Lobbyist Claims Monsanto's Roundup Is Safe To Drink, Freaks Out When Offered A Glass

[Jeff7]

Except that it has been shown not to be retained in the body...

A bullet or knife that's just passing through won't leave anything behind either.



Long ago, companies would willingly poison customers if it was in the company's financial interest. Regulatory agencies were created to try to keep that from happening, because people generally wanted to be sure that the stuff they were buying wasn't going to kill them. Some large companies would benefit greatly if these agencies weren't keeping tabs on them, and have taken considerable steps to get these rules out of the way, whether it be through friendly association between regulated and regulator, or by throwing money at the government to make them go away, commonly called "lobbying."


"Trust us, we've still got your safety in mind. That's why it's completely ok to remove regulations that ensure that we're doing things safely."

It goes along with this: "People tend to do what's inspected, not what's expected."




.

 

[EliteRetard]

Are you so naive that you think that wasn't an intentional "slip"? No, you arent. You just want to believe them no matter what. If they had wanted to be scientific and specific they would have named celiac. However, they know that the incidence rate for celiac is low while the froth over "gluten intolerance" is high. its why they use "leaky gut" which is a bullshit non medical term. Or why they try to peg autism too.

When you have quacks you get quackery. "Gluten intolerance" is quackery, celiac is jot.

Believe them who? What's going on?

 

[moonbogg]

These people would kill half of humanity if it meant a little more profit.

 

[Brainonska511]

These people would kill half of humanity if it meant a little more profit.

Who are "these people"? The man in the video doesn't work for a pesticide company. He's an advocate for golden rice.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Who are "these people"? The man in the video doesn't work for a pesticide company. He's an advocate for golden rice.

The height of hubris is fucking with nature.

 

[Brainonska511]

The height of hubris is fucking with nature.

So we better stop farming then. That's a pretty big fucking with nature right there. None of the modern food crops would exist if we didn't make nature how we want it to be.

"Natural" breeding isn't all it's cracked up to be. Sometimes, you get bad results when they seemed like good ones, ala the lenape potato - blight resistant, yet somewhat toxic. And for over 50 years, we've been creating all sorts of new varieties of plants using radiation and carcinogenic chemicals. Those create hundreds or thousands of random mutations, but have given us greats like ruby-red grapefruits, seedless fruits, etc... But now that we have the technology to do something very specific and only change or add a few genes: stop the presses, we've gone too far! . New methods in biotechnology hold all sorts of promise: pest-insect resistant crops, tolerance to herbicides (that are safer for people), tolerance to drought, higher yields, nutritionally enhanced, etc... And as it stands now, they go through far more testing than plants created through hybridization or random mutagenesis.

 

[Mixolydian]

LOL. You quote that fucking quack?

my thoughts exactly.y

 

[etrigan420]

Who are "these people"? The man in the video doesn't work for a pesticide company. He's an advocate for golden rice.

The man doesn't have to work for a pesticide company to spew bullshit regarding pesticides.

From your linked article:

He is an ardent proponent of genetically modified crops and a vocal skeptic of man-made climate change. In 2014, he testified to a U.S. Senate committee that there is “no scientific proof” that humans are driving the global warming.

Boom. There goes any sort of credibility he might have had, regardless of what company employs him.

Interesting quote from that article:

And his defense of the herbicide is especially noteworthy in light of the fact that, last week, the World Health Organization classified Glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup, as a “probable carcinogen.”

 

[Brainonska511]

The man doesn't have to work for a pesticide company to spew bullshit regarding pesticides.

From your linked article:

Boom. There goes any sort of credibility he might have had, regardless of what company employs him.

Interesting quote from that article:

You can be right sometimes and wrong at other points. The man is an activist for golden rice - I'm not looking to him for scientific opinions on global warming.

And the IARC's assessement of glyphosate is built on some rather flimsy evidence. As I posted earlier, a review from 2012 came to the opposite conclusion of the IARC: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22683395


Plus, the IARC doesn't go into what dose will lead to carcinogenic activity. The dose makes the poison. Formaldehyde is found in apples, yet we continue to eat those, and that's classified as a group 1 chemical- known to be carcinogenic.

More information on glyphosate from its technical fact sheet. Note its low toxicity.

 

[LegendKiller]

The man doesn't have to work for a pesticide company to spew bullshit regarding pesticides.

From your linked article:

Boom. There goes any sort of credibility he might have had, regardless of what company employs him.

Interesting quote from that article:

Yes, the Global Warming models have been *SO* accurate. Like, 100% accurate. They show warming everywhere, but the satellite data does not. I 100% believe you don't shit where you eat, so we need to clean up, but this whole "global warming" shit is out of hand.

 

[etrigan420]

You can be right sometimes and wrong at other points. The man is an activist for golden rice - I'm not looking to him for scientific opinions.

And the IARC's assessement of glyphosate is built on some rather flimsy evidence. As I posted earlier, a review from 2012 came to the opposite conclusion of the IARC: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22683395


Plus, the IARC doesn't go into what dose will lead to carcinogenic activity. The dose makes the poison. Formaldehyde is found in apples, yet we continue to eat those, and that's classified as a group 1 chemical- known to be carcinogenic.

More information on glyphosate from it's technical fact sheet. Note it's low toxicity.

Uhhh, no shit you can be right about some things and wrong about others, but if I said that 9/11 was perpetrated by aliens, I would expect that very little credence would be given to my views on just about everything else. Rightfully so.

So we have 2 studies resulting in opposing conclusions...yet you totally discredit one of them as "flimsy"? A little cock sure on your part, unless your means of employment is on the line...

So let's cut the bullshit, shall we? Would you drink it?

 

[Brainonska511]

So let's cut the bullshit, shall we? Would you drink it?

I trust the existing evidence that it's not toxic, but I still won't drink it. I don't see why someone would have to drink it to prove some stupid point. Phosphate buffered saline is nontoxic, I still won't drink that either.

So we have 2 studies resulting in opposing conclusions...yet you totally discredit one of them as "flimsy"? A little cock sure on your part, unless your means of employment is on the line...

The old shill defense. My employment, if you can even call it that (in fact, my "employer" vehemently denies that we are employees), has nothing to do with pesticides or agriculture. I'm a biochemist, so I'm just calling it like I see it, and there are all sorts of other, qualified groups that are coming out and stating that the IARC is wrong this time.

 

[bradly1101]

It's too late, we're all RoundUp ready.

 

[bradly1101]

Uhhh, no shit you can be right about some things and wrong about others, but if I said that 9/11 was perpetrated by aliens, I would expect that very little credence would be given to my views on just about everything else. Rightfully so.

So we have 2 studies resulting in opposing conclusions...yet you totally discredit one of them as "flimsy"? A little cock sure on your part, unless your means of employment is on the line...

This phenomenon appears in many places. If you just skim the surface you can find 'evidence' for seemingly disparate analyses, but look a little deeper and you usually can find the truth. There's a Stephen Colbert quote that appears to be an axiom the more I look; "Facts have a liberal bias." Of course he (the lobbyist) is not going to drink it, he's not stupid, but he thinks you are.

 

[LegendKiller]

Uhhh, no shit you can be right about some things and wrong about others, but if I said that 9/11 was perpetrated by aliens, I would expect that very little credence would be given to my views on just about everything else. Rightfully so.

So we have 2 studies resulting in opposing conclusions...yet you totally discredit one of them as "flimsy"? A little cock sure on your part, unless your means of employment is on the line...

So let's cut the bullshit, shall we? Would you drink it?

It depends. How strong was the other study? Did it have accurate controls? How many other studies support the others? Was it in a significant and peer reviewed non-pay journal?

Part of the problem with stuff like this is that the media will often report somebody as a "researcher" like Seneff, but she's a computer-science researcher, not a chemist or a biologist. Nor was her "research" based upon an actual scientific study, it was a poorly performed meta-study in a crappy journal. Yet nobody reports that. All they do is say "MIT Researcher links everything bad to Autism" and then we just take them on their word. Everybody links to it on Facebook and all of the sudden you have Jenny McCarthy running around railing on XYZ for no real reason. Meanwhile idiots like Seneff get money from others after performing shitty research. Once the science community starts to shut her down, and MIT cuts her off, Jenny McCarthy decries it as Monsanto influence and screams for vengeance.

Rinse/repeat.

 

[Attic]

That was awesome.

Lobbyist should have just said, "Yea, you got me" but guess that's not what lobbyists are made of.

 

[uclaLabrat]

If that video is not severely doctored, that man should be water boarded with round up.

In fact, I really want to see that now.

The man never specified a volume, it could be perfectly safe to drink, in mL quantities, but you all want to crucify him for turning down a pint. Apparently "the dose makes the poison" means nothing to anyone here. Roundup is probably perfectly safe to "drink" in tiny amounts, but you all fail to recognize orders of magnitude. Well done, ATOT.


Fucking idiots.

 

[uclaLabrat]

You can be right sometimes and wrong at other points. The man is an activist for golden rice - I'm not looking to him for scientific opinions on global warming.

And the IARC's assessement of glyphosate is built on some rather flimsy evidence. As I posted earlier, a review from 2012 came to the opposite conclusion of the IARC: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22683395


Plus, the IARC doesn't go into what dose will lead to carcinogenic activity. The dose makes the poison. Formaldehyde is found in apples, yet we continue to eat those, and that's classified as a group 1 chemical- known to be carcinogenic.

More information on glyphosate from it's technical fact sheet. Note it's low toxicity.

I want to find problems with this post, but I can't....because you actually know what the fuck you're talking about. Thanks for doing my HW. Ok, I found it, you have an apostrophe on its.

 

[uclaLabrat]

Uhhh, no shit you can be right about some things and wrong about others, but if I said that 9/11 was perpetrated by aliens, I would expect that very little credence would be given to my views on just about everything else. Rightfully so.

So we have 2 studies resulting in opposing conclusions...yet you totally discredit one of them as "flimsy"? A little cock sure on your part, unless your means of employment is on the line...

So let's cut the bullshit, shall we? Would you drink it?

He's a research scientist, wtf are you? What's the criteria for drinking it? A mL? Half a mL? I'll drink half a mL right now.

 

[Red Squirrel]

The man never specified a volume, it could be perfectly safe to drink, in mL quantities, but you all want to crucify him for turning down a pint. Apparently "the dose makes the poison" means nothing to anyone here. Roundup is probably perfectly safe to "drink" in tiny amounts, but you all fail to recognize orders of magnitude. Well done, ATOT.


Fucking idiots.

Except they're putting way more than a glass all over the crops, which ends up in water ways, ground water, etc. That's the point. If you're going to spray anything it should actually be safe enough to drink in large quantities. In fact, what ever happened to growing stuff naturally? Before humans started to mess with this stuff, stuff grew fine. There was no need to mess with it.

 

[uclaLabrat]

Except they're putting way more than a glass all over the crops, which ends up in water ways, ground water, etc. That's the point. If you're going to spray anything it should actually be safe enough to drink in large quantities. In fact, what ever happened to growing stuff naturally? Before humans started to mess with this stuff, stuff grew fine. There was no need to mess with it.

Yeah, and over "all the crops", how much you think you're exposed to? I'd bet milligrams, if not micrograms. And your bullshit about "safe enough to drink in large quantities" is precisely that...bullshit. Has anyone here checked and MSDS for glyphosphate?

Oh you didn't?
Here's what it says:
Rat, Oral, 3 months:
NOAEL Toxicity: >20,000mg/kg diet.
Target organs/systems: none.
Other effects: none.

NOAEL means No observed adverse event level, so you'd have to eat 1.5 kg (if you weighed 75 kg, or 180 pounds, ballpark) or OVER 2 POUNDS of this shit to have AN OBSERVED ADVERSE EVENT.

 

[LegendKiller]

Except they're putting way more than a glass all over the crops, which ends up in water ways, ground water, etc. That's the point. If you're going to spray anything it should actually be safe enough to drink in large quantities. In fact, what ever happened to growing stuff naturally? Before humans started to mess with this stuff, stuff grew fine. There was no need to mess with it.

And how much is "way more than a glass" when you look at how much is actually spread around in parts per million? How much of it goes into the waterways and is persistent rather than breaking down?

And as opposed to what? Should we just not produce the food? So how are you going to feed 7bn people? Who gets to decide who gets food? What happens when we cut people off? Should it be completely capitalistic, highest payer gets food, or should it be social?

If you look at the production volume per acre it is far higher than it was before we "messed" with it.

There isn't a single thing that is "safe" in large quantities when you're talking about pesticides or herbicides. Nothing. Not a single one. None found in nature.

 

[uclaLabrat]

Except they're putting way more than a glass all over the crops, which ends up in water ways, ground water, etc. That's the point. If you're going to spray anything it should actually be safe enough to drink in large quantities. In fact, what ever happened to growing stuff naturally? Before humans started to mess with this stuff, stuff grew fine. There was no need to mess with it.

Also, it doesn't end up in ground water, etc, because it doesn't leach or migrate in the soil due to its high coefficient of adsorption and tendency to hydrolyze upon contact with the soil.


Environmental fates are chemistry dependent....just cause you spray something out of a bottle, doesn't mean it stays the same thing.

 

[bradley]

14-year old Rachel Parent debates GMO's Kevin O'Leary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvDOYYaZyj4

 

[uclaLabrat]

14-year old Rachel Parent debates GMO's Kevin O'Leary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvDOYYaZyj4

Was there a point in any of that? I got 4 minutes in and gave up.