This article alleges that Monsanto was closely involved in papers purporting to refute evidence that Roundup is carcinogenic:
So one review of glyphosate (supposedly published in multiple journals) convinced the EPA, the NIH, the European Food Safety Authority and Health Canada that it didn’t pose a significant health risk.
Sounds like an incredible oversimplification at best.
On the other hand, the IARC review (where exculpatory evidence re glyphosate was deliberately omitted, and a key scientist who was involved promptly went to work delivering “expert” testimony in lawsuits against Monsanto) was a model of solid unbiased science?
This is not to defend the practice of industry editing papers that are supposed to be independent, and scientists need to be keenly aware of their funding sources in order to maintain credibility on an issue where people are waiting to scream “shill!”.
But there’s plenty of other evidence relative to the safety of glyphosate and of GMO crops.
I found the article interesting because of what it tells us of Monsanto practice, not glyphosate safety.
Generally, sneakily paying for supposedly independent research isn’t cool, even if the results are in line with good science.
Monsanto was my client on and off for more than 15 years and for most of that time, I was at least tangentially involved with Roundup. Couple of things to remember:
-
Monsanto (which is now owned by Bayer) as a business may or may not have been evil, but that has nothing to do whether glyphosate is a good or bad herbicide, harmful or beneficial to the environment, and so on.That’s purely chemistry.
-
When Roundup was developed, every other herbicide out there was much,* much *worse for the environment. Just check the information for alachlor,atrazine (especially see the section “Environmental Fate,”) and 2,4-D, all of which were extremely popular in agriculture.
-
Over the last 30 years, no other herbicide has come along that equals glyphosate’s balance of environmental safety and effectiveness. Believe me, competitors have tried.
-
If it makes you feel any better, that will be glyphosate’s undoing. Eventually, weeds which get hit with the same chemicals year after year eventually develop resistance, which makes the chemicals useless. It’s the same process as with antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and it is happening with glyphosate with some weeds.
As for GMO crops, that’s a different, although related, discussion I don’t have time for right now.
Oh yeah. Roundup isn’t the only glyphosate herbicide out there. The basic patent expired years ago and generic glyphosate is readily available.
That means you are the daughter of Monsatan and nothing you say can be believed. :(
:smack:
While it has been linked to or at least accused of sleazy activities (like many companies, including Whole Foods), I have difficulty seeing Monsatan (or as it’s defunct, make that Bayer) as the ultimate corporate Evil, able to engineer a completely fake scientific record with a few fast payments.
I’ve seen posts here urging us to use safe alternatives to glyphosate.
Maybe we should go back to the golden years of American agriculture when sodium arsenate was a popular weedkiller.
*"In 1934 farmers in the U.S. used the following insecticides –
Arsenicals, 80-90 million pounds
Sulfur, 73 million pounds
Kerosene, 10 million gallons
Mineral Oil Emulsion, 40 million pounds
Naphthalene and paradichlorobenzene, 21 million pounds
Pyrethrum, 10 million pounds
Nicotine sulphate, 2 million pounds
Rotenone, 1.5 million pounds
The problem with all of these methods is that they were largely ineffective and the chemicals were potentially toxic to humans and other species"*