Roundup (cancer causing substance) cases underway

[jahson777]

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulW

"Jahson, you think GMO is an important factor to label but the lefthandedness of the harvester isn't. But based on what? "

"I'll type slowly so you can understand. If you succumb to the uneducated mob and put GMO on labels then what's to stop every special interest group from demanding that their fetish be put on the label as well. "Prepared by lefthanders", "Harvested on a Wednesday", "Touched by non-believers"."

---

Because the right to pick and choose if you want to use GMO or Roundup requires the knowledge if the product contains it or not. And the lefthanded remark was in response to your comment. What is the issue of simply putting the ingredients on the label? What does that have to do with your argument of having to also print which hand the food was prepared by or what day it was harvested? Someone who would like to know the ingredients is not a far out special interest group. There are many in puna against GMO that would like gmo outright banned as well as toxic chemicals. The courts ruled GMO can't be banned but I wish we could at least have a right to know if what we see on our local store shelves were natural or GMO.

http://www.bigislandvideonews.com/2013/1...of-hawaii/

http://fortune.com/2016/11/19/hawaii-gmo...egulation/

[rainyjim]

How many pages of glyphosate is bad, no glyphosate isn’t bad can we really do?

Wagers anyone? I’m going for 22 pages.

[MarkP]

https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/f...lyphos.pdf

"Toxicity
: Single-dose acute oral studies conducted for the U.S. EPA’s RED indicate
that glyphosate is practically non-toxic to upland birds and only slightly toxic to
waterfowl. Tests on warm and cold water fish indicate that technical glyphosate is
slightly to practically non-toxic to both types.
A study to determine chronic exposures of mammals to glyphosate observed no cellular
changes in mice fed glyphosate at a concentration up to 300 ppm in the diet for 18
months (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1981). A 2-year chronic study conducted
using Sprague-Dawley rats (males) fed 0, 89, 362, and 940 mg/kg/day of glyphosate
observed effects only in the high-dose group, indicating that for this study, the no
observable effects limit (NOEL) for systemic toxicity is 362 mg/kg/day (8000 ppm), and
the lowest observable effects limit (LOEL) is 940 mg/kg/day (20,000 ppm)( (Franz
et al.
1997). When glyphosate is formulated as in Roundup®, Vision®, or Accord®, it
becomes slightly more toxic to animal species due to the presence of surfactants. A
study by Folmar
et al
., 1979, compared the toxicity of glyphosate and a formulation
product to larvae, and found that the formulation was more toxic. The EC
50
of the
formulation was 13 ppm compared to an EC
50
of 55 ppm for glyphosate. In a study
conducted for the U.S. EPA’s RED, the formulated product MONO818 was found to be
slightly toxic to the invertebrate
Daphnia magna
and moderately toxic to rainbow trout".

This report was from 1998 so maybe there is more recent info but back then there were no effects to rats eating 8,000ppm glyphosate in their food for 2 years. BTW that is a ripe old age for a rat so maybe it was increasing their life span.

This of course is not the be-all and end-all. Humans live lots longer and may therefor be more susceptible to cancer. It does however contradict the argument that there is evidence that glyphosate causes cancer as this is a standard testing protocol for just that purpose. Maybe the cancer risk is much more subtle than would be revealed by such testing. We are still left with the reality that using the same methods we test everything else with, the data does not show glyphosate to be a significant cancer risk.

Some jurors (civil trials do not require unanimous verdicts) being sold a bill of goods is enough to sway me? Puleeeze.

[PaulW]

Jahson - this tomato soup here contains tomatoes.
Do we put on the label "Contains tomatoes", or "Contains GMO tomatoes", or "Contains GMO tomatoes picked by a left-handed person".
They all convey the same amount of useful knowledge - that the soup contains tomatoes.
Whether they are GMO or not, is just as important as whether they were picked by a left-handed person. That is, not at all.
You might think GMO is important, other people might think the left-handedness is. Is that a reason for putting useless information on the label?

There is no evidence that a foodstuff being GMO would adversely affect the consumer.

[PaulW]

A farmer speaks! I'll wager the ones in Hawaii would say the same.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4387169/monsa...ourt-case/

"Nonay says the most troubling aspect of the jury decision is that lots of peer-reviewed, scientific evidence seemed to be ignored or overlooked.

“I think that’s something everybody should be scared of, because in this application, however you feel about Monsanto and Roundup, if we apply that same philosophy that courts don’t have to use science and evidence to make rulings, then that’s a very dangerous place for society.”

Health Canada has deemed Roundup safe when used as directed."

[ElysianWort]

Ah funny. Rob's right. Even Jim's right this time. It's wandering.
It's gone on for long. The points have been made though.


Monsanto Loses $180 million court case, JURY AGREES ROUNDUP CAUSES CANCER.

Enough said

Viva organic food!

See y'all on the other topics. Aloha!

[jahson777]

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulW

Jahson - this tomato soup here contains tomatoes.
Do we put on the label "Contains tomatoes", or "Contains GMO tomatoes", or "Contains GMO tomatoes picked by a left-handed person".
They all convey the same amount of useful knowledge - that the soup contains tomatoes.
Whether they are GMO or not, is just as important as whether they were picked by a left-handed person. That is, not at all.
You might think GMO is important, other people might think the left-handedness is. Is that a reason for putting useless information on the label?

There is no evidence that a foodstuff being GMO would adversely affect the consumer.

---

. I already posted my opinion on that matter, it seemed clear, I'm done feeding trolls.

[PaulW]

Prolific use of multi-colored text and large fonts. Where have I seen that before?

Monsanto hasn't lost anything, yet.

All food is organic, except if you eat rocks.

Viva the appeal process!

[PaulW]

Your opinion collides with the facts.
More name calling, what a merry bunch you anti-science people are.

[SBH]

Someone please spray some Roundup on this thread so it will die..