>Yesterday's groundbreaking news of a new lawsuit regarding Monsanto's collusion, cover ups, and corruption inside the EPA is a part of a long string of unraveling safety claims.

Decades of faulty chemical review procedures are beginning to be overturned. Last week, after years of asking, I received an email from the EPA confirming that the National Toxicology Program is currently reviewing glyphosate and glyphosate formulations.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/324...

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/michele-simon/top-10-lies-tol...

That is a string that does not occur in the story we're commenting on, but rather an op-ed that you've brought in.

>You're missing the point of the comment. The same company produces both products, and has a long history of manipulating media coverage in this manner.

^That's the original comment you replied to. We're talking about Monsanto's history of lying and manipulation through the media.

It seems like what you are doing is saying there's no basis to be concerned about monsanto's actions because everyone does it. That's not good enough, and not accurate about Monsanto. They are pretty much always acting as an overpowering bully. In one state, they are suing regulators who are concerned about the use of their chemicals in that state.

> what you are doing is saying there's no basis to be concerned about monsanto's actions

He said no such thing. He was addressing the extremely common practice of using PR to further business.

he didnt say anything general as that unless you find that lying is all that pr firms do and only they do lie.