Unless you're paying $3/# for carrots, herbicides are in the mix one way or the other. GMOs allow us to be pickier about which herbicides we're exposed to.
Regarding IPR issues: you're referring to Monsanto lawsuits. Monsanto enforced its IPR against people who not only planted Roundup-ready crops, but then used Roundup on them --- in other words, people who took advantage of the IPR itself, not merely people who happened to plant Roundup-ready seeds unknowingly. Farmers don't accidentally spray their crops with Glyphosate.
15.1 billion bushels of corn... wasted.
Maybe its not directly toxic like agent orange, but these chemicals are still dangerous.
[1] http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-20...
To say that IARC 2A classification is controversial would be understating.
I’m inclined to agree with the WHO because I can’t see how they could profit from having the results be the way they are, if you believe the conspiracy theories. The old adage, “follow the money” still holds true; so if there is a conspiracy where is the money for calling RoundUp harmful?
That Reuters article is loaded with conspiracy. No actual evidence of wrongdoing, unless I just missed it.
Honest question: If glycosate is safe couldn’t you drink it? Why then did this Monsanto lobbyist refuse to drink it? Honest question. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM
1. That's a dude who was asked by Canal+ to give an interview about Golden Rice, a product that has nothing to do with herbicides, and is at the end of the interview asked to drink a glass of herbicide.
2. That dude doesn't work for Monsanto, isn't a "Monsanto lobbyist", and has never taken a dollar from Monsanto.
3. I don't need to watch Canal+ stunt interviews to know how dangerous glyphosate is, because there's something called "the medical literature", which documents people having drunk a half liter of the stuff with no effect.
4. But drinking a half liter of glyphosate-based herbicide is an extremely bad plan, because glyphosate isn't the only thing in glyphosate herbicide. Lots of routinely-used fungicides are extremely toxic to humans and found commonly in households.
5. Even if drinking a half liter of random herbicide was completely safe, I'd be upset if you demanded I drink it, for the same reason I'd be upset if you asked me to drink a glass of grapeseed oil or of human urine.
6. All of this drastically misses the point of glyphosate, which is that it's a very simple, broad-spectrum herbicide that is better understood than the selective herbicides farmers use for non-GMO crops. Glyphosate targets a metabolic pathway present in plants and fungus that isn't present in animals. That's not true of selective (grass- or broadleaf- targeting) herbicides. "Conventional" weed control programs are known to be dangerous to humans, rather than the targets of FUD campaigns.
7. If you're "inclined to agree with IARC" about glyphosate, unlike a significant number of scientists, I have bad news for you about cooking food --- meat or vegetables --- which is also 2A-carcinogenic.
Regarding points 1-5, did you miss that I said it was an honest question? I clearly did not say that it was an argument. I asked precisely because I knew there might be facts I am not aware of. Thank you for filling me in.
> 6. All of this drastically misses the point of glyphosate, which is that it's a very simple, broad-spectrum herbicide that is better understood than the selective herbicides farmers use for non-GMO crops. Glyphosate targets a metabolic pathway present in plants and fungus that isn't present in animals. That's not true of selective (grass- or broadleaf- targeting) herbicides. "Conventional" weed control programs are known to be dangerous to humans, rather than the targets of FUD campaigns.
And this addresses the concern that it may be a carcinogen... how?
> 7. If you're "inclined to agree with IARC" about glyphosate, unlike a significant number of scientists, I have bad news for you about cooking food --- meat or vegetables --- which is also 2A-carcinogenic.
And that also is not an argument for rejecting 2A carcinogenic labeling on glyphosate.
So I ask again: This addresses the concern that it may be a carcinogen... how?
Well, I ask rhetorically. Apparently an answer will not be given, only misdirection.
Sorry but I don't have the energy to debate with people who won't read carefully or provide answers that are not misdirecting. You may have the last word. Good day and God bless.
P.S., "a significant number of scientists" is a fallacious appeal to authority. A significant number of scientists is not the same as having a majority of consensus.
IARC works under WHO, but WHO itself doesn't think glyphosate poses a cancer threat:
Huh, didn't know--thank you. Plants have apparently been patentable since 1930 [1]. In 1970, the Congress gave breeders "up to 25 years of exclusive control over new, distinct, uniform, and stable sexually reproduced or tuber propagated plant varieties" [2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Patent_Act_of_1930
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Variety_Protection_Act_o...
GMO crops can be engineered to be pest resistant, requiring far less use of pesticides, without harming the crop's suitability for human consumption.
Ignorance on this issue is destroying ecosystems in agricultural areas.
Meanwhile, pesticides are killing off 75% of all flying insects.
I like monarchs, but if I had to choose between a world with no monarchs, and a world with no monarchs and also just 25% of the flying insect biomass we had 30 years ago and also fewer birds and everything else that consumes insects and all of the beneficial pollination that those 75% of insects would have accounted for ... well, that seems like a pretty easy choice to me.
Gene editing would also provide an avenue for a different approach here, where the crop could be made resistant to its costliest pests without harming monarchs. Good luck doing that through cross-breeding.
That would be the result of getting rid of pesticides and insecticides...
I think you're referring to Round-up Ready? Wasn't the point of that program to reduce pesticide use?
Programs like Bt-corn reduce pesticide use... by making the plant produce the herbicide in the fruit. So, instead of being able to peel or rinse fruit (with varying results), you're eating corn kernels that have pesticide on the inside.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_soybean
We eat lots of pesticides. Capsaicin (in chilis) [1] and piperine (in peppers) [2] are two examples.
The endotoxin used in Bt corn is also 100% natural [1].
I'm not arguing for (or against) Bt corn. I'm trying to show that the language we used to describe GMOs is misleading. Something we think of as natural isn't inherently healthy or unhealthy compared with something we think of as artificial. The same applies to GMO.
https://www.amazon.com/Bonide-Products-803-Thuricide-16-Ounc...
"Engineered chemicals" shouldn't be used when you mean "harmful". It sounds ignorant.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/07/02/gmo-crop...
http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2017/04/gmos-and-herbicides-its...
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/8/e1600850
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/09/01/492091546/ho...