lawyers looking for suit opportunities). If you are looking for $ gain in promotion, one then has to look at who funded and politically pushed for the WHO cancer arm to declare Roundup as “possibly “ cancer causing. It was large law firms in the US. You also have to separate the molecules in Roundup. The active is glyphosate but a surfactant is part of the mix and on its own glyphosate molecule is one of the safest molecules around.
It has changed the ability to produce more on less ground and contribute to huge soil conservation on the prairies where no till and min till conserve moisture and topsoil.
Stress is thought to cause cancer and millions of other things, so in our world there are tradeoffs. That is a more complete discussion about costs/benefit trade offs.
So, ONE study has been found fraudulent. ONE. Out of dozens.
And, true to form, the quacks promoting “natural” this and “natural” that are going, “Ooooh, a smoking gun!”
Science doesn’t hinge on a single study. Scientific “consensus,” to the extent that it even exists, is based on multiple studies all yielding the same result.
Money will always sway politicians. Hopefully the final judgement will find them guilty of “crimes against humanity “! Unfortunately those who profit the most are chemical companies, big ag including farmers, and the creatures who reside in the government both in states and federal. Recently two states moved to provide immunity to the chemical companies.
just as the amoral in the cushy feed chain will defend the poison.. with leaky, and 'lower the bar' rationalizations and slander