I'm trying to provide a background because I have twenty plus years in the fertilizer business. I'm old enough that I remember when it was introduced.
I don't know WHO's agenda but I've seen enough cycles on both pesticides and GMO's when someone makes a provocative statement based on early research and are usually proven wrong.
That "usually proven wrong" argument works both sides. The point is this: there is evidence that glyphosates' are carcinogenic, and the WHO - whose job it is to report these things - is reporting it, based on a scientific and impartial process.
What's your point in attempting to refute this position, from the perspective of PR of Monsanto - who has a history of covering up its failed science in order to reap profits - with anecdotes and "good ol' boy farmer"-style arguments?
The ad-hominem attacks aren't necessary. I think this boils down to:
- has Monsanto been knowingly misleading about the toxicity of their products? If not, then this is a non-story.
- is this any worse than anything already sprayed on our food (or is it actually less toxic than the cocktail of herbicides used before Roundup?)
If you knew half the things sprayed on your crops you'd be appalled - but there are 7 billion people to feed and at least 300m of them expect their food to be exceedingly inexpensive (and look to the FDA to help define just how much toxic crap they can stomach before the trade-off is no longer worth it).
Side question. If I wanted to explain with studies to someone that GMO hate is unfounded, do you have a recommendation on a place to gather facts or recent studies on it?
I wrote a blog post defending GMOs awhile back, with examples of non-Monsanto GMOs that have saved papayas in Hawaii, promise to deliver food to Africa, and improve nutrition. The thing many people don't realize is that all food is GMO. There are no such things as tomatoes, peaches, apples, or corn in nature. These are all products of just a few thousand years of selective breeding. With GMOs, we are also constantly performing a massive ongoing experiment involving over 100 billion livestock animals, and livestock farmers have seen no deleterious effects in the health of their products:
That's misleading definition of GMO. Genetically Modified Organisms is not the same as Gene Modified organisms. Gene modified organisms are made through selective breeding. Genetically Modified Organisms are made by splicing genes from other creatures.
The former means application of genetics, while second implies selective breeding.
I've honestly got nothing against GMO, and I know that GMO carries a stigma, but honestly, so do vaccines. I've got loads of problem with Monsanto, their business practices and Round-up but not too many problems with GMO as GMO.
Not necessarily other creatures, GMO technology is often used by selecting genes from same species.
The so-called "traditional" method of crop development, on the other hand, takes genes not just from other creatures but from totally random mutations, often induced by carcinogens and radiation, and then selected.
With GMOs we know much more about what has happened to the genome of the species.
By creatures I mean anything living. Bacteria, plant, animal, etc.
I think even regular GMO technology probably still is affected by radiation (cosmic radiation and sun) and breeding - I doubt every single grain of corn is genetically manufactured once you can just let it naturally breed.
Not to mention radiation is a great and cheap way to rid of some pests really fast, but tell that to any organic food lover and they'll get defensive.
There was a Forbes article[1] last year that linked to a number of studies. If you're looking for a less "journalistic" take and want to poke around with the data/studies yourself check out GENERA[2] (a database of peer reviewed GMO studies).
Well, why not? There are first to know the good arguments for their solutions. You can start there and then go look for independent analysis and verification of the claims.
While we're at it, let's have BP teach us all why their oil spills and dumping of even more toxic chemicals into the ocean to cover those spills up are really no big deal.
I don't know WHO's agenda but I've seen enough cycles on both pesticides and GMO's when someone makes a provocative statement based on early research and are usually proven wrong.