Re:Monsanto Weedkiller Is ‘Probably Carcinogenic,’ WHO Says
by matthewmacleod on Saturday March 28, 2015 @07:55AM
(#9281202)
This was obviously not the stated position, and you are being deliberately disingenuous by portraying it as such.
"It's the dose that makes the poison" - that's a fairly accurate statement. Every industry uses chemicals that are potentially harmful, and we accept that as a trade-off for the benefits they offer.
The same applies to RoundUp. Is the benefit it offers to agriculture worth the risk? Can exposure be controlled in such a way that the risk is ameliorated? There's a cost-benefit analysis to be performed there.
Point is, stating that RoundUp is possibly carcinogenic is useful information – but it doesn't mean its better to immediately stop use of it. It also doesn't mean that Monsanto "knowingly market[ed] a poisonous, carcinogenic substance", as you stated. It does mean that use of the substance may potentially need to be re-evaluated, but preposterous jumping to conclusion of the sort you exhibited is what's killing political debate worldwide.
"It's the dose that makes the poison" - that's a fairly accurate statement. Every industry uses chemicals that are potentially harmful, and we accept that as a trade-off for the benefits they offer.
The same applies to RoundUp. Is the benefit it offers to agriculture worth the risk? Can exposure be controlled in such a way that the risk is ameliorated? There's a cost-benefit analysis to be performed there.
Point is, stating that RoundUp is possibly carcinogenic is useful information – but it doesn't mean its better to immediately stop use of it. It also doesn't mean that Monsanto "knowingly market[ed] a poisonous, carcinogenic substance", as you stated. It does mean that use of the substance may potentially need to be re-evaluated, but preposterous jumping to conclusion of the sort you exhibited is what's killing political debate worldwide.