Monsanto Leaks Suggest It Tried To Kill Cancer Research On Roundup Weed Killer (rt.com)

Danny Hakim reports via The New York Times (Warning: article may be paywalled; alternate source): Documents released Tuesday in a lawsuit against Monsanto raised new questions about the company's efforts to influence the news media and scientific research and revealed internal debate over the safety of its highest-profile product, the weed killer Roundup. The active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, is the most common weed killer in the world and is used by farmers on row crops and by home gardeners. While Roundup's relative safety has been upheld by most regulators, a case in federal court in San Francisco continues to raise questions about the company's practices and the product itself.

The documents underscore the lengths to which the agrochemical company goes to protect its image. Documents show that Henry I. Miller, an academic and a vocal proponent of genetically modified crops, asked Monsanto to draft an article for him that largely mirrored one that appeared under his name on Forbes's website in 2015. Mr. Miller could not be reached for comment. A similar issue appeared in academic research. An academic involved in writing research funded by Monsanto, John Acquavella, a former Monsanto employee, appeared to express discomfort with the process, writing in a 2015 email to a Monsanto executive, "I can't be part of deceptive authorship on a presentation or publication." He also said of the way the company was trying to present the authorship: "We call that ghost writing and it is unethical." Mr. Miller's 2015 article on Forbes's website was an attack on the findings of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a branch of the World Health Organization that had labeled glyphosate a probable carcinogen, a finding disputed by other regulatory bodies. In the email traffic, Monsanto asked Mr. Miller if he would be interested in writing an article on the topic, and he said, "I would be if I could start from a high-quality draft." The article appeared under Mr. Miller's name, and with the assertion that "opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." The magazine did not mention any involvement by Monsanto in preparing the article.

Comments

So What?

[AK Marc]

Company kills people for profit, then covers it up?

How is this news? It's called "capitalism".

Re:So What?

[Pentium100]

When a discussion about genetically modified food comes up, I always say that the technology itself is great, but also, the management and some stock holders of Monsanto need to get a one way ticket to Siberia.

Re:So What?

[black3d]

Except nobody has ever died from glyphosate. The company tries to kill negative press about "glyphosate causing cancer" because it's bullshit that has been debunked again and again. IARC did claim it "could possibly" cause cancer, based on research which has since been debunked, which is why every other major regulatory agency have approved the fact that it doesn't cause cancer. Hell, it's even less toxic than most organic pesticides.

Those that cling to "glyphosate causes cancer" and "Monsatan is the devil" are the same folks who believe in chemtrails, vaccines causing autism, and countless other health conspiracies.

Sure, Monsanto is a business and they want to protect their image against nonsense, as is their right (and, to shareholders, their responsibility) to do so.

Re:So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Communicating directly with a favored staffer is shady. You also don't determine whether a chemical is cancer-causing or not via email between coworkers. Monsanto probably should not be involved in funding the studies directly themselves. It is a conflict of interest.

Re:So What?

[gnick]

You can't argue with 900 people who've been diagnosed with cancer. Really, you can't. Even though they're dead wrong, there's no arguing with them. It's too emotional and they're desperate for someone to blame. Comparing it to vaccinations and autism is pretty apt.

Re:So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, public safety is nonsense? then why even test orthoplastic materials, remember the Johnson & Johnson problem: http://www.collective-evolution.com/2017/05/19/johnson-johnson-just-paid-millions-to-another-woman-with-ovarian-cancer-linked-to-baby-powder/.
And what about all those drugs that were "safe" until it weren't, so many lives lost because the companies rushed the process.

If they want to really clear glyphosate, then they should be clear about it, let independent groups study its effects and let them understand how glyphosate is not producing cancer (you could put your money on your mouth and be a test subject) if is not a carcinogen then the truth will shine (and you will be Ok... probably) but if is not true then is not true and they should keep working making it safer.
If the product is not good then they have to move on to other product, I think that they have already collected more than enough from it.

Re:So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except nobody has ever died from glyphosate. .

You make claims you cannot POSSIBLY prove, as though you alone are privy to the truth.

I had buddies who were doused with Agent Orange in Viet Nam, and every single one of them died of related cancers.

I'd like to see you disprove that. But even more I'd like to see YOU stricken with terminal cancer. I hope it comes for you soon.

Re:So What?

[AK Marc]

The other is that the pro-GMO people insist that anti-GMO means that if you eat GMO, that you die.

GMO is bad because of mono crop issues.

GMO is bad because resistance to herbicides induces over-use of them.

GMO is bad because GMO has been used to have plants make toxins. So GMO food can contain poison. And there are no regulations about this or any other use of GMO.

GMO is bad because it has been used to make kill-genes, even if only in the lab, and between that and mono-crop the results of a wide-spread release could cause massive destruction.

GMO is bad because Monsanto claims it's harmless, and when Monsanto says something, the opposite is more likely true.

But the pro-GMO crowd doesn't talk about the reasonable objections. Instead, it's all about the strawman.

Re:So What?

[black3d]

Agent Orange isn't glyphosate. It doesn't contain any of the same active ingredients (besides water). Monsanto was one of several companies which manufactured the herbicide under contract to the US government. It was never safe for use on populations. Blaming Monsanto for Agent Orange is like blaming a firearms manufacturer for someone shooting up a gay nightclub.

Re:So What?

[Antibozo]

Except nobody has ever died from glyphosate. .

You make claims you cannot POSSIBLY prove, as though you alone are privy to the truth.

I had buddies who were doused with Agent Orange in Viet Nam, and every single one of them died of related cancers.

I'd like to see you disprove that. But even more I'd like to see YOU stricken with terminal cancer. I hope it comes for you soon.

That's nice.

Agent Orange didn't harm people because of the herbicides, which, as black3d has explained, have nothing to do with glyphosate. It was the TCDD dioxin, which was a contaminant resulting from the manufacturing process. The government was in fact warned about this, and they chose to spray it anyway.

Re:So What?

[black3d]

Actually, the Johnson & Johnson claims keep getting over-turned on appeal. There have been plenty of claims, but they don't end up paying them out because the science doesn't support talc causing ovarian cancer. But yes, another jury of members of the public has found in favour of a claimant. Doubtless, it'll again be overturned on appeal. There's lots to read about this, but it is odd that the only 'scientific' studies that find there is a statistically significant link between un-contaminated talc powder and cancer, are those being performed by claimants, and nobody else can replicate their results. http://www.latimes.com/busines...

As for glyphosate, they ARE very, very clear about it. It's the most widely used herbicide in the world. It has been tested over and over and over again. There's no *evidence* it causes cancer. That's it. (Evidence, that is, which is able to be replicated. Anybody can make a claim in a study, but there's no peer-reviewed, replicated studies, which find any link between glyphosate and any form of cancer).

And be a test subject? Sure - I'll happily eat any and all GMOs. I go out of my way to avoid any food labelled 'organic' between 1) I don't support fear-mongering, and 2) I generally know from a most-used range of 6 products, which pesticides and herbicides are being used on non-organic crops. Conversely, I *don't* know which of over 170 organic-approved pesticides/herbicides are being used on organic crops, Most of these are more toxic than glyphosate, and unlike glyphosate, most have not been through 40 years of studies to prove their safety.

Re:So What?

[rtb61]

GMO will have great benefits if done properly. No poison crops, no cross breeding in the wild with related organisms, no self destruct genes. Do it smart in controlled environments ie highly genetically modified algae or more specifically kelp et al and you can grow anything you want in a salt water tank, any protein, sugar, carbohydrate, salt, any flavour or texture, low allergen because the plant does not need to protect itself as much growing in a protected environment. Done in major production facilities very close to demand and producing year round. As a bonus millions of hectares of farm land freed to become natural parks creating a healthier environment for us all. Energy is key.

Re:So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

GMO is bad because of mono crop issues.

As opposed to the Cavendish Banana, which was not genetically modified?

GMO is probably bad because Monsanto claims it's harmless, and when Monsanto says something, the opposite is more likely true.

FTFY, but at least you've got a point with this one.

Re:So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry about your buddies, but you need to know who your enemy is ...

Agent orange was a herbicide made of 2,4,5T and 2,4D, which was always at the more dangerous end of herbicide toxicity. Worse still, if Agent orange is manufactured poorly ie: cheaply, high levels of toxic dioxins are created which are among the most cancerous substances known to man. It seems likely some of the lovely people supplying goods for the Vietnam war cared more for profit than people and may have cut some corners. Anyone exposed to that kind of chemical without full PPE for dioxins barely has a chance.

Glyphosate is an entirely different chemical which is at the least toxic end of the herbicide toxicity scale (actually lower by LD50 than vinegar).

As an aside, while everyone is jumping up and down about glyphosate (which will never come out as a dangerous chemical in my fairly expert opinion) no one is looking at the additives put into modern 'roundup' products in addition to the glyphosate. By mechanism the additives would be far more likely to cause harm to mammals.

Re:So What?

[jenningsthecat]

Those that cling to "glyphosate causes cancer" and "Monsatan is the devil" are the same folks who believe in chemtrails, vaccines causing autism, and countless other health conspiracies.

Not true. I don't know enough to have an opinion on glyphosate as a carcinogen, I don't believe in chemtrails, I advocate childhood vaccination, and I get flu shots every year. And I still say Monsanto is evil, because they've proved it over and over again. BTW, thanks for the "Monsatan" moniker - I'm definitely going to use that.

Re: So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

"And there are no regulations about this or any other use of GMO."

And here's where we get to you spouting nonsense. GMO foodstuffs are the most heavily regulated of any crops. Also, it's interesting that you'll happily consume the exact same 'toxin' when it's produced in another plant, but use transgenesis to bring that same trait to a GMO crop to protect it against parasites, and you lose your mind?

I really should debunk you point by point since your entire argument is "they won't debate these perfectly fine points", but since you're believe "GMOs are unregulated", it's really be a waste of time since you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. I can only suppose you're repeating talking points you heard somewhere.

Re: So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you not RTFA?

Re: So What?

[black3d]

No worries. Keep in mind, if the merger with Bayer goes ahead, we'll be switching across to "Bayerzebub".

Re:So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't argue with 900 people who've been diagnosed with cancer. Really, you can't. Even though they're dead wrong, there's no arguing with them. It's too emotional and they're desperate for someone to blame. Comparing it to vaccinations and autism is pretty apt.

Those of us old enough remember similar words made about smokers dying of lung cancer. We all knew they were wrong and looking for something to blame. We all knew smoking couldn't cause cancer.

Re:So What?

[AK Marc]

So, because done right, it has benefits, that means that done wrong should be tolerated or encouraged? Since labor builds value, slavery should be legal. Nope, just because done right is good, it doesn't mean that it should be done poorly, at all, under any circumstances.

Re: So What?

[black3d]

You mean the part of the article saying that the only possible link between glyphosate and cancer is a possible increase in likliehood of non-Hodgkins Lymphoma, while linking to the actual report from the EPA which concluded:

" The available data at this time do no support a carcinogenic process for glyphosate. Overall, animal carcinogenicity and genotoxicity studies were remarkably consistent and did not demonstrate a clear association between glyphosate exposure and outcomes of interest related to carcinogenic potential.
In epidemiological studies, there was no evidence of an association between glyphosate exposure and numerous cancer outcomes; however, due to conflicting results and various limitations identified in studies investigating NHL, a conclusion regarding the association between glyphosate exposure and risk of NHL cannot be determined based on the available data."

So, not only is there absolutely no evidence of it being linked to ANY OTHER cancer, but there's insufficient evidence to even link it to NHL. There's a reason why non statistically-significant, non-replicatable studies aren't considered conclusive. Because they're non statistically-significant. Unfortunately, bias does enter science. If your conclusion can't be replicated in peer-review, it means jack.

Yes.. yes I did read it.

Re:So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Round up works pretty darn good. So I'll allow it.

Re: So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, you mean the EPA that's been coopted by Monsanto? Yeah, great source bro.

Re:So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

It will only be 'done right', though, if the activities of assclowns like Monsanto are scrutinised and regulated to a degree that's completely unrealistic in the current legal and political environment.

Re: So What?

[backslashdot]

What about the straw man of Anti GMO people saying all GMO is bad because of Monsanto and glyphosate. Literally only Monsanto says make a GMO monoculture. It's like saying eating all kinds of salad is bad because hemlock is dangerous.

Re: So What?

[black3d]

So you disregard any source which doesn't agree with your viewpoint, as being part of a grand conspiracy? Chalk one up for confirmation bias.

If you're against Monsanto because "chemiKILLZ", then likely there's no rationale that will convince you, as you really don't care about the science, you just want an echo chamber to agree with your unfounded fears. Don't worry, there's plenty of crazy internet out there for you.

Re:So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

GMO will have great benefits if done properly. ... no cross breeding in the wild with related organisms,

Sorry to break it to you, but plants are whores. Pollen season is literally mass plant jizzing everywhere trying to find any and all possible mates. So, it's basically impossible to do GMO properly if it depends in any part on wild plants not cross breeding.

Do it smart in controlled environments ie highly genetically modified algae or more specifically kelp et al and you can grow anything you want in a salt water tank, any protein, sugar, carbohydrate, salt, any flavour or texture, low allergen because the plant does not need to protect itself as much growing in a protected environment.

Uh, yea, good luck with that. Seriously, your suggestion only makes sense if one starts with the premise that all of humanity has been forced underground and the only means of production is reliant on artificial light. Otherwise, there's no amount of your suggestion that works to scale that's containable. Everything else and you're basically putting up wire fences and crossing your fingers that your algae doesn't fall into the ocean or a nearby lake because of a tornado, flood, etc.

Done in major production facilities very close to demand and producing year round. As a bonus millions of hectares of farm land freed to become natural parks creating a healthier environment for us all. Energy is key.

Yes, energy is key. Do you have an idea of how much energy is collected by plants currently to produce the food supply and how much energy would be required to make a much more compact system of waste processing to provide for your hypothetical system? Look into all the Biosphere projects that failed horrible. Get back to me when you're not just hand waving about energy as if even that is a solvable thing.

Re:So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck anyone who modded that flamebait. Companies kill people and cover it up, DEAL WITH IT bitches. Monsanto wasn't born yesterday either.

Re: So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

> I can only suppose you're repeating talking points you heard somewhere.

Greenpeace.

Re:So What?

[Maxo-Texas]

It's crazy because if they would simply LABEL GMO (and what genes were added from what other plant/animal) instead of sneaking it in, then people wouldn't have rare allergic reactions and most would buy it if it were 10% cheaper.

Then after 5 years, they could raise the prices to be the same and folks would stay with it.

But as it is, they act so shady that it makes people suspicious.

Re:So What?

[arth1]

We all knew smoking couldn't cause cancer.

We all were probably right. Smoking doesn't cause cancer; it increases the risk of cancer. The two should not be confused.
Going to Brazil doesn't cause Zika infections either, nor does turning 80 cause pneumonia.

Re:So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Water is a compound of hydrogen and oxygen. Nothing less, nothing more.

Capitalism is the investment of money \(capital\) with the expectation of profit in return. Nothing less, nothing more.

Drowning is caused by jumping into a river when you don't know how to swim.

Companies killing people is caused by greed.

Abolishing water would prevent drowning, but bring on a host of other problems.

Abolishing capitalism would prevent for-profit corporations from existing, and thus from killing people; but bring on a hose of other problems.

Re:So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Monsanto could sell a vinegar squirt-bottle and save the world their bullshit, maybe people wouldn't have to die for a completely optional thing like Roundup?

But that probably wouldn't be as profitable. So there you go. People need to die, brought to you by Monsanto, because your shit is worth x and we don't give a y.

Re:So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound profitable!

Re:So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Smoking is profitable, smokers not at all.

Re:So What?

[yndrd1984]

GMO is bad because of mono crop issues.

Do you think that people would be rotating crops more without GMOs? Or are you misusing the term "mono crop".

GMO is bad because resistance to herbicides induces over-use of them.

Which is only even possible for herbicide-related traits, and why refuges are required, and why new traits dealing with different herbicides are developed - and this has also been a (minor, manageable) issue ever since we had herbicides.

GMO is bad because GMO has been used to have plants make toxins. So GMO food can contain poison.

BT is toxic only to insects, and is frequently used by organic farmers.

And there are no regulations about this or any other use of GMO.

Are you insane? You don't believe that the USDA, FDA, and EPA regulate GMOs?

GMO is bad because it has been used to make kill-genes, even if only in the lab, and between that and mono-crop the results of a wide-spread release could cause massive destruction.

So something that hasn't existed outside a lab, of a company that has pledged never to use it, that farmers don't want, if it became very common in farming, might, in a sci-fi scenario in your head, cause 'massive destruction'. Do you fear a robot uprising as well?

GMO is bad because Monsanto claims it's harmless, and when Monsanto says something, the opposite is more likely true.

Non sequitur.

But the pro-GMO crowd doesn't talk about the reasonable objections. Instead, it's all about the strawman.

Right, the "Frankenfood" fear-mongering didn't really exist.

I don't mean to be rude, this is probably one of the most well-written anti-GMO screeds I've seen, but it's still all just the equivalent of saying "computers are bad because they give off radiation (radio waves), increase our carbon footprint, and can be used to make military drone strikes" in a world where cell phones and wifi are banned in Europe because of brain-cancer worries and 'it caused my headaches'.

Re:So What?

[PoopJuggler]

You're pretty ignorant if you think organics is just about fear-mongering. Beyond just the health aspects, there are very significant environmental and ecological reasons for organic farming.

Re:So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't argue with ~900 people who were on or about the flight deck of the Reagan at Fukuskima and went through the radioactive clouds for ~3 days, scrubbed down the ship without proper equipment as an emergency procedure and subsequently had abnormally high rates of leukemia and other cancers several deviations too high to be explained as "unrelated" but which stopped the Navy ~0 seconds from doing so, perhaps to avoid the headaches related to such revelations which were made anyway, for the afflicted and as such deflected. But you might, because you're a ~cunt who doesn't care anyway. Fuck them. "The greater good" means the little people aren't allowed to complain anyway, right? Suck it up. ~Die of cancer for their profit, ye who do not matter in these particular microeconomic circumstances.

Re: So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're wrong. Tobacco is carcinogenic, smoking does cause cancer, just not in everyone, though maybe it would if we smoked till we were 150 and weren't killed off by other causes sooner.

Re:So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cell phones and wifi are not banned in Europe and never were...

Re:So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was born long after the conclusive evidence linking smoking to lung cancer and various other diseases was found, but I have never understood how anyone could ever have thought that smoking could somehow not be harmful to the lungs.

Re:So What?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

GMO is bad because of mono crop issues.

As opposed to the Cavendish Banana, which was not genetically modified?

The left side of an implication is the sufficient, not the necessary condition.

Re:So What?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Agent Orange isn't glyphosate. It doesn't contain any of the same active ingredients (besides water).

A-ha! There it is! Dihydrogen monoxide strikes again!

Re:So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoop-dee shit. That just means that as an employer they've caved to SJW rhetoric.

So fucking what?

Re:So What?

[Trogre]

Exposure to glyphosate in massively high concentrations very likely does cause cancer, if the study on their factory workers is to be believed. The thing is, no one outside their factories is exposed at that level, and it doesn't accumulate in soil, since it breaks down completely.

Vaccines work. They don't cause autism.

Contrails exist. Chemtrails don't.

Monsanto is still one of the most evil companies on the planet.

Re:So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Monocultures are not a problem exclusive to GMOs, nor are they worse with GMOs.

Herbicide resistance is not a problem exclusive to GMOs.

The Lenape potato was highly toxic, and almost made it to store shelves. Also, not a GMO. However, Bt crops were extensively tested and studied - it is known that the Bt toxin (Which, by the way, is widely used in organic agriculture when derived from natural sources) targets a specific receptor in the gut of bugs that does not exist in vertebrate animals, in exactly the same way capsaicin does not cause bird mouths to experience a burning sensation, because only mammals have the proper receptors.

The seedless watermelon and seedless grapes are things that exist, yet haven't caused wide-spread destruction.

Really, it is the anti-Monsanto crowd that lies extensively - not only about the dangers of GMO crops, but about them causing monoculture, causing pesticide resistance, the danger and prevalence of pesticides engineered into the crop (And of the quantity of pesticides used), about the approval process, and the usage and dangers of terminator seeds.

Basically, everything you brought up.

Also, they lie about Monsanto's legal tactics, both by overstating them (Everybody that's gone to court was found by a jury to be lying about intentional re-use of seeds, and accidental pollination has never happened), and by ignoring the fact that many conventionally bred plants are also covered by similar legal agreements, including popular organic varieties.

So, speaking of straw men....

Re: So What?

[black3d]

Please. Tell us the scientifically proven health advantages of food which has been classified "organic" over food which has not been classified "organic".

Re: So What?

[black3d]

And you're correct. There are significant ecological reasons to farm organic. Just ask any farmer. If you want to use more land, and more water, with less yield, and significantly greater (in most commercial scale operations) application of herbicides and pesticides, by all means - go organic. If you believe otherwise, you may never have actually spoken to farmers. Organic IS about fear-mongering. Ask people who actually buy organic why they do it and you'll get "it's healthier" (it's not), "it's more sustainable" (it's not), "it uses less pesticides" (it doesn't, except in hobby farms), "it uses fewer artificial chemicals" (there are over 40 artificial chemicals approved for use in organic production - and many non-artificial chemicals approved for use are still fine to use if they're produced artificially), "it's better for the planet" (it's not, it uses more resources, for less yield), "it doesn't contain toxins" (the traits introduced to GMOs to produce natural pesticides are brought across from other plants where they already exist - even in the organic forms), and so on and so forth. We could do this all day, but I doubt we'll convince each other if anything.

As long as the science says GMO are better for the environment, more sustainable, with no adverse effects, I'll happily support them. If peer-reviewed science ever shows any actual harm, I'll be happy to revisit that view. The same can't be said for organic proponents, as they don't care about the science. They care about feelings, and their feelings tell them "GMO bad. Organic good."

Re: So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Citation needed.

Re:So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. Shortly put i'm not agaist GMO, i'm against the reality of it.

Re:So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

The New York Times article seems misleading regarding the academic research in "Critical Reviews in Toxicology", failing IMO to faithfully portray what AFAICT is this situation:

1. Company consultant suggests authorship list that does not include former employee.
2. Former employee strongly objects on ethical grounds.
3. Company consultant quickly complies with ethical objection.
4. Research is published with ethically compliant authorship list that includes former employee, and furthermore declares the former employee's past relationship with company in an extensive "Declaration of Interest" section ("...John Acquavella and Larry D. Kier have also served as independent consultants and were previously employees of the Monsanto Company. John Acquavella was employed by Monsanto between the years 1989 and 2004 while Larry D. Kier was employed between 1979 and 2000. ...").

Furthermore, although the Forbes article is mentioned both above and below coverage of that academic publication, I do not see evidence that the academics involved with the published research had anything to do with the Forbes article (though I can't check out the article directly because web.archive.org is serving "503 Service Unavailable" errors at the moment).

It does seem that the Forbes article was not published with the same attention to ethics, but the NYT does note that Forbes reacted to the violation of ethical standards (which was also a violation of employment contract) by retracting the article and firing the author.

In regard to those items, it seems that we can say that Monsanto and the NYT each acted in a manner calculated to advance their respective self-interests.

The more "interesting" bit in the NYT article refers to a retraction of published research in "Food and Chemical Toxicology". That seems related to a saga that attracted considerable attention among academics. The most recent major discussion I could find on Retraction Watch is about republication of that research:
http://retractionwatch.com/2014/06/24/retracted-seralini-gmo-rat-study-republished/

The controversial (among academics) retraction was apparently based largely on a decision that 200 mice, divided into groups of 20, had such naturally high cancer incidence that the groups were too small: "Given the known high incidence of tumors in the Sprague-Dawley rat, normal variability cannot be excluded as the cause of the higher mortality and incidence observed in the treated groups."

That claim seems much-debated, especially as a reason to retract rather than leave the data in the academic record for debate. I have not bothered to read all the discussion and anyway am not expert, but I suspect it would have been less controversial to refuse to publish the article in the first place on the same grounds, as a result of peer review. Note that RetractionWatch often remarks on cases where conclusions turn out to be bogus because statistical inferences rely on inadequate sample sizes. See also common topics p-hacking, HARKing, and "reproducibility crisis".

I think the Retraction Watch coverage in 2014 was more interesting, informative, comprehensive, and balanced than the NYT article is today.

Re:So What?

[drinkypoo]

GMO is bad because Monsanto claims it's harmless, and when Monsanto says something, the opposite is more likely true.

Non sequitur.

You'd like to think that, but history shows us that Monsanto Always Lies. Kind of like TEPCO.

Re:So What?

[drinkypoo]

Blaming Monsanto for Agent Orange is like blaming a firearms manufacturer for someone shooting up a gay nightclub.

But you can blame Monsanto for shitty manufacturing processes that resulted in their Agent Orange being contaminated with Dioxin, one of the most potent carcinogens known to man.

Re: So What?

[drinkypoo]

Beyond just the health aspects, there are very significant environmental and ecological reasons for organic farming.

Please. Tell us the scientifically proven health advantages of food which has been classified "organic" over food which has not been classified "organic".

Reading comprehension is not a thing that you do, is it son?

Re:So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

GMO is bad because of mono crop issues.

Was happening well before GMO became a major part of the market. GMO probably speed that process up but not primary cause.

GMO is bad because resistance to herbicides induces over-use of them

By itself - that is an argument for GMO. Better crop yield = better fed population.

GMO is bad because GMO has been used to have plants make toxins. So GMO food can contain poison. And there are no regulations about this or any other use of GMO.

There are a ton of regulations for getting a GMO to market. Toxicity levels are definitely a factor in those studies. It takes almost as long as a pharmaceutical drug to get to market. Not nearly as costly.

GMO is bad because it has been used to make kill-genes, even if only in the lab, and between that and mono-crop the results of a wide-spread release could cause massive destruction.

Could yes? Has no. I agree we need more long-term studies to asses what impact - if any - this combination will have. However, requiring such studies would ruin any chance of such products getting to market. See also - pharmaceutical industry - and how requiring long term (50+ year) studies would destroy that industry.

GMO is bad because Monsanto claims it's harmless, and when Monsanto says something, the opposite is more likely true.

Monsanto is the biggest and worst company in the GMO space. There are plenty of other companies out there who are more ethical.

But the pro-GMO crowd doesn't talk about the reasonable objections. Instead, it's all about the strawman.

Ehh, there are logical folks out there who do want to have a rational discussion. Such voices get lost by the fanatics though. Rational discussion doesn't provide for good entertainment via corporate news.

Re:So What?

[yndrd1984]

Cell phones and wifi are not banned in Europe and never were...

I never said that they ... oh. Sorry if that phrase being part of the analogy (the "the equivalent of" part) wasn't clear.

As a software developer at an agricultural equipment company (no, we don't have anything to do with seeds, let alone GMOs), I was trying to communicate what an equally absurd position against computers would look like - and I couldn't communicate the scope of the issue without including the context that the technology has already been banned in many places.

If I'd said something like "Imagine if Europe bans all encryption outside the military (which some people want to do), to the point where even making a custom binary format is considered terrorism, and you start saying things like 'encryption is bad because it causes crib death' ". Would that have been clearer?

Re: So What?

[Trogre]

So that's a "no" then?

Re:So What?

[Zero__Kelvin]

Saying "Monsanto isn't evil" can only being up a debate about the definition of evil. However, saying they are not unethical would be absurd.

Re:So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead, it's all about the strawman.

Don't reject the possibility that it is a result of an intentional action.

Infiltrating your opponents' camp and implanting a strawman is not the oldest trick in the book, but I frequently see it in public. It is very effective against activist movements ridden with poor experience and education, and lack of clear vision of the problem they are trying to mend.

Re: So What?

[drinkypoo]

So that's a "no" then?

The health benefits aren't necessarily for the people who eat the food, but for everyone.

It's also worth pointing out here that "USDA Organic" is a bullshit farce. "Organic" includes the idea of cyclical systems where feces is returned to the fields and where community health is bolstered by soil health. If you want a meaningful organic certification you have to look to biodynamic, which also includes a bunch of mystical bullshit. There is no true organic farming certification which is worthy of the name. (Yes, it's a stupid name. I didn't make it up, so don't sue me.)

Re:So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is usually done by former insider alleged defector or retired from the organization targeted by activism who "have seen the light" and now is "benevolent".
Don't trust anyone on their words only. Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes

Re:So What?

[jabuzz]

Stupid thing is that simply adding extra copies of genes already in wheat you can boost yields by between 15-20% in a greenhouse (obviously not tested in a field yet)

https://www.newscientist.com/a...

Why anyone would be against this is utterly beyond me. However this is the insanity of blanket bans on GMO food, which for the record all the food and I mean *ALL* the food we eat is genetically modified.

Re: So What?

[black3d]

Right. I'm glad you were able to provide an unbiased source which hasn't firebombed crops and has solid science to back up their general anti-GMO paranoia. An organisation which has saved tens of thousands of children from having to deal with the burden of sight, through blocking golden rice. If I knew your source was credible militant anti-science, anti-human Luddites, I would never have dared ask.

Re:So What?

[Kiuas]

So, because done right, it has benefits, that means that done wrong should be tolerated or encouraged?

That's not what he said or implied though. He pointed out that there are ways in which GMOs can be used correctly and for the benefit of everyone to get better food with less energy/demand on the soil.

The whole problem with the GMO-discussion is that people mix up 2 things, namely the scientific process of genetic modification, and the gigantic corporations that seek to make profit using the process - sometimes in ethically questionable ways.

All of the food we eat is 'genetically modified' in the sense that we've been breeding and artificially selecting for desirable traits in plants and animals for millenia, now it's just become possible to do it at way faster timescales and increasing accuracy. The fact that there is corporate greed and instances seeking to take advantage of this process for their own personal benefit at the expense of other people does not invalidate the process of gene modification itself anymore than criminals and scammers using the internet for malicious ends makes the whole of the internet a bad thing.

Re: So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

[Citation needed]

Re: So What?

[Entrope]

GMO is not sufficient to cause crop monoculture.

Re: So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it that EPA findings can be so easily dismissed as being corrupted by corporate interests when it comes to herbicides, yet EPA findings are pure when it comes to regulating a fossil based economy due to "global warming"?

Re: So What?

[Entrope]

So GMOs cause peanut, soy, etc. allergies?

No wonder people used to be less freaked out about them.

Re: So What?

[Entrope]

History also shows us that anti-GMO activists also always lie. There's some kind of perpetual energy scheme we can create from this situation, I'm sure of it...

Re:So What?

[magusxxx]

You can't argue with [decades of elected officials]. Really, you can't. Even though they're dead wrong, there's no arguing with them. It's [political suicide] and they're desperate [to be re-elected] for someone to blame. Comparing it to [bribery and malfeasance of duty] is pretty apt.

Re: So What?

[Entrope]

In short: There is No True Organic, so its defenders shouldn't be expected to explain why organic would be good for anybody.

Riiiight.

Re:So What?

[Entrope]

Which study on their factory workers is that? And why should we believe it?

Re:So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

One more thing: GMO is bad because then our food is patented. The world does not need nor want patented food.

Re: So What?

[stephen.holstein]

It's not they made a UberBanana, but rather they want to sell it as a banana. Of they can prove it's a banana fine, but until then market it on its merits.

Re:So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why Siberia? Hundreds of thousands of people live in modern cities in Siberia. I think they should be sent somewhere far more horrible, like North Korea or Detroit.

Re:So What?

[Hodr]

Well I was on board with the "different pesticide" argument. But you mean to tell me you feel better about the fact that it wasn't the pesticide that killed people, but some unrelated manufacturing contaminate that the company mixed in?

If we can get food producers to separate plants that process peanuts and shell fish from the rest of their products, why can't we require processing of dangerous chemicals in plants separate from safe pesticides?

Re: So What?

[Entrope]

They already have to prove that it's basically biologically indistinguishable from standard bananas before they can sell it.

Re:So What?

[coofercat]

"Done right" for GMO sounds to me like "done right" for nuclear power - it's possible, but it'll never really happen because financial realities always make it fail.

Selective breeding has nature taking a hand in the outcome, and as such it far less likely to cause a problem that we find hard to solve (although exceptions occur, I guess). GMO research is frankly at the very beginning - we "think" a particular gene or whatever 'turns on and off' some feature of the plant, but honestly, we have no idea what else it does too. I strongly suspect that in a few decades people will wonder how on earth we ate any of the GMO food around today. Then they'll look into it and realise the only way people would buy it was if it was mixed in with non-GMO and not labelled as such.

I'm by no means saying we shouldn't research this stuff - I just seriously doubt we know even half of what we really need to know for it to be "done right".

Re: So What?

[drinkypoo]

In short: There is No True Organic, so its defenders shouldn't be expected to explain why organic would be good for anybody.

If you want to educate yourself, even Wikipedia knows more about this than you do, and will back me up. If you go look for this information and can't find it, then I will go ahead and take you by the hand and teach you how to search like your mommy should have done.

Re: So What?

[drinkypoo]

[Citation needed]

Citations are everywhere. They are not even difficult to find. They lied about PCBs, They lied about Agent Orange... you name something Monsanto said was safe which wasn't safe and you can find a citation showing that they knew that it was hazardous.

Re:So What?

[jenningsthecat]

Fair point - not sure why you were modded down. In response to what you said, I suggest that perhaps a pattern of repeated, insistent, highly unethical behaviour, in the face of it being pointed out loudly and frequently, corresponds with a sort of consensus definition of evil. It certainly forms a large part of my own definition.

Re: So What?

[Entrope]

In both of those formulations, as in basically all others, water is an inert ingredient, not an active one.

Re: So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

I buy organic, but not because I'm religious about it. I buy it because it's a shortcut to confirming that a food product is all-natural. I do read ingredient lists, but if the organic logo is there, I know I don't have to. It makes food shopping easier.

Now, I realize that 90% of slashdotters will beat their chests at this point, yelling and screaming about technological evolution and how I should blindly trust for-profit companies to put only harmless additives in their food products, and how it saves the world by keeping crap food on the shelves longer. That's... nice. But I'd rather rule them out, and cleanly eliminate the issue, even in the laughably unlikely case that food additives are harmless in the long run.

Re:So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is too little profit in doing things smart or controlled.

Re:So What?

[pi_rules]

GMO is bad because GMO has been used to have plants make toxins. So GMO food can contain poison.

You mean the BT expressing crops? The ones that make crystal protein structures identical to what's made by the organic pesticide BT? You can drop the exact same stuff on organic crops and there's no limit to how much can be on a food crop at harvest. The stuff is so safe the FDA doesn't care if you eat it.

Re:So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

The other is that the pro-GMO people insist that anti-GMO means that if you eat GMO, that you die.

GMO is bad because of mono crop issues.

GMO is bad because resistance to herbicides induces over-use of them.

GMO is bad because GMO has been used to have plants make toxins. So GMO food can contain poison. And there are no regulations about this or any other use of GMO.

GMO is bad because it has been used to make kill-genes, even if only in the lab, and between that and mono-crop the results of a wide-spread release could cause massive destruction.

GMO is bad because Monsanto claims it's harmless, and when Monsanto says something, the opposite is more likely true.

But the pro-GMO crowd doesn't talk about the reasonable objections. Instead, it's all about the strawman.

You're going to get mono-crop anyway, we have it already in most areas. They grow Apples in NY and WA, corn and wheat west of Ohio, and Oranges in Florida.

GMO requires less herbicides than non-GMO. Roundup is incredibly safe compared to the alternates. Industrial farming is going to require herbicides so you might as well use the safest and most effective ones.

Plant's making toxins is misleading. They plants make a protein that is poison to a bug. That same protein isn't poison to mammals. If they made a tomato that had a certain peanut protein it would be poison to some humans but not others because of peanut allergies. The regulation for this would be, we can't sell this and if we killed people we could be sued to non-existance.

Not only has Monsanto said it's harmless, so has the EPA, the individual states, and the regulators of other countries. In the case of Round up, it's been around for decades and numerous independent studies have pretty much ended all the real debate

Re:So What?

[interkin3tic]

This isn't a GMO issue. This is an issue with the herbicide. The crops are engineered to be resistant to it, but it's still the chemical that is the problem, not the plants or their genetics.

Re: So What?

[mrclevesque]

"They already have to prove that it's basically biologically indistinguishable from standard bananas before they can sell it."

Of course they can't prove that.

A GMO plat is biologically different by the biological definition of its difference. But bio-engineering companies can prove that any particular plant and its GMO version are legally identical because before they started selling GMOs for human consumption they went to court and won that ruling.

Re:So What?

[Moskit]

GMO crops are like any other technology.
They're either a benefit or a hazard.
If they're a benefit, it's not a problem.

Re:So What?

[th3rmite]

I agree whole heartedly and it seems like few people seem to get it. I can't grasp why people don't want me to know what is in my food before I eat it. I can grasp why companies like Monsanto fight labeling GMO food, but why do people agree with it? If GMO's are so safe, then why do we have to hide them?

Re:So What?

[Khyber]

"Stupid thing is that simply adding extra copies of genes already in wheat you can boost yields by between 15-20% in a greenhouse (obviously not tested in a field yet)"

We've already had this tech - it's called Colchicine and we've used it for DECADES on many various crops, from watermelon to cannabis.

Re:So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't there a series of seminal movies called "Monsanto", "Monsanto Kills" and "Monsanto Kills In Space"?

Re:So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except nobody has ever died from glyphosate. The company tries to kill negative press about "glyphosate causing cancer" because it's bullshit that has been debunked again and again. IARC did claim it "could possibly" cause cancer, based on research which has since been debunked, which is why every other major regulatory agency have approved the fact that it doesn't cause cancer. Hell, it's even less toxic than most organic pesticides.

Those that cling to "glyphosate causes cancer" and "Monsatan is the devil" are the same folks who believe in chemtrails, vaccines causing autism, and countless other health conspiracies.

Sure, Monsanto is a business and they want to protect their image against nonsense, as is their right (and, to shareholders, their responsibility) to do so.

I can produce a glass full of it, would you kindly have a sip?
Or chug it down for all I care.

Re:So What?

[Khyber]

"Except nobody has ever died from glyphosate. The company tries to kill negative press about "glyphosate causing cancer" because it's bullshit that has been debunked again and again."

Glyphosate does cause cancer - just not by itself since it is generally unavailable for our bodies to properly absorb. Once you add in the other surfactants (all of these chemicals by themselves are generally relatively non-toxic and non-carcinogenic) toxicity jumps anywhere from 2 to 3 orders of magnitude, because they make the glyphosate much more readily bioavailable.

Re:So What?

[Sindar By Choice]

I agree with your assertions about GMO, but your reply here is ridiculous. rtb61 didn't say we should tolerate or encourage GMO "done wrong".

Re:So What?

[Khyber]

No evidence? Do you even subscribe to scientific journals or just even use Google Scholar?

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.o...

https://www.researchgate.net/p...

Both of those coming straight out of Universities. The first link is almost TWENTY FUCKING YEARS OLD.

I mean, it literally takes two seconds to type this shit into Google and find dozens of cited reports, and there are probably HUNDREDS more, many of them done by REAL RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS.

Re: So What?

[Khyber]

"I buy it because it's a shortcut to confirming that a food product is all-natural."

You've been mislead by marketing bullshit and you'd better go re-read the entirety of the USDA certification for Organic status.

Because plenty of non natural things are allowed.

Re:So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

GMO is bad because it contaminates non-GMO crops through pollination.

GMO contaminated crops are bad because organic farmers are sued for patent infringement

Organic farmers being sued is bad because the remaining farmers promote a mono-culture crop which is prone to blight.

Re: So What?

[Dread_ed]

Damn right. PCB's are STILL an absolute freaking nightmare anywhere they are found. On the merits of that situation alone Monsanto has proven they are forever unworthy of the merest smidgen of trust.

And why the hell am I always agreeing with you now drinkypoo? Whats up with that?

Re:So What?

[papageorgiou]

We don't have "capitalism" in the US. We have "crony capitalism".

Crony Capitalism = an economic system characterized by close, mutually advantageous relationships between business leaders and government officials. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Capitalism = an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

Free Markets = an economic system in which private business operates in competition and largely free of state control.

When companies can
1. buy, via the government, exemption from prosecution for their products
2. can buy preferential placement in the markets
3. via regulation, force competitors out of the market or from entering the market
we do not have a free market economy.

We (US) may have had a free market economy, but that is not our current system. Our government has been playing puppet master for too many years to call it a free market system anymore. To make things worse, the largest Corporations in many markets are now playing puppet master to any politician willing to take money for their next election campaign, and even to the point of writing large portions of bills being submitted so that the wording is in their favor.

In order for capitalism to work, business owners and the government must be will to accept the outcomes of business owners successes and failures. This means no bailouts and no exemptions from reasonable prosecutions for the failure of said products. Along with personal responsibility is the idea of properly informing the consumer about the products (labeling?) being produced/consumed. If a GMO (transgenic) item has shellfish or peanut genes spliced in, the consumer might want to know this before they have to run for their EpiPen or end up in the ER.

Re:So What?

[greythax]

GMO is bad because of mono crop issues.

I like to forage on the weekends, and I have bad news for you. All of humanity is sustained off of mono-crops and has been so for thousands of years. The vast variety of edible plants in the wild is staggering, but we have selected and cross bread only a few over the centuries. And you might think we chose the best, but often times, we only chose the most convenient.

In a week or two I will go down to the creek bottoms and harvest pounds of pawpaw fruit. It is a delicious, plentiful and large fruit that can be cultivated in your yard. However, it doesn't keep well, and therefore has not been turned into a staple crop.

The satsumas in my front yard are grafted to a naturally occurring bitter orange (trifolate orange) root stock, which is much more resistant to disease than the poor plants we have engineered over time. However, as the name suggests, they are very bitter, and would have to be bred for a long time to become palatable.
Of the vast variety of food plants on this planet, we eat only the tiniest percentage and mostly because they are convenient to grow. In fact, mostly just wheat, corn, and rice. While I understand the concerns of putting all our eggs in one GMO basket, it's a good idea to remember that we backed ourselves into the corner well before GMO came into the picture.

Re:So What?

[laie_techie]

The other is that the pro-GMO people insist that anti-GMO means that if you eat GMO, that you die. GMO is bad because of mono crop issues. GMO is bad because resistance to herbicides induces over-use of them. GMO is bad because GMO has been used to have plants make toxins. So GMO food can contain poison. And there are no regulations about this or any other use of GMO. GMO is bad because it has been used to make kill-genes, even if only in the lab, and between that and mono-crop the results of a wide-spread release could cause massive destruction. GMO is bad because Monsanto claims it's harmless, and when Monsanto says something, the opposite is more likely true. But the pro-GMO crowd doesn't talk about the reasonable objections. Instead, it's all about the strawman.

Do you enjoy Canola oil, which is derived from GMO rapeseed?

Re: So What?

[drinkypoo]

And why the hell am I always agreeing with you now drinkypoo? Whats up with that?

Don't worry, I'm sure to annoy you sooner or later, I have so very many opinions. But then again, many people find a little drinkypoo quite agreeable.

Re: So What?

[laie_techie]

Organic producers don't want to publicize that they use pesticides or have cultivars produced through mutagenic breeding using radiation or dna-damaging chemicals. Are they also being malicious?

In the US, only "organic" pesticides can be used on crops which carry the "organic" certification. These must also be grown from seeds which were certified "organic".

Re:So What?

[WaffleMonster]

We all were probably right. Smoking doesn't cause cancer; it increases the risk of cancer.

Translation: It sometimes causes cancer.

Re:So What?

[WaffleMonster]

Except nobody has ever died from glyphosate.

This is an untestable claim.

The company tries to kill negative press about "glyphosate causing cancer" because it's bullshit that has been debunked again and again.

Ends don't justify means.

Those that cling to "glyphosate causes cancer" and "Monsatan is the devil"

They are the devil.

Sure, Monsanto is a business and they want to protect their image

That train left station many many years ago.

Re:So What?

[chihowa]

Well I was on board with the "different pesticide" argument. But you mean to tell me you feel better about the fact that it wasn't the pesticide that killed people, but some unrelated manufacturing contaminate that the company mixed in?

Welcome to the world of government contract manufacturing.

Monsanto didn't develop the manufacturing process for Agent Orange and didn't "mix in" the dioxin (nor were they the only company manufacturing it under this contract). They apparently even detected the dioxin contamination in the final formulation but weren't permitted to change the manufacturing process to remove it.

If we can get food producers to separate plants that process peanuts and shell fish from the rest of their products, why can't we require processing of dangerous chemicals in plants separate from safe pesticides?

We can and do, but in this particular case the requests by the manufacturing companies to revise the process and further purify the product was denied by the government. The best that the companies could have done is refuse to enter or fulfill the contract in the first place.

I'm right there with you on requiring the manufacture of safe products, but this particular case was caused by governmental malfeasance and not industrial corner-cutting.

Re: So What?

[WaffleMonster]

Please. Tell us the scientifically proven health advantages of food which has been classified "organic" over food which has not been classified "organic".

It leaves consumers with less money to buy more food than they need.

Re:So What?

[Rick Schumann]

There's a metric assload of money (8.79 BILLION) in Roundup sales. Outlawing it would probably bankrupt them, or at least it would be massively damaging to their company. Keep in mind that people have been killed over mere millions of dollars; why should Monsanto not allow millions of people worldwide get cancer (or other chronic health problems) over their product?

Re:So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me tell you how GMO used to be done: gamma rays, mutanogenic chemicals, and hybridization. The plant that you sell is the one with the traits you want. You have no idea what changed or how. You just know you did one or more of the above methods perhaps several times and the plant has a new desirable trait. Is it really worse to be intentionally putting known quantities into specific locations in a genome and measuring the outcome rather than blindly mutating and never measuring the outcome?

By the way, these mutanogenic methods may be employed for foods labeled non-GMO.

Current methods ARE GMO done right. Thoughtful careful quantifiable changes instead of blindly changing things around and seeing what happens.

Re:So What?

[Type44Q]

GMO will have great benefits if done properl

You mean if it's not implemented by a sociopathic bioweapons manufacturer with plans to dominate the world's food supply? Nope, can't argue with that.

Re:So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

> GMO research is frankly at the very beginning

The way for the research to be at "the very end" is to continue doing it, which requires money, which means comercializing some results.

> I strongly suspect that in a few decades people will wonder how on earth we ate any of the GMO food around today.

Or they'll continue eating what we currently have because it's fine.

> Then they'll look into it and realise the only way people would buy it was if it was mixed in with non-GMO and not labelled as such.

Or they'll look into it and realise that if it weren't for GMOs there would be less food, which means more expensive food, which means more poor people going hungry. Which is the problem with GMOs, cheap food makes it so poor people can bring up children to reproductive age than they would otherwise be able to do, which means even more poor people to feed / educate / etc. which means that poverty spreads instead of steadily diminshing.

Re:So What?

[arth1]

We all were probably right. Smoking doesn't cause cancer; it increases the risk of cancer.

Translation: It sometimes causes cancer.

No, that is not what it means. The cause of cancer is a DNA mutation in a cell, which are mostly caused by by replication errors and sometimes radiation.
Smoking is primarily a cancer problem because it lowers the chance of the body counteracting this before the replication runaway threshold is reached and it becomes a problem; it does not cause the mutations themselves, unless your smokes are high in radioactivity. But it certainly increases the risk of cancers reaching the replication runaway threshold.

Re:So What?

[Antibozo]

Saying "Monsanto isn't evil" can only being up a debate about the definition of evil. However, saying they are not unethical would be absurd.

Absurd, how? Can you enumerate a few of Monsanto's unethical acts? AFAICT, despite the popular theory that they are horrible, they're actually a pretty ordinary company as ethics go. Most of the beliefs people seem to have (e.g. that they sue farmers over accidental cross-pollination) are myths.

Re:So What?

[Zero__Kelvin]

I believe Slashdot had an example today of their unethical behavior. You should check it out!I

Re: So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have family members with allergic reactions to gluten (REAL reactions, such as half a face swelling after eating bread).
We found a store that sells imported flour from Europe, and they have no reaction to anything made with that flour.

Just wanted to throw that out there.

Re: So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course they can't prove that.

A GMO plat is biologically different by the biological definition of its difference. But bio-engineering companies can prove that any particular plant and its GMO version are legally identical because before they started selling GMOs for human consumption they went to court and won that ruling.

So much this. A cluster of big and evil companies have realised that lying is the main strategy. There is only one truth so it is always just as convincing as it happens to be. There are many lies so they can market test them and find the ones which are most convincing.

This is the reason people believed smoking didn't kill (or passive smoking didn't matter or whatever the lie that for to that person) for so long. It's the reason we have all these global warming denying cretins repeating things that are obvious lies.

Given the level of lies in GM, there must be something similar going on. Whether the crime is that the viral DNA from the viruses used in splicing which turns up in the crops is problematic, or whether it's leakage of DNA sequences to weeds or whatever, someone in Monsanto knows and is dissembling to hide the truth.

Re:So What?

[Antibozo]

I believe Slashdot had an example today of their unethical behavior. You should check it out!I

Looks pretty ordinary to me, as well as cherry-picked. It looks like Henry I. Miller may have done something unethical by not disclosing a conflict of interest, or possibly shared authorship. John Acquavella told Monsanto that it would be unethical to do something, and Monsanto and Acquavella both say that they didn't in fact end up doing it. Is it unethical to propose something, have it characterized as unethical, and then choose not to do it?

Did you RTFA?

Re: So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be obtuse. You know exactly what I'm talking about. Again, I actually read ingredient lists, and the list on organic products is the same as all-natural products -- which is about 20 items less than a "conventional" food product. The extra ingredients are the artificial additives. If that's being misled by marketing bullshit, what do you think about the masses who blindly trust the vendor and don't read the ingredient list?

Again, the organic label is a shortcut to verifying that a product is all-natural, or if you prefer, that a product has the minimum number of ingredients. The number of ingredients is directly correlated with how close a food product is to all-natural. More ingredients almost always equates to more artitficial additives.

You don't read ingredient lists, do you?

Re: So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you dose a banana with arsenic, it is absolutely biologically indistinguishable from a non poisonous one. At first.

Also, I can't see DNA without glasses i don't have. So if it is GMOed, I want it labelled as such. I also want the very inexpensive insurance premium for such a tiny risk that it might kill everything on earth, or, you know, just trigger a potato blight style famine. If the risk is low, the premium should be cheap. Right?

Re: So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll have few to no objections to GMO if patents and copyright can't apply to it, any descendants or any related matter. Otherwise you are trying to staple a cover page to public domain DNA and steal my rights to it.

Re: So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Guns don't cause deaths. DNA failure that make people susceptible to blood loss from bullet wounds do. Not everyone who gets shot dies from it.

Re: So What?

[Maxo-Texas]

yea, there was a big scandel where a lady nearly died due to anaphylactic shock after eating commercially prepared tacos which had always been safe before and it turned out the taco shells had secret gmo corn and that corn had genes added to it which set off the lady's allergies. The taco shells, corn, etc. was all recalled.

If you insert peanut genes into something- you damn sure better label that the product has peanut genes.

Re:So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

highly genetically modified algae or more specifically kelp et al and you can grow anything you want in a salt water tank, any protein, sugar, carbohydrate, salt, any flavour or texture,

But are these 3D printed tank-grown apples organically tank grown?

And I'm not buying anything unless the 3D printer is certified range free. None of those horrible factory line apples. I hear they are sprayed with the same stuff in chemtrails! I did you know that?

But seriously, if all the non-killer bees die out most people probably won't be able to afford anything but tank-grown meat, vegetables or fruit. It's already too expensive to store and ship places like quote-unquote third world countries. If you could GMO up something that could be easily grown in a reasonable (i.e. secure-able from the local gang/warlord/terrorist) factory within a sub-Saharan city then you've solved world hunger.

Assuming nobody turns the GMO food away as a CIA plot to overthrow the local government.

Re: So What?

[Maxo-Texas]

https://www.usda.gov/media/blo...

The National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances

return arrow Back to Top
Â205.600 Evaluation criteria for allowed and prohibited substances, methods, and ingredients.

The following criteria will be utilized in the evaluation of substances or ingredients for the organic production and handling sections of the National List:

(a) Synthetic and nonsynthetic substances considered for inclusion on or deletion from the National List of allowed and prohibited substances will be evaluated using the criteria specified in the Act (7 U.S.C. 6517 and 6518).

(b) In addition to the criteria set forth in the Act, any synthetic substance used as a processing aid or adjuvant will be evaluated against the following criteria:

(1) The substance cannot be produced from a natural source and there are no organic substitutes;

(2) The substance's manufacture, use, and disposal do not have adverse effects on the environment and are done in a manner compatible with organic handling;

(3) The nutritional quality of the food is maintained when the substance is used, and the substance, itself, or its breakdown products do not have an adverse effect on human health as defined by applicable Federal regulations;

(4) The substance's primary use is not as a preservative or to recreate or improve flavors, colors, textures, or nutritive value lost during processing, except where the replacement of nutrients is required by law;

(5) The substance is listed as generally recognized as safe (GRAS) by Food and Drug Administration (FDA) when used in accordance with FDA's good manufacturing practices (GMP) and contains no residues of heavy metals or other contaminants in excess of tolerances set by FDA; and

(6) The substance is essential for the handling of organically produced agricultural products.

(c) Nonsynthetics used in organic processing will be evaluated using the criteria specified in the Act (7 U.S.C. 6517 and 6518).

return arrow Back to Top
Â205.601 Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production.

Link to an amendment published at 82 FR 31243, July 6, 2017.

In accordance with restrictions specified in this section, the following synthetic substances may be used in organic crop production: Provided, That, use of such substances do not contribute to contamination of crops, soil, or water. Substances allowed by this section, except disinfectants and sanitizers in paragraph (a) and those substances in paragraphs (c), (j), (k), and (l) of this section, may only be used when the provisions set forth in Â205.206(a) through (d) prove insufficient to prevent or control the target pest.

(a) As algicide, disinfectants, and sanitizer, including irrigation system cleaning systems.

(1) Alcohols.

(i) Ethanol.

(ii) Isopropanol.

(2) Chlorine materialsâ"For pre-harvest use, residual chlorine levels in the water in direct crop contact or as water from cleaning irrigation systems applied to soil must not exceed the maximum residual disinfectant limit under the Safe Drinking Water Act, except that chlorine products may be used in edible sprout production according to EPA label directions.

(i) Calcium hypochlorite.

(ii) Chlorine dioxide.

(iii) Sodium hypochlorite.

(3) Copper sulfateâ"for use as an algicide in aquatic rice systems, is limited to one application per field during any 24-month period. Application rates are limited to those which do not increase baseline soil test values for copper over a timeframe agreed upon by the producer and accredited certifying agent.

(4) Hydrogen peroxide.

(5) Ozone gasâ"for use as an irrigation system cleaner only.

(6) Peracetic acidâ"for use in disinfecting equipment, seed, and asexually propagated planting material. Also permitted in hydrogen peroxide formulations as allowed

Re: So What?

[Maxo-Texas]

You'll notice- unlike GMO, EVERYTHING is listed.

However- one caveat. Be very careful of "organic" food at local food markets. Some "organic" farmers have been caught when the produce they were selling was tested by the government (which apparently buys a lot of samples around the country every year).

Unless it comes from a certified organic farm you trust, you can't be sure. Instead it might have some really toxic stuff on it.

Re:So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your assertion is incorrect. Genetically modifying crops is no faster that regular breeding. There is still an evaluation period where the specific phenotypes are found just as with breeding. Future efforts with Crispr may make this process faster and more controllable.

But genetic modification is a fundamentally different process than breeding. Breeding offers the ability to choose and introduce genes found among organisms that can sexually share genetic material. Genetic modification allows genes to be introduced from organisms that can not share genes through sexual processes. So genetic modification is not a faster form of breeding. It is fundamentally different.

Re:So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

By "selective breeding has nature taking a hand in the outcome" do you mean typical drift during reproduction causes "most babies, puppies and kittens self-abort?"

Nature is cruel and absolutely fair. The punishment for failure is always the same: death. But nature is also careless. Every 'natural' breeding brings in a boatload of baggage, most of it needed but some of it possibly not. An example is that Munkin kittens are adorable, short legged and perfectly healthy. But the mutation is lethal when inherited from both parents.

Instead of playing the genetic lottery with every trait in an animal or vegetable we can now tweak that single bit to see what happens. Now, waiting to thoroughly test that each change doesn't suddenly cronenberg the whole planet is probably not in Monsanto's financial plans for this quarter. But is certainly beats inbreeding corn until it rots in the sun.

Re:So What?

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

I just love that two comments up you complain about strawmen, and then you go and post this:

So, because done right, it has benefits, that means that done wrong should be tolerated or encouraged? Since labor builds value, slavery should be legal.

Re:So What?

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

GMO is bad because of mono crop issues.

Untrue, and a non-sequitur. GMOs come in different varieties for different plants, and the diversity will only grow as more and more variants for different conditions (heat, high salt, low water, etc.) are developed. More to the point, this is an issue with large-scale farming in general, not GMOs. Hell, GMOs allow us to more easily get around mono-crop issues.

GMO is bad because resistance to herbicides induces over-use of them.

This is mixed. Sometimes resistance allows farmers to use fewer herbicides, or smaller amounts, of more specific or less harmful ones. Sometimes they do over-use them. That's a potential knock against particular applications of GMOs, though, not GMOs as a whole.

GMO is bad because GMO has been used to have plants make toxins. So GMO food can contain poison. And there are no regulations about this or any other use of GMO.

Plants naturally make toxins to protect against things that want to eat them, so non-GMO food can contain poison. Guess that's bad too. Also, here is a short explanation of the regulations on GMO crops in the US.

GMO is bad because it has been used to make kill-genes, even if only in the lab, and between that and mono-crop the results of a wide-spread release could cause massive destruction.

So you're saying an entire technology is bad because if something that has never been sold commercially or even produced on a commercial scale had a wide-spread release, there would be consequences (what are those?). I guess we should stop all virology research, since that was created in a lab and could be harmful if it ever got out.

GMO is bad because Monsanto claims it's harmless, and when Monsanto says something, the opposite is more likely true.

Ridiculously unscientific, and ignores the non-Monsanto GMO research and options out there.

But the pro-GMO crowd doesn't talk about the reasonable objections. Instead, it's all about the strawman.

Ah yes, strawmanning your opponents while accusing them of strawmanning you. Well done.

Re:So What?

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

What, using many of the same pesticides (but from organic sources instead) and more land is better for the environment? Okay buddy.

Re:So What?

[Antibozo]

GMO contaminated crops are bad because organic farmers are sued for patent infringement

This has never happened.

I suggest that you read the article you linked to. That you are holding up a mythical bogeyman was in fact established in the court case the article is about (OSGATA v. Monsanto).

Re: So What?

[Entrope]

Of course the GMOs are distinguishable in some respects, but the company selling one already needs to prove that those differences are essentially irrelevant to humans or any animals we plan to feed with the GMO. A GMO banana is a banana, so "Stephen Holstein" wants them to prove something that is true by definition.

Re: So What?

[Entrope]

So you have an anecdote. Yawn. Compare that to all the times that people have actually (not nearly) died because of unexpected or unlabeled allergens in their non-GMO foods.

Re: So What?

[Maxo-Texas]

Ah, so if you die because of an undocumented food additive, you'd be cool with it.

Instead of asking, "why wasn't this labeled?" as you died, you'd e saying "think of all the people who weren't allergic unlike me."

Doubt it.

GMO food needs to be labeled. And the source of and reason for the genes needs to be labeled.

It cuts both ways- GMO *can* remove or reduce allergens.

It's not GMO per se that's bad. It's the greedy companies opposing labeling it.

If GMO food was labeled and sold for a slight discount- most people would slowly change over to buying and eating it with no problem. If the discount was 10%, I am certain you'd have 60% consumer conversion to the lower priced GMO food within 24 months.

It's the secrecy and repeated terrible events in corporate food and drug history that makes people rationally very suspicious when corporations get secretive.

The secrecy turns Taco Bell tacos (made unknowingly from corn mixed secretly with gmo corn) which were safe last week into life threatening tacos this week. It would be like they suddenly started putting shrimp protein or peanut sauce on the taco's without warning about it.

Re: So What?

[black3d]

Nobody said glyphosate isn't toxic. It's less toxic than copper sulphate or any of a hundred other organic pesticides, but it's certainly toxic. The level it's toxic in humans is several million times higher than its found on produce. It's not bio-accumulating. If you were actually afraid of it because of "toxins", then you shouldn't be breathing AIR, which has more PPB of anthrax, than you'll find on your food in glyphosphate.

Yes, they gave tadpoles very high doses of a toxic chemical and then recorded it had adverse effects. Are they going to come collect the Nobel prize, or am I going to have to courier it?

If your fear is of 'toxins' then either you have to understand that the threshold of consumption required before a chemical is toxic to humans is important to the conversation ("the dose makes the poison" - even water is toxic if you consume too much of it), or you must live in absolute fear of every foodstuff out there, with toxins prevalent in all foodstuffs, with higher LD50s than glyphosate, and far higher concentrations than glyphosate are ever found in food. Formaldehyde? Anthrax? Cyanide? Why are you happy to consume these toxic chemicals at much higher concentrations in your food, than the less toxic glyphosate?

Re:So What?

[Pentium100]

That is true, but I think that there is quite a lot of empty space left there that could be used for this purpose.

Re:So What?

[AK Marc]

But the pro-GMO crowd doesn't talk about the reasonable objections. Instead, it's all about the strawman.

GMO will have great benefits if done properly.

So, because done right, it has benefits, that means that done wrong should be tolerated or encouraged?

That's not what he said or implied though.

Looks like it to me. I gave some of the reasonable objections I've heard to unregulated GMO, and he responded, dismissing them all, if only it was "done right".

Seems the problem with the GMO communication is that the pro-GMO crowd assume someone who isn't pro-GMO is an idiot, and don't even bother to listen.

All of the food we eat is 'genetically modified' in the sense that we've been breeding and artificially selecting for desirable traits in plants and animals for millenia, now it's just become possible to do it at way faster timescales and increasing accuracy.

Selective breeding doesn't introduce kill genes (well it might, but they die and are bred out). Selective breeding doesn't generally result in a toxic food, where the toxin is more toxic to insects than humans. Nope, it's not just the "timescale" that has changed.

Re:So What?

[AK Marc]

Analogies aren't strawmen. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=analogy

Re:So What?

[AK Marc]

Natural mono-crop is bad, therefore unnatural mono-crop is OK?

Re: So What?

[AK Marc]

GMO foodstuffs are the most heavily regulated of any crops.

Really? Then why is there no regulation that GMO be labeled as "contains GMO"? Seems like the wild west to the consumers.

Re: So What?

[Entrope]

So you have an anecdote and a flawed argument. Double yawn. You've made a case for labeling allergens, not GMOs.

Re:So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck anyone who modded that flamebait. Companies kill people and cover it up, DEAL WITH IT bitches. Monsanto wasn't born yesterday either.

Telling people to DEAL with corporate manslaughter? Shut the fuck up, idiot. Common fucking sense wasn't born yesterday either.

Re:So What?

[Zero__Kelvin]

They didn't do it because they got caught in the middle of doing it. Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Do you think at all before you type?

Re: So What?

[Khyber]

"The level it's toxic in humans is several million times higher than its found on produce. It's not bio-accumulating. If you were actually afraid of it because of "toxins", then you shouldn't be breathing AIR, which has more PPB of anthrax, than you'll find on your food in glyphosphate."

Hi, I actually work in the agricultural sector, and have for over a decade. You will find glyphosate on almost every bit of your produce in the grocery store, and it's in the PPM range, not PPB.

Re:So What?

[Antibozo]

They didn't do it because they got caught in the middle of doing it.

What are you talking about? Caught doing what? Do you even RTFA?

An academic involved in writing research funded by Monsanto, John Acquavella, a former Monsanto employee, appeared to express discomfort with the process, writing in a 2015 email to a Monsanto executive, "I can’t be part of deceptive authorship on a presentation or publication." He also said of the way the company was trying to present the authorship: "We call that ghost writing and it is unethical."

A Monsanto official said the comments were the result of "a complete misunderstanding" that had been "worked out," while Mr. Acquavella said in an email on Tuesday that "there was no ghostwriting" and that his comments had been related to an early draft and a question over authorship that was resolved.

Or maybe you should consider looking at the source material:

http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/...

[From William Heydens/Monsanto]: John,

I thought we discussed previously that it was decided by our management that we would not be able to use you or Larry as Panelists/authors because of your prior employment at Monsanto - was that not your understanding? I'm really sorry if there is any confusion on that

Re:So What?

[Zero__Kelvin]

Oh, yes. It was a "misunderstanding" alright. The other times they did this it wasn't an issue, and they didn't "understand" that they wouldn't get away with it this time.

Re:So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Those of us old enough remember similar words made about smokers dying of lung cancer. We all knew they were wrong and looking for something to blame. We all knew smoking couldn't cause cancer.

So you're saying that vaccinations DO cause autism because we now know that smoking causes cancer?

Re:So What?

[minstrelmike]

The GMO pushers fight labeling because they say "folks won't buy GMO products" but that's pure bullshit.
Consumers won't buy GMO products at the same price as non-GMO products. That's all.
Basic Adam Smith economics. Information results in lower prices for the consumer.

Monsanto is fighting against losing profits due to forced lower prices. That's why the fight is so nasty.
You are right--they aren't talking about the real issue.

Re:So What?

[Antibozo]

Oh, yes. It was a "misunderstanding" alright. The other times they did this it wasn't an issue, and they didn't "understand" that they wouldn't get away with it this time.

What other times they did what? Did you RTFA?

Still waiting for you to enumerate all the ways in which Monsanto is so obviously unethical that it would be absurd to suggest otherwise.

Re: So What?

[Maxo-Texas]

No, I have an event backed up by plenty of studies.

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/fl...

GMOS are allergens.

And worse...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

"GM potatoes
Feeding mice with potatoes transformed with a Bacillus thuringiensis var.kurstaki Cry1 toxin gene or the toxin itself was shown to have caused villus epithelial cell hypertrophy and multinucleation, disrupted microvilli, mitochondrial degeneration, increased numbers of lysosomes and autophagic vacuoles and activation of crypt Paneth cells (Fares and El-Sayed 1998). "

"
Allergenicity studies

When the gene is from a crop of known allergenicity, it is easy to establish whether the GM food is allergenic using in vitro tests, such as RAST or immunoblotting, with sera from individuals sensitised to the original crop. This was demonstrated in GM soybeans expressing the brasil nut 2S proteins (Nordlee et al. 1996) or in GM potatoes expressing cod protein genes (Noteborn et al. 1995). It is also relatively easy to assess whether genetic engineering affected the potency of endogenous allergens (Burks and Fuchs 1995). Farm workers exposed to B. thuringiensis pesticide were shown to have developed skin sensitization and IgE antibodies to the Bt spore extract. With their sera it may now therefore be possible to test for the allergenic potential of GM crops expressing Bt toxin (Bernstein et al. 1999). It is all the more important because Bt toxin Cry1Ac has been shown to be a potent oral/nasal antigen and adjuvant (Vazquez-Padron et al. 2000).

The decision-tree type of indirect approach based on factors such as size and stability of the transgenically expressed protein (Oâ(TM)Neil et al. 1998) is even more unsound, particularly as its stability to gut proteolysis is assessed by an in vitro (simulated) testing (Metcalf et al. 1996) instead of in vivo (human/animal) testing and this is fundamentally wrong. The concept that most allergens are abundant proteins may be misleading because, for example, Gad c 1, the major allergen in codfish, is not a predominant protein (Vazquez-Padron et al. 2000). However, when the gene responsible for the allergenicity is known, such as the gene of the alpha-amylase/trypsin inhibitors/allergens in rice, cloning and sequencing opens the way for reducing their level by antisense RNA strategy (Nakamura and Matsuda 1996).

It is known that the main concerns about adverse effects of GM foods on health are the transfer of antibiotic resistance, toxicity and allergenicity. There are two issues from an allergic standpoint. These are the transfer of a known allergen that may occur from a crop into a non-allergenic target crop and the creation of a neo-allergen where de novo sensitisation occurs in the population. Patients allergic to Brazil nuts and not to soy bean then showed an IgE mediated response towards GM soy bean. Lack (2002) argued that it is possible to prevent such occurrences by doing IgE-binding studies and taking into account physico-chemical characteristics of proteins and referring to known allergen databases. The second possible scenario of de novo sensitisation does not easily lend itself to risk assessment. He reports that evidence that the technology used for the production of GM foods poses an allergic threat per se is lacking very much compared to other methodologies widely accepted in the food industry."

Re:So What?

[Zero__Kelvin]

Well then you need to drop the "Anti" from your Slashdot username.

Re:So What?

[Antibozo]

I thought not.

Re:So What?

[Zero__Kelvin]

You mean you didn't think. I already pointed that out, actually. I'm not going to use Google for you, when you have already shown that your argument will be: "It wasn't unethical. Monsanto said it wasn't! ".

Re: So What?

[qwak23]

The first article you link to does not have the same conclusion as your very brief summation, nor is it ever stated in the article that "GMOS are allergens".

The article does discuss allergens, including the possibility of introducing allergens from one organism to another through GM techniques as well as the possibility of using GM techniques to remove allergens from certain organisms.

Portraying the article the way you did comes off as dishonest.

Re: So What?

[mrclevesque]

"Of course the GMOs are distinguishable in some respects"

A tomato and a GM tomato are biologically different, if they weren't companies coudn't sew you for growing them without a license.

"but the company selling one already needs to prove that those differences are essentially irrelevant to humans or any animals we plan to feed with the GMO"

They of course test GMOs (if only for the sake of profits) to be sure their products won't cause problems of a certain size or over, in the short to medium term.

So I'm curious what you mean by 'if they're already selling one they have to **prove** the differences are essentially irrelevant'.

Re:So What?

[Antibozo]

Ah, yes. The classic Argumentum Googlei.

Re: So What?

[Rujiel]

Could you at the very least not provide perfect examples of pro-monsanto shilling, in an article partly about monsanto shills?

Re: So What?

[Maxo-Texas]

From the first article

"In the autumn of 2000, a California woman named Grace Booth went into anaphylactic shock after eating three corn tacos; after ruling out all other food allergies, she became suspicious about the corn in the tortillas. Earlier that year, the consumer group Genetically Engineered Food Alert found that some Taco Bell shells, along with other corn products, contain a pest-repelling protein called Cry9C[2]. Originally from common soil bacteria, Cry9C can specifically destroy insect intestine and was introduced into StarLink GMO corn to kill predatory caterpillars (see this article). The StarLink corn had only been approved for animal feeding, and was never intended for human consumption because of concerns that Cry9C would be difficult to digest and cause an allergic reaction. However, it still entered the human supply due to cross-pollination when the GMO corn was planted too close to unmodified crops, and the tortillas that Grace ate were soon recalled due to contamination from a GMO product (Figure 1)."

I think my summary is a fair evaluation.

GMO food should be labeled.

That it is GMO.
And the source of each gene added to the original stock.

Re:So What?

[K10W]

The other is that the pro-GMO people insist that anti-GMO means that if you eat GMO, that you die........But the pro-GMO crowd doesn't talk about the reasonable objections. Instead, it's all about the strawman.

pretty much this, I've been pro some mods and anti others. I never worked in GMO field but I studied it in enough depth as a student (Biochem BSc Hons) so know more than average consumers I guess if a little out of date now (late 90s). I don't know many friends who are in similar discliplines who are pro ALL gmo (although most work in clinical biochem or microbiology they still know a fair enough). Sadly in some cases the big money nastier stuff seems to get through and some of the more beneficial win win for consumer AND customer gets squashed by the green anti gmo dickheads because there is less of incentive ot push that throug hat any cost and crush protest. Some of the rice modifications are amazing and really beneficial. Another cost of the herbicide resistance is it can be harmless for plant life and humans but run-off kills diversity in watercourses and has qwuite long term effect on aquatic life.

Re: So What?

[Entrope]

That's because he is dishonest. Compare: https://psmag.com/social-justi... (which mentions that "GMOs as allergens" has been debunked)
http://www.supermarketnews.com... (lots of products have undeclared allergens that could cause problems for consumers)

His favorite (only?) example wouldn't even need to be labeled under his labeling proposal because the corn in question was accidentally crossbred with a GMO -- it wasn't itself a GMO.

Re:So What?

[Blue23]

All of the food we eat is 'genetically modified' in the sense that we've been breeding and artificially selecting for desirable traits in plants and animals for millenia, now it's just become possible to do it at way faster timescales and increasing accuracy.

By that wide of a net, you're a chimp. But in actuality, you aren't a chimp - humans and chimps diverged and have separate traits even if they have a common ancestor.

The same thing is happening here. When GMO is introducing, for instance, fish DNA through gene-splicing, you are getting something that could not happen through cross-breeding as has been "happening for millennia". I use the Winter Trout / Tomato example because it's well known, even if it isn't commercially available. There are plenty of examples where genetic engineering produces results that could not be obtained though cross-breeding.

I'm not saying GMO are bad - it is just a tool. I'm just dispelling the disinformation campaign that genetic engineering is the same thing as selective-breeding but faster.

Re:So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, because done right, it has benefits, that means that done wrong should be tolerated or encouraged?

That's not what he said or implied though. He pointed out that there are ways in which GMOs can be used correctly and for the benefit of everyone to get better food with less energy/demand on the soil.

The whole problem with the GMO-discussion is that people mix up 2 things, namely the scientific process of genetic modification, and the gigantic corporations that seek to make profit using the process - sometimes in ethically questionable ways.

All of the food we eat is 'genetically modified' in the sense that we've been breeding and artificially selecting for desirable traits in plants and animals for millenia, now it's just become possible to do it at way faster timescales and increasing accuracy. The fact that there is corporate greed and instances seeking to take advantage of this process for their own personal benefit at the expense of other people does not invalidate the process of gene modification itself anymore than criminals and scammers using the internet for malicious ends makes the whole of the internet a bad thing.

All of the food we eat is 'genetically modified' in the sense that we've been breeding and artificially selecting for desirable traits in plants and animals for millenia?

You seem to not understand there is a difference between Hybridization and Genetic Engineering.

Genetic engineering is the process of breaking the natural boundaries that exist between species to produce new life forms that will produce a variety of desired traits. For example, genes from salmon can be spliced into tomatoes to make them more resistant to cold weather, thereby yielding a larger crop when the weather is less than favorable. Hybridization is the fertilization of the flower of one species by the pollen of another species-or artificial cross pollination

Essentially it boils down to 3 things.

1. Companies who sponsor the research are looking at money for the reason, not the ethics, morals, and ensuring that the public is who they are serving rather than some board member or stock holder. Essentially they are putting profits over safety and the environment.
2. Most GMO's can't grow beyond 1 or 2 plantings, thus they need to recreate the products. What happens if a country fails? Or what about the grid? What happens when the plants themselves stop growing? Essentially, you can't take the see of a GMO corn and replant it, take that seed and replant it, then take that seed and replant it. Then what? Hybridization usually enhances the plants natural abilities, and thus you can take the seed of the hybrid, plant it again, take that seed and plant it again, and keep repeating.
3. The collusion to control peoples food source. If one or two companies control the seed, they then can control the food source. That's the main issue that people are arguing.

So when a company hides, or tries to manipulate the science, then someone has to question the motives of that company. And that's what people are now doing. When the EPA comes out and says that they hid the science and they should get a medal for it, then that calls into question whether the company and the EPA are doing the right thing. Science gets hit. Science is about facts and truths, not hiding it, falsifying the info, covering it up. A TRUE Scientist should never hide his science. It should be open for people to view the work. Science should never be about the money, it should be about advancing the art, the methods, and ensuring that all is done ethically correct.

Re:So What?

[black3d]

That would be reckless. It's toxic in high doses, which is irrelevant to residue since it's non-bio-accumulating.

I wouldn't drink a full glass of vinegar either, and it's MORE toxic than glyphosphate. Vinegar (the acetic acid it's made of, not the water content) has an LD50 of 3.3g per kilogram. Glyphosate has an LD50 of 5.6g per kilogram.

There's a vast difference between a chemical being toxic in high doses (many naturally occurring chemicals are extremely toxic in even small doses - this is where we get poisons from, for example) and a chemical causing cancer, which there's no evidence glyphosate does. Are you replying to the wrong post?

Re: So What?

[black3d]

Really? You felt the need to correct a single typo on glyphosate despite it being correct everywhere else in the post? I'm hoping that's just a pet hate of yours, rather than extreme pettiness.

Here in NZ and Aus, glyphosate on most produce is in the PPB range. On some products, it is in the PPM range. On some where it's allowed in the PPM range by regulation, it's still found in PPB. But that kinda misses the point of my argument (although given the typo correction, I'm guessing you didn't actually miss it, but practice extreme pedantism), which is that there are far more toxic chemicals found naturally in food.

His "evidence" of glyphosate causing cancer, was widely laughed at studies where they basically drowned animals in glyphosate and then pointed out that it's toxic because it killed them. Of course it's toxic - that has nothing to do with either causing cancer, or being any danger to humans at low doses. Which was my point - he's consuming MORE toxic chemicals, at HIGHER doses, occurring naturally in many foods. It's extreme cognitive dissonance.

Re: So What?

[beastofburdon]

Because that would make a boycott possible, and we can't have the proles being able to choose what they consume.

Re:So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you start getting into a dangerous area when they claim to be doing "independent" reviews and there is an agenda driven influence. Monsanto came out and was pretty upset about the IARCs monograph. This firm has an article that brings up XtendiMax which is another issue Monsanto is facing with a different product that's receiving some heat as well. My guess is they will try to find away to sweep all this under the rug as fast as possible and get back to business as usual. Monsanto might think they are just too big to fail and they might be. They are a 51B market cap company.

mosatan

[Anonymous Coward]

who would think mosatan would do something like that?

I put roundup

[Anonymous Coward]

On my DAMN balls tomprevent STDs when u suck them

The real question is was it a net positive?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know there's negatives to round-up, but considering how much more efficient farmers are these days, was it a positive?

Re: The real question is was it a net positive?

[Anonymous Coward]

Farmers wouldn't have paid extra for round-up proof crops if it wasn't.

Re:The real question is was it a net positive?

[arth1]

I know there's negatives to round-up, but considering how much more efficient farmers are these days, was it a positive?

That depends on how you define positive.
Some may not see biodiversity going down as positive.
Some may not see glyphosate resistant weeds as positive.
And some may not see family farms closing down or being transformed to agricultural factories as positive.

Re:The real question is was it a net positive?

[Antibozo]

That depends on how you define positive.
Some may not see biodiversity going down as positive.

By protecting yield, intensification methods such as GMOs improve biodiversity by reducing the amount of land area required for agriculture, which leaves more land to the wild.

Some may not see glyphosate resistant weeds as positive.

Weeds adapt to every form of control. Pull them by hand and they break off at the stem and regrow. Roundup is one tool among many.

And some may not see family farms closing down or being transformed to agricultural factories as positive.

Family farms comprised 99% of U.S. farms in 2016, which is up from 97% in 2012.

https://www.ers.usda.gov/publi...

Re:The real question is was it a net positive?

[drinkypoo]

Family farms comprised 99% of U.S. farms in 2016, which is up from 97% in 2012.

Count acreage or stop.

Re:The real question is was it a net positive?

[Rutulian]

Some may not see biodiversity going down as positive.

Biodiversity goes down because of market forces, economies of scale, and distribution logistics. It was happening long before GMOs ever entered the picture. Now, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but the solution isn't banning GMOs. You have to do something to address the economic pressures if you want to see change.

Some may not see glyphosate resistant weeds as positive.

Herbicide-resistant weeds existed long before GMOs. Combating them is always an arms race between developing a better (read "more effective") herbicide and the spread of resistance. A lot of strategies are put in place to deal with this, not the least of which is application management. Analogous is the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. We can develop new antibiotics, but it turns out one of the most effective ways of combating resistance is using your existing antibiotics better.

And some may not see family farms closing down or being transformed to agricultural factories as positive.

See #1. As another reply noted, there are plenty of family farms. They just are not your picturesque "cottage out on the prairie with a field of corn" farms. Farming is hard work and involves a lot of risk. It is not that easy to succeed.

Re:The real question is was it a net positive?

[Antibozo]

Family farms comprised 99% of U.S. farms in 2016, which is up from 97% in 2012.

Count acreage or stop.

Why? The claim was that family farms are being shut down or being turned into factories.

Nonetheless, family farms accounted for 88% of farmland in 2012, and 94% in 2016.

The only thing better than roundup

[Anonymous Coward]

Is making your useless millenial kid weed, since you get immediate feedback on your useless kid who should have a job and a house by now, but instead he watches anime in my basement.. actually the roundup is better

Re: The only thing better than roundup

[Anonymous Coward]

He might have a job if you stopped making all that weed for him to smoke while he watches anime

a "high-quality draft"

[v1]

uh, yeah. Sounds like he'd be interested getting a fat check for signing a prepared statement on the bottom line. That goes way beyond '"ghost writing" when you can't even be bothered to write up the biased opinion yourself.

It's good to see how some of them rebuffed the offer though. This looks like a good example of all the colors of the ethics rainbow.

Oh no! Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!

[Narcocide]

I'm holding all of you responsible for letting Monsanto get away with this for so long.

Other things that are probable carcinogens

[JBMcB]

Just for a bit of perspective:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Nitrates, which are found in pretty much any kind of meat or leafy vegetable
Nearly everything that comes out of the tailpipe of a car
An organic compound found in most essential oils and grapefruit juice
Rubber
The topical medicine used to kill lice
A compound formed when cooking any meat
An organic compound found in algae and kelp
A compound used to make synthetic glycerol used in medical applications
Ironically, some of the chemicals used to treat certain types of cancers
An antibiotic on the WHO's list of essential medications
Most steroids
One of the most popular drugs used to treat diabetes
Most fire retardants, including the one usually used in solar cells
The drink Mate
Pretty much anything that is fried

Re:Other things that are probable carcinogens

[PopeRatzo]

Just for a bit of perspective:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

Local man uses wikipedia in plea for perspective. Goes up in flames.

"Who cares about your so-called "study"? I HAVE WIKIPEDIA DAMMIT."

Re:Other things that are probable carcinogens

[dbIII]

Ironically, some of the chemicals used to treat certain types of cancers

Not ironic at all. A lot of cancer treatments are about killing any fast growing cells, which is mostly going to be the cancer. They are powerful poisons designed to kill but work as a treatment because they don't kill you all at once. If there is enough of you left after all the cancer has been killed off you are cured.

Re: Other things that are probable carcinogens

[Anonymous Coward]

Except nothing he said was wrong, and you don't have a peer-reviewed study which says any different. I guess, you had nothing useful to add to the conversation?

Re:Other things that are probable carcinogens

[Trogre]

You forgot sunlight.

Sunlight is a Group 1 carcinogen, the highest ranking there is.

Re:Other things that are probable carcinogens

[Maxo-Texas]

The point is that they tried to suppress the research.

The question is how risky is glycophosphate that they felt the need to try to suppress research.

This is like Donald Trump and Jared Kushak's meeting with the russians.

A) no meeting reported...
B) there was a meeting with one russian lawyer about adoptions and was meaningless.
C) uh.. okay so there was a meeting with 2 russians.
DEF) Increasingly more russians.
G) Okay so it was supposed to be about russians providing damaging clinton/DNC information
H) Uh.. Okay so I do have a relationship with the participants going back for years and I did say, "I love it!" when I thought it was about clinton.
I) Oops.. some of the russians are ex intelligence officers and/or have intelligence training.

Monsanto is at step B).

Is it going to turn out that glycophosphates are as carcinogenic as saccharine (not much/really have to literally eat the stuff by the handful) or is it going to be as carcinogenic as dioxins (which were also wonderful and safe until they were not).

Do we stop at step B.. or are we going to step R?

Re:Other things that are probable carcinogens

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot sunlight.

He forgot it because it isn't relevant. There isn't any sunshine in moms basement.

Re: Other things that are probable carcinogens

[Dog-Cow]

I guess, you had nothing useful to add to the conversation?

PoopRat never does.

Re:Other things that are probable carcinogens

[Anonymous Coward]

Uranium got sold by another person.

Re:Other things that are probable carcinogens

[Anonymous Coward]

This. People scream and whine, but they don't realize a lot of stuff they do is horribly bad to health.
Protip: A good diet prevents most cancers directly or indirectly.
That doesn't just mean what you eat, it means how you eat, how MUCH you eat, how much you DON'T eat, outside of your overall fitness and activity levels.

Most humans don't need to be eating 3-4-5-20 times a day. You can get by fine on 1-2 times a day, 2 if you are up and about more. Unless you are actively trekking multiple digit miles a day, don't go above it.
A good big breakfast and medium-small dinner is all you need.
Fat is not bad. Carbs are not bad. Salt is not bad. Too much sugar spikes blood sugar, but even it isn't bad if you use said sugar you just consumed. In other words, be active in the 30~ minutes after consuming said sugar. Anaerobic activity that is! Running for an hour isn't anaerobic. Stop drinking fucking energy drinks for runs. It's well beyond what little energy your muscles need for it. Literally no more than 50ml of a drink would be needed, if not less.

Humans developed tolerances to various carcinogenic compounds, but only if you eat a diet that can properly lead to that.
Humans have been sitting around fires and charring meat from before human society developed.
Over-consumption of the compound will tip the balance. This is where most of the western world has it wrong.
The over-consumption of shitty ready meals that have been cooked to within an inch of becoming plasma is the issue. Cooked in cheap vegetable oils which have high amounts of compounds that degrade to toxic aldehydes during the cooking process. They COULD use refined oils that get rid of them, but CAPITALISM HO!
Not to mention the sheer sterility of the food, pretty much no biology on the planet expects sterile environments, it fucks with them. Pretty much every biological unit on the planet freaks the fuck out when you consume sterile food. It doesn't know what is going on. It's never experienced it in the entirety of evolution on the planet. Stop it.
We only cooked food for taste and ease of consumption, not to kill the damn bacteria!
"But people can get infected!!", no shit. People STILL get infected every damn day anyway, and not by those foods, but their weakened immune systems from NOT eating the damn stuff in the first place!
These people would freak out if you told them about Kimchi and any other fermented food.
Sterility is anti-biology.
On that note, stop cleaning yourself so damn much too. Your skin is literally covered by bacteria that help it. At least rub your old clothes on your skin after cleaning so you can get your good bacteria back before the simpler bacteria colonise your skin . (the actual smelly ones, BO from sweat isn't bacterial, it can't grow)

Re:Other things that are probable carcinogens

[Entrope]

If Wikipedia is wrong about any of those being grouped by IARC alongside glyphosate as "probable carcinogens", you can go fix it. If you're just going to complain about someone pointing to Wikipedia, without any evidence that Wikipedia is wrong, you're going to look pretty foolish.

Re:Other things that are probable carcinogens

[Entrope]

Current evidence suggests that glyphosate is closer to saccharin than dioxin. For example, a meeting of the WHO on pesticide residues "concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to be genotoxic at anticipated dietary exposures", and that while good on-topic studies in rats were not available, "glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet".

Re:Other things that are probable carcinogens

[Anonymous Coward]

no one said shit about uranium. trump won GET OVER IT

Monsanto tries to kills us - what's our response?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is our FUCKING RESPONSE when a corporation willfully TRIES TO KILL AMERICAN CITIZENS FOR PROFIT?

Congressional handjobs? Money-influenced back-rubs from robed appointees? Stern tongue lashings from the media?

OR SOMETHING REAL?

Re:Monsanto tries to kills us - what's our respons

[Antibozo]

What is our FUCKING RESPONSE when a corporation willfully TRIES TO KILL AMERICAN CITIZENS FOR PROFIT?

What's really amazing is how they're able to KILL AMERICAN CITIZENS with a horrible carcinogen whose use has increased thousands of percent in the last two decades, while still having the actual cancer rate decline in the same period of time. Dastardly!

https://seer.cancer.gov/statfa...

Using statistical models for analysis, rates for new cancer of any site cases have been falling on average 1.1% each year over the last 10 years. Death rates have been falling on average 1.5% each year over 2005-2014.

Most hated company in the World?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not the first, second or third time Monsanto have been implicated in major scandals.

Products banned in Europe?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Hated by customers?
https://www.euractiv.com/secti...

A bad investment?
https://www.fool.com/investing...

this whole mansanto cancer thing

[Anonymous Coward]

It's so.. it's made up news. There's nothing to it. It's fake news.

Turn back, thread full of astroturph

[Anonymous Coward]

Turn back, this thread is is completely full of astroturf.

Re: Turn back, thread full of astroturph

[black3d]

"Anyone who values science over fear is a corporate shill". Gotcha.

Re: Turn back, thread full of astroturph

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, is that what you're defending?

The practice of crop desiccation

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are looking to be even more paranoid check it out.

That stuff goes on your food right before harvest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_desiccation

Poison the people and get rich off of it as well as snuff out the cleaner competition due to higher yields.

Steroids in pro sports, drug dealers, etc.

All hail the righteous profit incentive!

Re:Monsanto tries to kills us - what's our respons

[gl4ss]

Banning advertisements thus banning new competition to the market and adding more tax.

that's the response something else got so..

basically I guess it would be like banning others from making similar chemicals and then just skimming more money from roundup sales.

Re:Monsanto tries to kills us - what's our respons

[Anonymous Coward]

"while still having the actual cancer rate decline in the same period of time. " You didn't prove that's related whatsoever.

You fail statistics.

Re:Monsanto tries to kills us - what's our respons

[Antibozo]

"while still having the actual cancer rate decline in the same period of time. " You didn't prove that's related whatsoever.

Not only did i not prove that's related, i didn't even claim it.

You fail statistics.

Not really, but you fail basic reading comprehension.

genophobia

[Anonymous Coward]

The real conspiracy is to cover up the fact that the genes used in their GMO corn were obtained from an islamic terrorist and are now being eaten and diffused into the genetics of anyone eating the GMO corn. This is why Monsanto refuses to put the genetic content on the label.

A need for global regulation

[jandersen]

This is yet another technology where there is a clear need for strong regulation, IMO. Gene manipulation is a technology that has huge potential implications, both good and bad; it can - and probably will in the future - be used to improve crop yields and add disease resistance, and it is of course already being tried out in gene therapies for a number of serious conditions. We could produce many important chemicals - drugs and other - in a cheap and easy way by modifying a suitable micro organism. But as Monsanto and others have demonstrated, companies and individuals driven by short-sighted greed can potentially cause enormous harm, not the least of which is the damage to public trust in this technology. Maybe this is too radical, but I am probably in favour on a complete ban on the commercial exploitation on gene editing technology until we have a set of strong and clear, global regulations in place; all research into this should be publicly funded and published in open access journals.

Re:Monsanto tries to kills us - what's our respons

[PoopJuggler]

You did claim that.

Re:Monsanto tries to kills us - what's our respons

[Antibozo]

You did claim that.

No, i really didn't.

The parent claimed Monsanto was KILLING AMERICAN CITIZENS. I merely wonder where the piles of dead people are. I suspect it is news to the AC that cancer in the U.S. has been declining steadily for a long time.

(Glances at headline...)

[Anonymous Coward]

But why would they do that?

If it turned out roundup cures cancer, it'd increase sales and they could charge pharma rates for it (instead of just farmer rates).

Sure it's poison, but that's what chemo is all about.

Only news is that hack writer is a hack...

[denzacar]

The rest is just empty fluff and cherry picked quotes.
All basically amounting to what any scientist would say is proper description of what is currently known or unknown, based on current research.

"You cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen ... we have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement."
  ...
"we can make that statement about glyphosate and can infer that there is no reason to believe that Roundup would cause cancer."

Which is a quote cherry picked out of context from the actual email:

As explanation for some of our edits - in many parts of the world there is no such formulation
being sold called "Roundup". In addition, in the US we have some lawn and garden products with the Roundup name on them but they contain other active ingredients in addition to glyphosate and they may have different properties from glyphosate.
That is why we were using the phrase Roundup herbicides or Roundup agricultural herbicides.
When possible it is preferable to use the name of the product that is actually being used and the data that supports that particular formulation.

The terms glyphosate and Roundup cannot be used interchangeably nor can you use "Roundup" for all glyphosate-based herbicides any more.
For example you cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen ... we have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement.
The testing on the formulations are not anywhere near the level of the active ingredient. We can make that statement about glyphosate and can infer that there is no reason to believe that Roundup would cause cancer.

Another case is quite literally cherry picked to make it sound like "See? They KNOW it causes cancer! AND THEY ARE HIDING IT FROM US!!!eleven1"

In a 2002 email, a Monsanto executive said, "What I've been hearing from you is that this continues to be the case with these studies - Glyphosate is O.K. but the formulated product (and thus the surfactant) does the damage."

Actual linked email shows that one person summarizes an entire study as "glyphosate all basicially had no effect the formulated product did - does this point us to the coformulants - sufactants?" - and the other person replies with the quote above.

The rest is just the story about how a guy whose blog was hosted on Forbes's website was lazy, asked for a draft from Monsanto, copy/pasted it and presented it as his own work - and then got his op-ed kicked off of Forbes but not off of The New York Times.
Oh and... Monsanto's lawyers may have a case against the company which released the emails.

Re:Monsanto tries to kills us - what's our respons

[Anonymous Coward]

You can wiggle, you can weasel, you can wobble... but you can't admit you tried to throw an unrelated red herring out to run distraction for Monsanto's lies.

You fail honesty.

Re:Monsanto tries to kills us - what's our respons

[drinkypoo]

What's really amazing is how they're able to KILL AMERICAN CITIZENS with a horrible carcinogen whose use has increased thousands of percent in the last two decades, while still having the actual cancer rate decline in the same period of time. Dastardly!

So what you're saying is that everyone else is making major efforts to reduce carcinogens, except Monsanto?

The legal and business model behind GMO are bad.

[Ihlosi]

GMO is bad because it has been used to make kill-genes, even if only in the lab, and between that and mono-crop the results of a wide-spread release could cause massive destruction.

Or lock the farmers into having to buy their seeds from one certain manufacturer. Essentially, GMO allow a few companies to control the world's food supply.

And then there's lawsuits due to patent and other forms of IP issues. "Sorry, you're gonna starve now because you infringed our copyright."

And organics?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course I don't like what the journalist has done, this is not forgivable, but what is really interesting to see that what happened here is common practice in the organic farming industry! Some organic industry-sponsored organisation writes some fake news about the harms of GMOs and it gets picked up by major news outlets... Happens all the time.

Agreed

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. Technology that makes it easier for a multi-billion dollar for-profit company to douse their crops with pesticides is great! In fact, they were thinking of the customer's best interest all the way to the bank! And don't worry, there's absolutely no way this could be a health risk. No need to study the consequences. It's science!

Re:Monsanto tries to kills us - what's our respons

[Entrope]

His fundamental point is accurate. If Monsanto and Round-Up are giving cancer to so many people, why haven't we noticed?

Re:Monsanto tries to kills us - what's our respons

[PoopJuggler]

while still having the actual cancer rate decline in the same period of time.

You didn't say that?

Manufacturing Death

[geekmux]

The real problem is not discovering yet another corporation lying about how dangerous their product is. The real problem is nothing is being done about it. There's not a fucking thing that will come out of these latest "shocking" revelations. Never has. Never will.

You want to know how insane it is? If sanctions were actually taken against Monsanto for poisoning food crops and killing people, their lawyers would point to the tobacco industry and say, "Hey! No fair! How come they get to kill people and we can't?!?"

Greed N. Corruption runs capitalism today, and the lack of action taken against deadly corporations shows that it is sanctioned at the highest levels. The reason is quite simple; resource management is a responsibility held by every government, and population control is a key component of that responsibility.

Before you label that a conspiracy, take a good hard look at how many deadly products are legal today. Why would Greed ever want to cure cancer? There's trillions to be made treating it instead and it ensures deaths. Outlaw tobacco? Yeah right. That's another Win-Win industry.

Death is no longer merely a side-effect of life. It is now manufactured.

Just eat less and shut up

[Anonymous Coward]

You are all obese anyway, or at list 90% of you. Worrying about cancer? Start worrying about your hart.

Slashdot is now clickbait for non-techies?

[laupark]

I have noticed that the latest iteration of /. is just a bunch of aggregated news marginally related to tech with inflamatory click-bait titles. I know others have posted about this, but it is at ludicrous levels now. Finding fewer reasons to come here every day.

Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

It's easy to see how people considered it not harmful: because the harmful effects don't show up immediately, and most people can't think past next weekend. The same goes for diesel exhaust, coal (barbeque) smoke, tackle football, and (drum roll please) artificial additives in the food we eat.

IARC IS BULLSHIT

[Anonymous Coward]

This is straight from wikipedia: Class 4 probably not carcinogenic to humans: There is strong evidence that it does not cause cancer in humans. Only one substance – caprolactam – has been assessed for carcinogenicity by the IARC and placed in this category.

Keep in mind this is the ONLY substance in the whole world IARC rated "class 4" even distilled water is in class 3!
Doesn't that give you an idea about what kind of fear mongering we are dealing with here?

It get worst. Why is caprolactam class 4? It's a known toxic and harmful substance. Simply because, no study on it YET have determined that it is carcinogenic to human. So this status may change in the future.

Talk about a load of bullshit.

Monsanto and Mad Cows

[Anonymous Coward]

Years ago, the prototype of Tony Blair and Hilary Clinton gained supreme power in the UK- Margaret Thatcher. One of her major acts was to end a Human Farming Protocol more than TWENTY Thousand years old- and started the process of having cows and sheep fed with ANIMAL material. At the time slashdot-like pseudo-technical publications attacked protestors and claimed that to be anti-Thatcher was to be 'anti-science'

Thus did the Human world receive CJD, Mad Cow Disease- whatever you wish to call it. Today there has been an explosion in 'altzheimers' like mental issues in the elderly as a result. A level of Human suffering gifted by Thatcher beyond comprehension.

And Monsanto- and its supporters- are exponentially worse.

Natural evolution is limited by natural processes and mutations have to survive exposure in the real world. What Monsanto does- by design- could never happen naturally. And that is the entire point of their business model. So changes are made to the gene structure of plants that never would happen in nature, regardless of time or circumstance.

The 'whoops we never expected that to happen- but it's too late now' is the great joke inside Monsanto- because the company exists only to make a lot of people very very very rich- and when the worst happens those people will still have their money.

The 'gene manipulation is good for us' propaganda has been pushed since the 1950s- long before doing so was commercially viable. In the early 70s, infamous BBC child propaganda show, Blue Peter, ran a segment on manmade animals living on the moon.

We do not know, and have no current models to let us know, what a safe manipulation of our ecosystem represents. Thatcher and Monsanto act(ed) as they do only as an expression of power- and not as an expression of good science. And propagandists were paid to suggest that both are sensible and desirable. Every good word about Monsanto is a BOUGHT word.

The Great Extinctions that have happened so many times in our planet's history show life's vulnerabilities. Monsanto is a for-profit entity with the closest links to bio-weapons programs in the UK, USA and Israel. You find some 'good' in what Monsanto has done so far- well I'll trump you and find some 'good' in a certain cursed regime in last century Germany. Monsanto is part of the military-industrial complex, and just because soldiers might sometimes dig wells doesn't mean their prime purpose is not for murdering other Humans.

Tony Blair and Clinton are rock solid supporters of Monsanto- bit of a clue don't you think?

Its PopeFatso its what he does... APK

[Anonymous Coward]

See Subject

He defames and besmirches all the time.

He does it to me all the time and hide behind his registered LUSER account or when he really wants to blow his shit posts as Anonymous Luser

APK

P.S. => PopeFatso can only criticize those who do [he can't]. He is just a ne'er-do-well who is jelous that other respect me. apk

Well, of course

[JohnFen]

Monsanto is, after all, one of the nastiest, sociopathic and evil corporations on the planet.

Re:Monsanto tries to kills us - what's our respons

[JohnFen]

Monsanto is hardly the only, first, or last corporation who is willing to risk innocent lives in pursuit of profit. This is a time-worn tradition.

So we know our response: nothing at all.

The Point

[Anonymous Coward]

The point isn't that Glyphosate is, most likely, not a risk factor for cancer for the vast majority of people. The point is Monsanto is evil.

This story brought to you by the Organic Food Growers Association of America. Remember - naturally toxic pesticides are better than artificially toxic pesticides!

My dad is dying of cancer

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to do a marathon on Twitch when I have leave from work but until then please look here and help if you want to

Sorry if this is considered spam but I would hate myself if I didn't

It's not about the food any more. FUCK THE SHILLS.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not about the food any more.

Fuck the PAID SHILLS.

Fuck the DECEPTION.

Fuck the Liars

Re:Monsanto tries to kills us - what's our respons

[Antibozo]

while still having the actual cancer rate decline in the same period of time.

You didn't say that?

You apparently didn't get the point. I didn't say the fact that cancer is declining is evidence that Monsanto is somehow saving people. I'm asking for evidence that they're killing them. The presumption here is that Roundup is causing fatal cancers, and since Roundup use is way up since the advent of RR crops, we should expect a dramatic signal in cancer rates if that is the case. So where are the victims? In fact, most people believe there has been an increase in the cancer rate (many think it is skyrocketing), so stories about evil Roundup kick in their confirmation bias. They have to be pointed at the actual statistics to learn that no, the overall cancer rate is actually declining—this is so profound a correction to their worldview it occasionally causes them to think about what else they may have got wrong.

Despite extensive study, no one is able to identify any increase in individual cancer rates attributable to use of Roundup; the most anyone can say is that non-Hodgkin's lymphoma might be correlated.

Do i really have to explain this to you, or are you just being disingenuous?

Why isn't the performing of research double-blind?

[RogueWarrior65]

You can't guarantee unbiased research when money and politics are involved. The anti-Monsanto crowd will fund potentially flawed research to destroy Monsanto. Monsanto has to fund research to defend themselves against politically-motivated smear campaigns. Both sides are going to accuse each other of bias and they are both neither correct nor incorrect on those accusations.

So, the only way to make this work is for the researchers themselves to be part of a double-blind study. They can't be allowed to know whether the samples they are testing are real or fake until the studies are completed. Then and only then will you know if the results are bogus.

No shit

[Anonymous Coward]

Mfg of carcinogenic spray targeted at food producers wants to kill research on its safety. Shocking.

Re:Donald TRUMP is Wicked Monsanto SUPPORTER

[AutodidactLabrat]

Hillary has nothing to do with a throne
People on thrones don't get 2.86 million MORE "consent of the governed" that grants the legitimate right to exercise power.

Re:Monsanto tries to kills us - what's our respons

[andreasgonewild]

If you actually believe that we're generally more healthy and have less cancer than before, then God help you. Open the window, open your eyes; have a look around you. The establishment will feed you whatever information produces the most profit for them, and they own everything, period.

completely misleading headline

[Rutulian]

The headline states: "Monsanto Leaks Suggest It Tried To Kill Cancer Research On Roundup Weed Killer"

The summary goes on to make various aspersions about authorship credit, which is not the same thing at all! Sheesh, while I know this is Slashdot, it is unusual for the reading comprehension to be THIS bad.

The article itself is a bunch of selective misquoting in an attempt to portray a narrative that they desperately want to believe in. I have to say I'm very disappointed in the NYT. Some of the more important points:

Documents show that Henry I. Miller, an academic and a vocal proponent of genetically modified crops, asked Monsanto to draft an article for him that largely mirrored one that appeared under his name on Forbes’s website in 2015.

and then a bit further down

An academic involved in writing research funded by Monsanto, John Acquavella, a former Monsanto employee, appeared to express discomfort with the process, writing in a 2015 email to a Monsanto executive, “I can’t be part of deceptive authorship on a presentation or publication.” He also said of the way the company was trying to present the authorship: “We call that ghost writing and it is unethical.”

while Mr. Acquavella said in an email on Tuesday that “there was no ghostwriting” and that his comments had been related to an early draft and a question over authorship that was resolved.

In the first case, an academic professor who was not paid solicited an article from Monsanto and put his own name on it. Lazy and unethical, yes, but more on the professor than on Monsanto, and nothing to do with academic research. In the second case, there was a squabble about authorship and attribution, which is entirely common in academic publishing. Apparently it was resolved, nothing was suppressed.

In another part of the article:

In a 2002 email, a Monsanto executive said, “What I’ve been hearing from you is that this continues to be the case with these studies — Glyphosate is O.K. but the formulated product (and thus the surfactant) does the damage.”

In a 2003 email, a different Monsanto executive tells others, “You cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen we have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement.”

So, they are internally debating what they can say (legally or scientifically) about the product. And the problem is...what exactly?

Regulations

[emaname]

So tell me how getting rid of regulations will make businesses more honest and ethical so they don't try to deceive the scientific community or the public.

I sincerely do want an explanation of the sequence, the cause and effect, that will occur to prompt businesses to behave better.

Re:Monsanto tries to kills us - what's our respons

[Agent0013]

You did claim that.

No, i really didn't.

The parent claimed Monsanto was KILLING AMERICAN CITIZENS. I merely wonder where the piles of dead people are. I suspect it is news to the AC that cancer in the U.S. has been declining steadily for a long time.

You do have to be careful about cancer statistics. The way cancer death is counted is for only 5 years. So the way it was described to me was this: If you created a test that could detect cancer 5 years earlier that we currently do, then you would have a 100% survival rate for the cancer. Even though you did not treat the cancer, you just detected it earlier and the die at the exact same point the would have even if you never detected that they had it. So don't trust the cancer statistics, they don't relate to real people and real cancers.

Re:Monsanto tries to kills us - what's our respons

[Antibozo]

You do have to be careful about cancer statistics. The way cancer death is counted is for only 5 years. So the way it was described to me was this: If you created a test that could detect cancer 5 years earlier that we currently do, then you would have a 100% survival rate for the cancer. Even though you did not treat the cancer, you just detected it earlier and the die at the exact same point the would have even if you never detected that they had it. So don't trust the cancer statistics, they don't relate to real people and real cancers.

Incidence is down along with the death rate, and that is despite continuing improvements in detection.