General Discussion

yellowcanine

(36,760 posts)

18. "Simple question." But not a relevant one.

Tue Mar 24, 2015, 03:41 PM

Mar 2015

If it makes you feel better, I don't particularly like Monsanto, just as I don't particularly like Bayer (which makes Neonicotinoids) or GM (which makes crappy cars). Big companies tend not to be very likable as they are profit driven. But that is irrelevant to the question as to whether glyphosate is a carcinogen or not. I kind of like the Hershey company because they provide homes for orphans and gives them a college education. But that doesn't mean it is a good idea to eat lots of their products loaded with refined sugar or high fructose corn syrup. I don't like the fact that they tried, along with other chocolate manufacturers, to change the definition of chocolate to include products which had partially hydrogenated vegetable oils substituted for cocoa butter. (They failed). But that doesn't mean I would not eat a small piece of Hershey's chocolate if it were offered to me. I do like the taste of their chocolate.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

59 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Study: Monsato's Roundup herbicide probably causes cancer [View all] gollygee Mar 2015 OP

This is scary. bravenak Mar 2015 #1

What a bummer! gollygee Mar 2015 #4

Yes and no. bravenak Mar 2015 #5

:( gollygee Mar 2015 #6

Yeah. 4 dollar Mangoes are a piss off. bravenak Mar 2015 #7

You might want to check for mold in your home, because that can be a year round pnwmom Mar 2015 #9

Honestly, I had a mold problem in a previous apartment. bravenak Mar 2015 #10

NOW will our government label GMOs? Not really surprised at all by this. sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #2

Well "who" and "woo" do rhyme. gollygee Mar 2015 #3

Yes, don't give them any ideas though. Monsanto is probably working on dismissing these findings sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #8

The WHO says GMOs on the market are safe. HuckleB Mar 2015 #23

Excerpts from Regulatory Authorities: No Evidence of Carcinogenicity (Glyphosate aka Roundup) yellowcanine Mar 2015 #11

How many Superfund sites are Monsanto responsible for? SoLeftIAmRight Mar 2015 #14

How does that relate to question at hand - whether glyphosate is a carcinogen? yellowcanine Mar 2015 #16

What do you think of the companies that make glyphosate? SoLeftIAmRight Mar 2015 #17

"Simple question." But not a relevant one. yellowcanine Mar 2015 #18

wow - thank you for a very thoughtful responce. SoLeftIAmRight Mar 2015 #20

"i find it strange when someone does not err on the safe side of these issues" yellowcanine Mar 2015 #48

it goes to the agricultural system SoLeftIAmRight Mar 2015 #51

Banning organic spinach seems like the only reasonable course Major Nikon Mar 2015 #54

Round Up is more toxic than glyphosate alone GreatGazoo Mar 2015 #12

"recent studies seem to show....." Need a link if you make a claim like that. yellowcanine Mar 2015 #13

Séralini "study" Major Nikon Mar 2015 #31

Where are all the "SCIENCE!" shills? whatchamacallit Mar 2015 #15

So if we ask for good science, we are "shills?" Okay. yellowcanine Mar 2015 #19

If you're ever confused as to what people here mean by "anti-science" NuclearDem Mar 2015 #22

Well whatchamacallit Mar 2015 #24

Sure you do... SidDithers Mar 2015 #26

Oh yay, it's time for another episode of whatchamacallit Mar 2015 #28

"skeptical about the safety of ingesting Roundup." Who is suggesting you should ingest Roundup?" yellowcanine Mar 2015 #49

This OP has been repeated over and over again, always with scary headlines, but no actual context. HuckleB Mar 2015 #21

3/20/15 W.H.O. IARC Monographs Volume 112: evaluation of five organophosphate insecticides Zorra Mar 2015 #25

Sorry, only Merican science is valid whatchamacallit Mar 2015 #27

Only Merican science funded by corporations is valid! All them Gubmint studies Zorra Mar 2015 #29

Yep - you are correct. Only "Merican" studies here...... yellowcanine Mar 2015 #50

Interesting how IARC relied on Séralini's widely discredited rat study Major Nikon Mar 2015 #34

Write them a stern letter and explain to them why their findings are all wrong. nt Zorra Mar 2015 #36

I'm sure they knew before they published it Major Nikon Mar 2015 #37

Nice try! But more fail. It does not even indicate that the IARC used the Seralini Study Zorra Mar 2015 #39

Review of Rachel Maddow's book Drift: NuclearDem Mar 2015 #40

You are using a strawman to deflect from the fact that the Seralini Study was not Zorra Mar 2015 #42

Oh, horseshit. NuclearDem Mar 2015 #44

Whatever, blahblahblah...Do you know what the funding sources for American Academics Zorra Mar 2015 #45

Nah, that's even more solid Major Nikon Mar 2015 #53

Sure. I failed because you said so Major Nikon Mar 2015 #41

The point is you either deliberately lied when you said that the IARC relied on the Seralini Zorra Mar 2015 #43

Wow, those are the only two options I get? Major Nikon Mar 2015 #46

Something else: glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor. Octafish Mar 2015 #30

Only two references to Séralini "studies" so far in this thread Major Nikon Mar 2015 #32

Please tell me you're not actually citing the Seralini paper. NuclearDem Mar 2015 #38

Even that isn't peer reviewed Major Nikon Mar 2015 #52

Kick and recommend. Wella Mar 2015 #33

No shite, sherlock! "monsanto .. assured.. doesn't cause cancer.."?! Brawaaaaa Cha Mar 2015 #35

I purposely didn't read the posts yet. Has the "why do you hate science?1!!?" guy posted? U4ikLefty Mar 2015 #47

Yeah they're all over it whatchamacallit Mar 2015 #55

Hey, looks like some more, oh, what are they called... NuclearDem Mar 2015 #57

Haha whatchamacallit Mar 2015 #58

Better raise food stamps... bobclark86 Mar 2015 #56

Let them eat cake Major Nikon Mar 2015 #59