The article is pure propaganda. The best analogy is getting your water tested and the results come back as “water” ignoring all the other factors.
Pure glyphosate is not used on crops. Rather, formulations with other compounds to prompt its uptake into the plants are utilized.
Any analysis of GM & glyphosate which does not address formulations - since GM in this case makes plants tolerant of application of the herbicide formulations - is deliberate misdirection, aka straw man to the toxicity debate.
Thus arguing a debate from a position intentionally-ignoring key data is no different than what climate alarmists do to defend their position.
This is a very complicated subject made worse by the fact that the underlying premise of GM - the central dogma, i.e. predictability in GM/GE - was destroyed when they mapped the human genome. This is evidenced by pest tolerance to the effects of not only glyphosate, but Bt as well.
Worst of all, the willingness of the public to submit to higher & higher tolerances of compounds the human body was never exposed to individually or combined (synergy) is an abomination of the conservative principle, particularly given that this crap is being promoted as safe by our government and intentionally-ignoring formulation & synergistic factors.
Arguing that resistance to the status quo will result in use of more toxic compounds is criminal in the face of alltime-high use of pesticides in the face of herbicide tolerance and Bt resistance.
Argue to my face that I and/or my family should ingest higher & higher levels of chemicals because they are “simple salts” or that “the human body adapts” will earn a knuckle sandwich or worse.
Fair warning: I have 100 hours researching this topic for my book and entered the morass with an open mind: The GMO debate is as chock full of obfuscation, lies & hyperbole as “collusion” & “uranium one,” to state nothing of the “climate-change” debate. I take no pleasure in calling out ignorance, but there is a heap of it at FR.
Here’s the meat: Argue for the safety of GM based on the low toxicity of glyphosate used in agriculture and I have a challenge:
Go apply glyphosate formulations at a local farm for a season without PPE and get back to me.
Refusal is utter hypocrisy.
ALL of the honest studies on the topic of GMO state “more study is needed,” not “more chemicals are safe” just because of biased recommendations and EPA exemptions on “inert” ingredients in formulations. A normally-intelligent person - typically Conservative - would be quite offended at the notion, not submissively-compliant to physical assault.
Would you have some kind of reading list, maybe top 5 books or other important references you learned from?
When will your book be published? I don't buy many books any more but would definitely be interested in yours.
If Diana hasn’t taken you then you’re the one on the thread I want to marry. Common sense and scientific method. See my YUGE bias on this subject in my post above. But I have a point.
“The GMO debate is as chock full of obfuscation, lies & hyperbole as “collusion” & “uranium one,” “
On both sides.