Sunday, November 15, 2015

Glyphosate Is Carcinogenic! (Almost as much as coffee.)

I’m not a genetic engineer.
I’m not a chemist.
I’m not a farmer.
I’m not a statistician.
If you’ve by some chance read any of the bulk of posts on this blog, you’d know I’m also not an economist, a political scientist or a pundit.

I’d like to call myself a science communicator, but I don’t feel comfortable doing that. There are science communicators out there that are waaaaaaaay more science-knowledgey than I. Many of them have degrees and PhDs and whatnot.

I’m just a guy. Sometimes, I’m an asshole - mostly in retaliation. Or frustration (keep repeating the same thing after I’ve already debunked it and see how I get).

But all that aside, there is one important thing I do consider myself to be:

Not ideological.

I also try to not be opinionated; sometimes, I fail.

What does all this mean? It means that even though I’m not any of those professionals, I do understand that they know what they’re talking about and I understand to not maintain an uninformed or biased “feeling-based” ideology. They’re smarter than me. My opinion is irrelevant when dealing with facts. I don’t look for articles that corroborate my opinion and disregard all those to the contrary. I am scientifically literate, so I look to experts for their opinions and peer-reviewed research. I know where to look for credible citations - and where not to look.

This cannot be said for many people. They’re the ones who say, “DO YOUR RESEARCH!” And they’re the ones who haven’t. Confirmation bias is not research.

I like these dialogue posts. You get to see both sides of an argument: the misinformed, ideological, confirmation biased side, and the peer-reviewed, reputable, science-based information side. This one is about the IARC (mis)classification of glyphosate earlier in the year.

Be forewarned: it is quite lengthy. I have to rebut a large amount of woo.


The herbicide identified in this article is Roundup. Read this!!

Colombia drug debate revived as herbicide deemed carcinogen


I'm sorry, but neither Round-Up nor glyphosate causes cancer or is carcinogenic.

IARC misclassification of glyphosate as Group 2A probable carcinogen

Monsanto is the devil
[When this is your first comment, I know there’s going to be a fun, ideological ride ahead.]

Glyphosate re assessment in Europe is fraudulent

TBF is a for-profit corporation, not scientific peer-reviewed studies. You pay them to publish whatever bs you write. For example, this thorough, yet completely unsubstantiated nonsense that Rosemary Mason posted to Steven Bradbury, Director Office of Pesticides Programs, US Environmental Protection Agency. Putting his name at the top of her crap, when he has nothing to do with it, doesn't make it true. [Yes, I read her link. I always read their links. Even when they insist I didn’t. You can’t comment on things you don’t read. They mostly don't read my links - sometimes not even their own. Also, Dr. Rosemary Mason is yet another ideological activist. The important letters after her name are MB (Bachelor of Medicine) ChB (Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery) FRCA (Final Examination of the Diploma of Fellowship of the Royal College of Anaesthetists) - otherwise known as "not a genetic engineer or a chemist or an ecologist or farmer or any type of scientist who studies any of the things she rails against."]

Table salt has a higher toxicity than glyphosate.

the study you posted was funded by Monsanto and companies like it.

I don't really care what anyone else choses to put in their bodies, but I won't use it or go near it if I can help it.

No, the study I posted was not funded by Monsanto and companies like it. When you make that false claim, all you're trying to do is introduce a logical fallacy designed to discredit the facts. It's a red herring fallacy. In fact, the anti-science/anti-GMO people use that logical fallacy so much, it now has its own classification: Argumentium ad Monsantium, or Appeal to Monsanto.

Skepticblog: Argumentum Ad Monsantium

If you have to lie to support your beliefs, you might want to reassess your misinformed beliefs. It's funny how Monsanto is believed to be this cartoonishly evil empire run by Satan that can't be stopped - yet there's no evidence to support that fantasy.

Even funnier is the fact that it's a cartoonishly evil empire that's not nearly as big an empire you wish it to be. Starbucks and 7-11 have more power than Monsanto [based on profits]. But you have to portray your enemy as Goliath if you wish yourself to be David.

Monsanto: The Gigantic Evil Megacorp (that’s actually kinda a pipsqueak)

You know what I won't go near? Organic food. [That's not true. I just like to say it to organic ideologues to piss them off. Told you I'm an asshole sometimes.] It is the most inefficient and most harmful to the ecosystem way to farm. It uses more water, more land, more pesticides (of which several are more toxic than synthetics), and yields smaller crops. The reason it costs more is due to those factors. [Plus, the gullibility charge.] And no, these are not articles bought by Monsanto and companies like it.

The costly fraud that is organic food

Organic food is not as “green” as you think

Organic farming is rarely enough

Little evidence of health benefits from organic foods, study finds

Glyphosate task force - member list

Monocrops: They’re a problem, but farmers aren’t the ones who can solve it

Monsanto and the corruption of science and research

We won't agree, and I don't have time to screw around with this right now. I'm not calling you a liar, so don't call me one. [As soon as I give you a reason to call me a liar, feel free to.]

My apologies for calling you a liar. I admit that when you started with a typical anti-science, "Monsanto is the devil" knee-jerk reaction, I jumped to the conclusion that you did not care about facts and just believed in the unsubstantiated $63 billion/year organic industry ad campaign propaganda and pseudoscientific nonsense against Monsanto, the invented unstoppable devil to fight. I was correct, but nevertheless, you're right, Glyphosate Task Force is indeed funded by big scary corporations who only want to kill us. However, the article I posted was not a study by the GTF, it was an article posted by the GTF citing forty years of studies by international agencies (including the most recent four-year study by the German government which found that “no evidence of carcinogenity was obtained”) and illustrated in detail how the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer classification ignored massive amounts of data including the World Health Organization's own research, and focused only on a few select studies. [More on the WHO's science illiteracy toward the end of this post.] You apparently did not read this thorough article, instead choosing to only read the words 'Glyphosate Task Force' and erroneously decide that it wasn't true. Instead of calling you a liar, I should have used the politically correct, less offensive phrase, "You are not stating the facts."

Now show me how your use of the Argumentum ad Monsantium logical fallacy proves wrong the fact that over 40 years of evaluations carried out by regulatory authorities across the world have shown glyphosate not to be carcinogenic.

Yay for monocrops? [Seriously, what do monocrops have to do with anything related to Monsanto or glyphosate?]

Brian John, founder of the anti-GMO group, GM-Free Cymru, was a geography lecturer and Doctor of Philosophy. Currently he is a crank who has no knowledge of genetics and that article is full of thoroughly debunked nonsense.

Here's another thorough article about the details of international research on glyphosate. Although, I'm sure you think it's all lies, seeing as how the information was posted from GTF.

Statement of the GTF on the recent IARC decision concerning glyphosate

Yes, it seems true that we won't agree on the acceptance of peer-reviewed scientific research vs the unfounded belief in ideological misinformation.

Table salt is still more toxic than glyphosate, no matter what you think of Monsanto, the world-controlling evil empire with less clout than The Gap [based on profits].

I'm not "anti-science". I am anti-corporate bullshit. And you are correct, I don't trust "scientific research" funded by companies who profit from the results.

oh, and Monsanto has no clout... [Didn’t say Monsanto had no clout. You’re lying to support your ideology again.]

Monsanto PAC, Monsanto Citizenship Fund between 2002 and the first quarter of 2012:
House -
Total to Democrats: $237,202
Total to Republicans: $364,000
Senate -
Total to Democrats: $106,953
Total to Republicans: $201,100

Monsanto made over $600,000 in contributions to politicians and political parties in 2012. They made an additional $8.2 million in contributions to defeat California Proposition 37, which would have required the labeling of genetically modified organisms in California. According to campaign filings at the Washington Public Disclosure Commission, Monsanto also contributed $5.3 million to committees in Washington state focusing on Initiative 522, which would have required the labeling of genetically modified organisms.

Again, none of those studies were done by corporations, so everything you just said is anti-science, but you couched it in “See, I really just hate Monsanto!” Which again reinforces your use of the Argumentium ad Monsantium logical fallacy. And studies that are funded by corporations all line up with independently funded studies. But I guess MONSANTO!

Your argument is that Monsanto does it for the profits, which is why you hate them, but you ignore the fact that every single thing you have is bought from a corporation for profit. Are you typing on a device that a corporation gave you for free? I suppose you get your organic food for free. You were certainly handed your car for free. When you go to the movie theater, they say, “Welcome! C’mon in for free!” Why do corporate profits only count as bad for the thing you hate? Logic fail. Oh, wait, Monsanto wants to deliberately poison people. That makes sense. MONSANTO!

Monsanto’s $15 billion is somehow evil, yet the organic industry's $63 billion is perfectly okay. That, too, makes perfect sense. Wait, what?

And let’s not pretend the poor little ol’ organic industry doesn’t spend the shit out of money on propaganda and on politicians. Again, why does it only count for cartoonishly evil Monsanto? (Which still has less clout than even more cartoonishly-er evil Starbucks. Mwa-ha-ha-ha-haaaaa!!)

The Organic Agriculture Lobby In US

New Anti-GMO PAC Forms after Biotech Group Spends $820,000 on TV Ads

Organic Trade Association Spending Cycle

Organic Trade Association: Organic PAC

National Organic Coalition

I was going to list a bunch more examples of the organic lobbying & propaganda spending, there are many, but I think these are enough to make the point.

As for your anti-science, organic big-money special interest, fake grass-roots, for-profit “non-profit" labelling GMOs movement:

The Roots of the Anti-Genetic Engineering Movement? Follow The Money!

And as to the anti-scientific desire for scare-mongering with useless labels, here’s what science says about that:

Labels for GMO Foods are a bad idea

Why Liberal Americans Are Turning Against GMO Labeling

Why labeling of GMOs is actually bad for people and the environment

If you really weren’t anti-science, you wouldn’t ignore or deny 100% of the science and just keep repeating the misinformation campaign propagated by the organic industry against modern science - for its own ever-increasing profit margin.

Oh, yeah, I almost forgot -


(Well, it does have more clout than Toys R Us.)

You are arguing about all kinds of things I didn't say, and you must have way more free time than me. Keep name calling and condescending too, it's a really good way to have a discussion. Oh wait, that's not what this is, but don't worry, I'll get back to you at some point. [Other than a liar, which I called her because she lied, what names have I called her? Also, facts appear to be condescending.]

So why are studies that aren't done by corporations invalid to you? [Not what I said.] You put quite a bit of stock in information fed to you by the same people who profit off your believing them. [Hah. That's funny.]

Here's one reason I don't trust Monsanto with my food: Monsanto was one of the principal companies to supply Agent Orange to the U.S. government during the Vietnam War. Agent Orange is a defoliant that was used in Vietnam between 1962 and 1971 to "clear vegetation around military bases and obliterate hiding places and rice paddies used by the Viet Cong." It is made from two herbicide compounds, 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T, and releases dioxin as a byproduct of the manufacturing process that becomes contained within 2,4,5-T (and in some instances in 2,4-D). Dioxin is highly carcinogenic and one of the most dangerous chemicals known to man.

The following is excerpted from The Legacy of Agent Orange:
"Agent Orange was manufactured by Monsanto, Dow Chemicals (manufacturers of napalm), Uniroyal, Hercules, Diamond Shamrock, Thompson Chemical and TH Agriculture. Monsanto [was] the main supplier. The Agent Orange produced by Monsanto had dioxin levels many times higher than that produced by Dow Chemicals, the other major supplier of Agent Orange to Vietnam.... Monsanto's involvement with the production of dioxin contaminated 2,4,5-T dates back to the late 1940s. 'Almost immediately workers started getting sick with skin rashes, inexplicable pains in the limbs, joints and other parts of the body, weakness, irritability, nervousness and loss of libido,' to quote Peter Sills, author of a forthcoming book on dioxins. Internal Monsanto memos show that Monsanto knew of the problems but once again a cover-up was the order of the day.... Operation Hades, later changed to Operation Ranch Hand, sprayed 6 million acres of forest in Vietnam, 19 million gallons of defoliant. The intention was to turn Vietnam into desert, to cause such destruction that Vietnam would never recover.... The most gruesome legacy caused by spraying Vietnam with dioxin contaminated Agent Orange was that born by the Vietnamese themselves. In a locked room of Tu Du Obstetrical and Gynecological Hospital in Saigon are rows of formaldehyde-filled jars containing deformed fetuses, a grotesque illustration of Man's inhumanity to Man. The level of poverty in Vietnam prevents the preservation of further examples. Many of the living have fared little better, limb deformities, cancers.”

Here's a few more: EPA Superfund Sites
Several Monsanto-owned facilities have been deemed "Superfund sites" by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, sites that are so contaminated or full of hazardous waste that they are placed on the "National Priorities List" for clean up by the EPA Superfund. Many more plants have been deemed hazardous by the EPA and have been ordered cleaned up through other means, such as litigation. Examples of such sites include:

Monsanto plant in August, Georgia: Superfund-listed in 1984 for arsenic-laden waste and sludge contributing to groundwater contamination
Monsanto phosphorous plant in Soda Springs, Idaho: Superfund-listed in 1990 for arsenic, cadmium, radium and other toxins
Monsanto plant in Sauget, Illinois: Two super-funded sites still in clean up after initial 1982 listing; plant produced 99 percent of all PCBs in the United States
Monsanto PCB plant in Anniston, Alabama: Listed under Superfund Alternative Approach in 2000 for extensive PCB contamination over six decades; city has been characterized as one of the most polluted places in America
Solutla (former Monsanto) Plant in Nitro, West Virginia: Monsanto and Pharmacia entered into a Consent Order with the EPA in 2004 to perform evaluation and cleanup for release of dioxin from the 2,4,5-T (a component of Agent Orange) manufacturing plant over a 20-year period.

So you can compare with what you posted:

Monsanto Spending By Cycle

In fact, here…

But you most likely won't even look at it, or the citations and sources for the info provided.

The comparison of Monsanto's profits to the entire organic industry's is a false analogy, btw.



You’re right here with me saying your bit, but only I am the one with free time? What?

I have replied specifically to what you are saying. Denying it doesn’t make it true. Go ahead, scroll up and read the thread. And in doing so, I am highlighting your hypocrisy on what you say is considered “the devil" when you don’t like a company but what you say is not considered “the devil" when the same thing occurs with companies you don’t have a problem with (or who you weren’t told to have a problem with). However, I never said studies that aren’t done by corporations are invalid. I said they mirror the ones that ARE done by corporations. The corporate and the private ones all come to the same conclusion - that glyphosate and GM is safe. Who’s arguing about things someone didn't say?

Also, I never said I put stock in information fed to me by people who profit off me believing it. I put stock in the scientific method. You, on the other hand, don’t seem to mind putting quite a bit of stock in the organic industry’s propaganda campaign of scaremongering & misinformation they use against the peer-reviewed, tested, proven science of GM tech in order to get you to buy their product, but claim you’re just against corporate bullshit because that’s what the organic industry’s propaganda falsely tells you it’s about. It’s techniques like that that have increased their sales so rapidly over the past few years. “Get your torches and pitchforks! GMO is poison! Made by mad scientists! You will get sick! You will die! (Never mind there’s absolutely no evidence for any of that.) Buy safe, pure, healthy organic! (Never mind that our method is the least efficient. We're using the 'appeal to nature' fallacy to dupe you into buying our product.)"

You ignored what all the scientists and farmers said about scaremongering with pointless, redundant, costly labeling and are again repeating the organic industry’s profit-protecting propaganda. Who’s not reading citations?

And I’ve already thoroughly explained how using Monsanto as a stand-in for your complaint against science is a logical fallacy with the Argumentium ad Monsantium article, but you ignored that citation and continue to complain about Monsanto. It’s because the organic industry hasn’t told you to complain about any of the other companies. They want you to singularly focus on "evil Monsanto profits” since that is a proven effective tactic in distracting you from their own profit-based organic industry. Giving you too many "outrage" targets would dilute the intensity of the manufactured outrage and you may eventually see through the fraud. (When I say 'you' I don't mean you, personally, I mean the anti-GMO/Monsanto/science activists as a whole.) And, as you can see, this propaganda technique is effective - you mindlessly repeat Monsanto is evil, and equally dismiss organic lobbying, propaganda spending & profits as motive to be angry.

Ah, the old copied and pasted Agent Orange gambit. The British and American governments developed it and hired Monsanto and Dow to produce it for them. Monsanto warned the US government in 1952 that 2,4,5-T was toxic, but the government didn’t care. Didn’t your anti-Monsanto propaganda source tell you all this? Straw man argument.

Yes, the Superfund sites. I’m sorry, whereas that does suck, Monsanto being a corporation that does good and bad like all for-profit corporations, can you please tell me how this and Agent Orange relates to the safety of glyphosate or GMOs? These straw man arguments do not negate the fact that they are safe and Monsanto has never even once had a problem with food safety. But please, don’t let that little fact get in the way of your misinformed ideology. Also, those pollution cases all happened before 1996, when Monsanto restructured and became a new company. One that changed from a chemical company to an agricultural & biotech company. Your arguments are all against a company that no longer exists. Didn’t your anti-Monsanto propaganda source tell you all this? Straw man argument.

Yes, the Open Secrets information was already covered. Monsanto spent a lot. But so does the organic industry. Only the organic industry spends more on propaganda to get gullible people to protest and boycott instead of on politicians. That drives sales much better than buying off politicians to try and pass laws and they know it.

The SourceWatch article is interesting. There is some accurate and some inaccurate information. The pollution has nothing to do with the safety of glyphosate and GM tech and this was already covered with the Superfund point. Is your idea to keep repeating the same misinformation in the hopes that it will eventually become true?

Monsanto is a corporation just like all other corporations - profit-driven. They are not a cartoonishly unstoppable evil mega-world-controlling entity, as you would have me believe. Your fanatical focus on Monsanto blinds you to reality. Just like the also profit-driven organic industry wants.

The comparison between Monsanto’s sales and the organic industry’s sales is only a false analogy to you because it exposes your hypocrisy on what you consider "devilish," btw.

Ignore this, just like you ignore all other facts.

Cosmos Magazine: Speak of the Devil

I will just address one thing at a time. One of your tactics is to name call [No, I haven’t called you names. People who I call out on their spreading of misinformation and usage of logical fallacies often tend to say I’m calling them names and that I’m attacking them and being an asshole. When I start calling you names and acting like an asshole, believe me, you’ll know.] and pigeonhole me as a means to discredit everything I say (fallacious argument ad hominem). [Pointing out that you are wrong and citing facts to back myself up is not argument ad hominem. I would have to attack you personally, which I haven't. I've only attacked your spreading of lies and misinformation.] You have no idea what I believe. [Aside from your beliefs that you keep telling me?] You can stop assuming that I’m being “told to have a problem with” Monsanto, or anything else for that matter. I can think for myself. [You haven’t so far. So far, you’re just repeating debunked propaganda and ignoring all the facts you don't like.] My distrust of corporations and corporate/privately funded studies is not unwarranted, nor does it make me “anti-science”. It’s a legitimate concern. see


Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science

[This article explains the biased scaremongering of that article:

Lies, damned lies, and... science-based medicine? ]

I am a firm believer in the scientific method [Not according to all the debunked anti-science propaganda and cherry-picked information you’re repeating.], yet I see how science is used, corrupted and manipulated by powerful corporations to serve their own ends. [Like the organic industry. Oh, wait. That doesn't count because you like it.] I also recognize that scientific conclusions evolve with additional information and more thorough studies.

You are correct; I did say that Monsanto is the devil. I did not attach an emotion as intense as hate to that opinion. [Monsanto is just a playful, impish little devil, giving people hot-foots and whipped cream pies in the face.] I also did not say Monsanto is the devil because they spend money on lobbying. I mentioned the money they spent in response to you saying they “have no clout”. [Again, I never said they have no clout. Please stop lying about me.] I find your belief that Monsanto has no clout laughable. [One more lie for the road.] See


[Those two articles are a hearty mixture of basic facts and scaremongering lies. It then sprinkles it on a tale of government corruption.]

& also

[That article begins with biased scaremongering and lies. It continues down the BS path by linking to anti-GMO activist articles. Hey, no wonder Melissa used this as a citation. It has all the factless ideology she loves so much.]

At one point you said that if a study isn’t funded by a corporation, it is anti-science [Nope, I didn’t.]: “Again, none of those studies were done by corporations, so everything you just said is anti-science” (appeal to authority). [Pulling that one sentence out of context does, indeed make it seem like that’s what I said. But, I didn’t.] Now you are denying that you said that. [No. I was pointing out that you’re lying about what I said.] Corporate or private funding of a study does not automatically qualify it as legitimate scientific proof. [No studies count that are paid for by anyone? Only your beliefs or studies done for free are true? I’m a little confused.] The original article you posted (which has zero citations or links to actual findings) was sourced directly from GTF, whose stated purpose is “generating data in response to requirements from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA)” and is hardly an impartial or independent entity. In case you forgot,

is who makes up the GTF. [And the Environmental Protection Agency is who makes up the EPA. Acronyms! Ain’t they a hoot?!] I think it is clear what their bottom line is. [Posting test results? That is pretty sinister. Devilish, even.]

The studies referenced by GTF mostly only test glysophate. Even if glysophate is deemed safe on its own, [Which, it is.] it is never actually applied independently of the other ingredients in Round-Up. [Yet, has been studied independently of other ingredients, so, moot argument.] These so called “inert” ingredients, such as Polyoxyethylene alkylamine (which typically contains 1,4-dioxane at a level of 350 ppm [which is carcinogenic, and is known to damage the liver, kidney, brain and lungs]) are generally ignored. [Really? They’re ignored? Scaremonger much? Or, do you not know the misinformation you’re blindly repeating is purposefully a scaremongering move? Obviously, you do because you think for yourself. I know because you told me.] If anything is anti-science, it is that these conclusions are being made when long term comprehensive testing is not being conducted. [Yes, it has been and still is. Ignoring that fact and blindly repeating more organic industry misinformation does not negate that fact.] The product as a whole needs to be studied. [It has been and still is. Bla bla bla.] The agrochemical industry conceals the true toxicity of their chemical formulations by focusing on the health risks associated with only one 'active principle'. [No, “true toxicity” is a meaningless scare tactic you are blindly repeating from anti-GMO/anti-science activists. I liken it to anti-choice asshats and their invented "partial-birth abortions" bullcrap. Meaningless scaremongering term.] What the GTF is saying, and you are regurgitating, is that Round-Up is safe because glysophate is safe, which is a weak analogy, btw. [BTW, wtf?] See:

Testbiotech comment on the German Renewal Assessment Report (RAR) on the active ingredient glyphosate

for Testbiotech’s (The Institute for Independent Impact Assessment in Biotechnology) response to German study referenced in the GTF article.

Perhaps you should also take a look at these studies before you say glysophate is safe:

Time- and dose-dependent effects of roundup on human embryonic and placental cells.

Republished study: long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize

Ethoxylated adjuvants of glyphosate-based herbicides are active principles of human cell toxicity


Major Pesticides Are More Toxic to Human Cells Than Their Declared Active Principles!po=65.0000

as well as

The original findings of the IARC are
IARC Monographs Volume 112: evaluation of five organophosphate insecticides and herbicides

Note that “The IARC Working Group that conducted the evaluation considered the significant findings from the US EPA report and several more recent positive results in concluding that there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. Glyphosate also caused DNA and chromosomal damage in human cells, [Virtually anything can do that in a petri dish. This is another case of bad science reporting.] although it gave negative results in tests using bacteria. One study in community residents reported increases in blood markers of chromosomal damage (micronuclei) after glyphosate formulations were sprayed nearby.” ["One Study." That is literally meaningless and cannot possibly link anything to anything. A perfect example of the IARC's poor understanding and reporting of science.] There is significant scientific evidence that glysophate is linked to cancer, and host of other health issues, that the GTF is ignoring. [Sorry, proven wrong. Repeating anti-GMO activist misinformation again.] The argument that glysophate is safe also focuses on health impacts of an isolated chemical. Human beings are constantly exposed to a cocktail of dangerous chemicals. Every day we absorb pesticide residues through food, breathe polluted air, drink polluted water (which also contains pesticide residues), and use house and personal care products that contain other toxic substances. It is widely acknowledged that these different toxic substances often have a synergistic effect on human health, which is largely untested. [It is tested. I remember reading a National Geographic article about ten years ago on the exposure to chemicals in daily life. It also has nothing to do with glyphosate or RoundUp. This red herring bait-and-switch method is common among anti-GMO activist fear mongering. But tell me again how you think for yourself. Oh, and since you brought it up, I guess all this exposure to these daily cocktails of toxic chemicals that no one ever studies must be the reason that the average lifespan of humans is 27 years. Just look at this confirmed list: Robert Johnson, Nat Jaffe, Rudy Lewis, Joe Henderson, Dickie Pride, Brian Jones, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, Linda Jones, Ron McKernan, Dave Alexander, Pete Ham, Jean-Michel Basquiat, Pete de Freitas, Kurt Cobain, Kristen Pfaff, Richey Edwards, Amy Winehouse - the list goes on!]

It should also be noted that “while the FDA says that ‘levels of pesticide residues in the U.S. food supply are well below established safety standards,’ the FDA limits on pesticides aren't designed to protect consumers from long-term exposure,” says Alex Lu, a professor of environmental health at Harvard University. [It should also be noted that Alex Lu is a nutritionist who knows nothing of pesticides and is considered an activist among peers: ] Of course there is also the revolving door of staff that goes back and forth between positions at Monsanto and positions at the FDA. [Fair to be suspicious, but some evidence that their actions are dubious would be nice to back up the accusations.] It’s no wonder the FDA standards are consistently being brought into question [Anyone can question. That's meaningless. Unless the questioning produces evidence of malfeasance. None so far.] Here are a couple examples: [Which I will address in my reply.]
• Michael R. Taylor was an assistant to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) commissioner before he left to work for a law firm on gaining FDA approval of Monsanto’s artificial growth hormone in the 1980s. Taylor then became deputy commissioner of the FDA from 1991 to 1994. Taylor was later re-appointed to the FDA in August 2009 by President Barack Obama.
• Linda J. Fisher was an assistant administrator at the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) before she was a vice president at Monsanto from 1995 to 2000. In 2001, Fisher became the deputy administrator of the EPA.
• Former Monsanto lobbyist Michael R. Taylor was appointed as a senior adviser to the Food and Drug Administration (US) Commissioner on food safety on 7 July 2009.
• USDA Secretary or Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, a former Monsanto lawyer, was appointed by Pres. Barack Obama

You say the organic industry is using a campaign of scaremongering & misinformation to forward their propaganda. [Hey! It’s true! I did!] I could make the same statement about big-ag. [You could. And you’d be wrong. Unless you have some evidence? I could say unicorn horn dust capsules help increase the length and girth of male genitalia. Just don't ask me for proof.] You continue to forward the assertion that GMOs are safe, [Only according to science.] even though there has not been one long-term epidemiological study conducted that shows this. [Except for all the long-term epidemiological studies conducted that show this? (Don't worry. I give a citation in my reply.)] The claims that we need such technology to address hunger, to feed a growing global population, that GM crops are better for the environment and will provide the tools farmers need in a time of climate chaos, are scare tactics, and largely unsubstantiated. [I know you are, but what am I?] One of the main purposes of the GM modifications made to crops is to make them Round-Up ready. [Oh, ffs.] According to Monsanto, that will cause an overall decrease in the use of pesticide, which is also a lie, [Nope.] see

for Monsanto ex-employee’s revelations about the GM modifications happening in Monsanto’s labs. [Heh.]



The biggest issue with this debate is there is extremely limited information & research, in fact the most recent study done by researchers at Stanford University Medical Center in California reviewed 237 studies – 17 human studies and 223 studies that compared nutrient and contaminant levels (bacterial, fungal and pesticide) in foods grown organically and conventionally. Again, there were only 17 human studies, which are limited and generally very short-term. We hardly have a definitive scientific conclusion on GM safety, and there is no scientific consensus, [Oh, my fracking god. Tell me again how you think for yourself and don’t just repeat thoroughly debunked anti-GMO bullshit. Please. Pretty please. No sugar on top, though - unless it's organic! I love when you tell me you think for yourself.] see

I never said the organics industry isn't profit driven. All businesses and industries are profit driven. I am not ignorant of that. [You say you know this, yet you keep using GMO profits as if it’s the smoking gun evidence to their corruption. You’re talking in circles. This is what happens when you blindly repeat bullshit, but try to sound like you aren’t. This is what happens when you don’t know what you’re talking about, but try to sound like you do.] To make the comparison between the amount of money spent by the organics industry (more than one company) and Monsanto (one company) is a false analogy, or at best, a weak one. [You’re the one using Monsanto as the only GM company fighting for profits. It is not.] Apparently that point was unclear to you in my previous comment. [Much of the propaganda you regurgitate is unclear.] For it to be a more legitimate comparison, you may want to look at how much was spent by the proprietary seed & agro-chem industries, and compare that to what the organics industry spent. The corporate money that gets spent on lobbying and advertising (aka “propaganda”), and how that affects politics, consumer spending, and public opinion, is an issue all on its’ own. Of course both industries spend tons of money on lobbying and advertising…they are in competition with each other. [Um…] Again, this is not the reason I said Monsanto is evil. [I never said that’s why you said Monsanto is evil. These are all other points you brought up that I addressed.]

Your claim that organic farming is the least efficient way, but that can only be true using a very limited and short-sighted definition of efficiency, or rather, confusing efficiency with productivity. [I’m not the one confusing things. But I can say I had no idea efficiency had more than one meaning.] See

Organic Agriculture: Can organic farmers produce enough food for everybody?

for more about ways in which organic farming is more efficient. “Conventional” farming in a global food production system is reliant on an abundant supply of cheap energy. See

on what makes industrialized agriculture as a whole inefficient and unsustainable. [This is great stuff. How to cherry pick information to confirm a predetermined conclusion 101. This is a prime example of the problem with searching out confirmation biased articles instead of credible sources.] Producing more food per acre, no matter what the cost, is not really a sustainable solution. [Why? Just because? And there is no "no matter what the cost." It costs less. Oh - cherry picked info - I forgot. Never mind. Please continue.] If we are dealing with efficiency we need to address more than just crop yields, we need to address total energy input as compared to yield. Here is a more detailed explanation of how to assess efficiency in agriculture:

In terms of the GM labeling debate, I support transparency, especially when it comes to food. The money that will have to be spent on certification and labeling is trivial when you look at how much they have already spent fighting these labeling initiatives. Monsanto and other agribusiness and food companies spent more than $45m to defeat the California ballot measure that would have required labeling of some GM foods. [Faulty logic. Labeling tells you nothing about this one particular method of food production.]
While you continue to accuse me of a baseless “Argumentium ad Monsantium” (that “citation” is a “logical fallacy” made up by a blogger, btw), THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE WAS ABOUT A MONSANTO PRODUCT. The reason my focus remains on Monsanto (not Starbucks, or Dow, or Proctor & Gamble) is because Round-Up is THEIR product, not because I am “using Monsanto as a stand-in for (my) complaint against science”. If you are going to compare corporate entities, perhaps you should consider using corporations that are in the same trade (DuPont or Syngenta would be more appropriate). [You are the one continually blaming Monsanto, not DuPont or Syngenta. Why would I introduce these other companies? But I’m the one having trouble with logic.] I also never said that Monsanto is an "unstoppable evil mega-world-controlling entity" or “See, I really just hate Monsanto!” as you claim, those are your words. I will say that I don’t trust Monsanto, and their past is part of the reason. [No, you just said that Monsanto is the devil.]
I believe it is important to consider the history of a company (ie. Superfund sites) when deciding if I will consume their product, even if they have gone through a facelift. [You mean you will introduce one thing, compare it to an unrelated thing, and say they are the same thing. That red herring fallacy you love so much.] They are the world's largest seed company, accounting for almost one-quarter (23%) of the global proprietary seed market. Monsanto may have decided to say they are an agriculture & biotech company, but that does not mean they aren’t still a chemical company (because they still manufacture chemicals). “Restructuring” is a marketing ploy to disassociate themselves from all of the shit they have pulled in the past. Agent Orange, which I mentioned as an example, is not a straw man fallacy. [Except for it being a straw man fallacy since it has absolutely nothing to do with glyphosate, RoundUp or GM technology. But please, continue...] It is another example of why Monsanto is difficult to trust, which was my original point. Agent Orange was developed by the government, but having warned the government of its dangers (as you noted), [Which you didn't know until I told you.] they still manufactured the most potent version of Agent Orange, showing a lack of business ethics. [Try looking up why they produced it instead of inventing your own reason to make it seem like you are correct since you just found out the truth but are still clinging to your false narrative.] This lack of ethics, is what I have a problem with, not simply that they are making money. Here are some other examples:


Such incidents show that Monsanto has no qualms about lying to the public, so it isn’t “anti-science” to wonder if they are misrepresenting data to promote their products. [It is anti-science to deny the thousands of studies not performed by Monsanto or other corporations that also come to the same conclusion and continue to stick to the “I’m not anti-science, I’m anti-corporate bullshit” excuse.] For a comparison, feel free to look for a list of all the superfund sites caused by the organics industry. [GM & conventional food has never caused a superfund site. But for a comparison, feel free to look up all the times organic food is recalled per month due to e coli and other bacterial contaminations vs conventional & GM food. How's that fabulous non-GMO Chipotle restaurant doing these days?]

Just because, as you say, “every single thing (I) have is bought from a corporation for profit” (which is an oversimplification of reality, and also untrue) [Sorry, I didn’t include friendship bead necklaces you traded with your girlfriends in fifth grade. But then, the beads and string were bought from corporations for a profit, too, so…] does not somehow excuse corporations from responsibility for their actions. [Never said that. You’re still ignoring all the science and blaming Monsanto for Agent Orange as to why glyphosate is bad. Logic fail no matter how you slice it.] As an aside, I am a pretty conscientious consumer, and go out of my way to support small businesses (especially local farms) when I can. You can actually buy lots of things from non-corporate, non-polluting entities; especially food. [Which, local farmers sell to you for a profit. And then there’s THIS.] Keep eating all those chemical laden GMO’s, [Everything is a chemical. And repeating that tried and true anti-GMO propagandistic “just keep eating chemical laden GMO’s” line is more proof you’re thinking for yourself, I guess.] I’m sure you have nothing to worry about.

A “perceived funding bias” is not a fact. It’s “perceived.”

Continuing to repeat the Argumentum ad Monsantium logical fallacy doesn’t increase the chance of bullshit becoming true.

Again, I did not say Monsanto has no clout. I said they don’t have as much clout as other corporations. Stop lying about what I said.

Jesus goddamn Christ on a fucking cracker. I never fucking said that "if a study isn’t funded by a corporation, it is anti-science.” What I said is, your argument that all corporate studies are bought and biased, is a logical fallacy. I pointed out that the corporate sponsored research comes to the same conclusion as all the rest. And I repeated it. I guess to you think every study, no matter who it’s done by, is lying because they don’t agree with your misinformed ideology. Go ahead, lie again, take my words out of context and put more words into my mouth that I never said.

Again, GTF didn’t come up with the reports, they just presented other studies. Go ahead, ignore that fact again.

List all the scary chemicals you want. Again, dose makes the poison. You seem to not understand this basic scientific principle.

You might want to actually read your Testbiotech article.

As for your PubMed article:

As for your article by Environmental Sciences Europe- it’s a journal that publishes anything - you just pay them. It’s not looked upon as credible by the scientific community.

As to your ScienceDirect article that re-posted the Elsevier article by Seralini:

As to your BioMed article: It’s reposting the same report as the previous link. Redundant.

As to your Natures Country Store article: Really?

As to the rest of your first post: Yet again, dose makes the poison. Vitamins are poison if you take too much of them. How is this basic science too difficult for you to understand? [I’m getting more impatient and snarky because she keeps finding and repeating cherry-picked information to support her biased belief and ignoring all credible science.]

And on to the second post.

The organic lobbyists ARE using a campaign of scaremongering & misinformation. You could say that about “big ag” (haha), but you’d be wrong.

For example, you just repeated the organic industry’s complete bullshit scaremongering misinformation that "there has not been one long-term epidemiological study conducted” to show GMOs are safe...

...And the complete BS misinformation that GM crops are not needed to address hunger…

…and the BS misinformation that GM crops are not better for the environment…

…all of which ARE substantiated - by science.

You say, "One of the main purposes of the GM modifications made to crops is to make them Round-Up ready.” No, it fucking is not. Stop repeating anti-science scaremongering bullshit from organic lobbyists. [TBF getting angry, Mr. McGee.]

You say it’s a lie when Monsanto says RoundUp decreases overall pesticide use. Monsanto isn’t the only one saying that - farmers and scientists and statistical analyses are, too. This is what I mean when I say you ignore all the science and pretend you’re just against Monsanto bullshit.

Your Environmental Sciences Europe link that supposedly supports the lie that pesticide use is up is a journal that publishes anything - you just pay them. It’s not looked upon as credible by the scientific community. But then, you now know this because I’ve already told you.

And in your 'former Monsanto employee revelations' article, you managed to find even more unsubstantiated bullshit to support your unsubstantiated bullshit.

Your next paragraph begins, "The biggest issue with this debate is there is extremely limited information & research…” and continues on with completely manufactured bullshit that the organic lobbyists are telling you to repeat. I have already posted this article explaining that GM foods are among the most analyzed subjects in science, but you keep repeating this lie, so I’ll post it again for you to ignore.

You linked an article by 'GMO Free USA' to support your repetition of organic lobbyist bullshit. GMO Free USA is insanely hilarious in its pseudoscientific scaremongering bullshit lies - which are easily debunked.

Right, money spent by the organic industry in lobbying and propaganda does not count as ‘bullshit' because you like that, but it does count as ‘bullshit' for Monsanto (not science, you’re not anti-science) because “Monsanto is the devil.” Gotcha. No need to repeat it again. I’m totally on board.

Organic farming on a massive enough scale to feed everyone IS the least efficient way to farm - no matter how many debunked anti-GMO/science articles you post to the contrary.

Whole Foods blues: Why organic agriculture may not be so sustainable

Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture

Organic farming is rarely enough

Organic food is not as "green" as you think

Your Vegan Organic Network article cites references mostly from the 1970’s & 80’s & a couple from the 90’s. Outdated tech.

Already explained with citations from scientists & farmers why labeling is stupid organic lobbyist fearmongering bullshit. Ignored, I see. Monsanto’s fault.

Of your frequent use of the Argumentum ad Monsantium fallacy, you say, "That “citation” is a “logical fallacy” made up by a blogger, btw.” Well, that settles it, all the debunked anti-science nonsense you keep saying and then using Monsanto as a cover for is no longer false and is now magically all true because a lowly ‘blogger’ pointed out this overused logical fallacy.

More denying and justifying. And already covered territory.

NO, THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE IS NOT ABOUT A MONSANTO PRODUCT. Round-Up is Monsanto’s product, but glyphosate, which is the topic, is open to use by anyone since the patent expired in 2000. And they do use it. You, however, are again using Monsanto as your bogyman. [I guess technically, since Monsanto originally discovered and developed it, it is about a Monsanto product. That does not, however, void all the proven science concerning it, or confirm all the logic fails she uses to bash it.]

You’ve already posted the anti-Monsanto Source Watch links and I’ve already responded to them. Oh, I forgot, repeating stuff makes it true. Sorry.

You keep saying you don’t trust Monsanto and that "it isn’t “anti-science” to wonder if they are misrepresenting data to promote their products.” True, it isn’t anti-science to wonder that, yet, you ignore all the science not connected to Monsanto funded research that comes to the same exact conclusion - GMOs and glyphosate are safe. So, you ARE being anti-science and acting like it’s only Monsanto you’re concerned about. Argumentum ad Monsantium.

I don’t trust the organic industry because all they do is lie and spread misinformation about how much better their product is for you.

Organic food not healthier, says FSA

For a comparison, feel free to see how many organic foods have been recalled this year alone vs GM foods. (Hint: it’s over a dozen to zero.)

What stuff have corporations given you free of profit?

GMOs are not chemical-laden. Definitely not any moreso than organic. Stop repeating that anti-science, organic lobbyist scaremongering misinformation.

Organic uses chemicals. Lots of chemicals. More than GMOs do. And some are much more toxic “natural” chemicals than synthetic. Keep eating that. I’m sure you have nothing to worry about.

Organic Pesticides: Not an Oxymoron

About organic produce

Mythbusting 101: Organic Farming > Conventional Agriculture

In the immortal words of Tom Petty: "I won't back down."

Organic Shmorganic: conventional fruits and vegetables are perfectly healthy for kids

Getting back to the original topic, glyphosate - maybe this will help you understand. Be sure and watch the video.

So Roundup "probably" causes cancer. This means what, exactly?

Or maybe this:

Glyphosate as a carcinogen, explained

Or this:

Demonize them all you want, but GMOs are probably the best bet for feeding the world

Put in context: Beer and wood dust are at higher risk of carcinogens than glyphosate. Working on the late shift, which disrupts circadian rhythms, is also a greater risk. Science reporting is always melodramatic. Can you name the other two pesticides that were also added to the “probable” list of carcinogens? No, because they aren’t associated with GMOs or Monsanto, both manufactured fears, so they aren’t sensational enough to be click bait.

And just because:

Why Vaccine and GMO Denial Shoulkd be Treated Equally

Maybe you should scroll up and read what you said.

[Oooh, a devastating screencap. Perfect example of taking one line out of context. The problem is, you can scroll up and read it within context. Also, I enjoy how every single one of my fact-filled citations in refutation to her propagandistic misinformation is thoroughly ignored.]

I’ll type this very slowly this time so maybe you can have the time you need to understand what I said.

You said you weren’t anti-science and that you were just against corporate-funded studies because you don’t trust their honesty.

I then pointed out the fact that the studies you were citing were not corporate-funded, so your argument that you are against corporate-funded studies is not valid and you really are just denying the plain old, peer-reviewed, researched, unbiased, not-corporate-funded science because it disagrees with your misinformed ideology.



Got it. You're an asshole [Admittedly. But not without reasons. You've repeated three times now the lie that I said 'only studies done by corporations can be trusted.' ] who really likes to talk down to people. [Only if you consider my repeatedly pointing out that you cite nothing but debunked misinformation to be "talking down."] Good for you. You might want to consider not being so rude and condescending to people when you are having a discussion. [Repeatedly pointing out that you cite nothing but debunked misinformation is not rude and condescending. You're just butthurt.] But that's not what this is. This is not a discussion. Misrepresenting what I said and twisting it into what you want it to sound like I said is not actually helpful in proving your point. [Wut? Am I in an alternate universe? The Rubberglueniverse?] I’m sure in 30 years from now when all of these chemical "stews" that we ingest and are exposed to prove to be unhealthy, we can just have a laugh about this whole conversation. [On one hand, she (and all the anti's) claims there have not been enough studies done to confirm the safety of GMOs (which also means they also haven't been proven harmful). On the other hand, she (and all the anti's) claims GMOs are definitely poison. I call this the Burger King logical fallacy: They want to have it their way.] I'm glad you're so sure about the safety of glysophate, [I’m not. Scientists are.] especially when it's mixed with a bunch of other shit inside of our bodies. [Like everything you eat ever? And what does "other shit" have to do with glyphosate?] I'm sure everything will be just fine. [Has been for millennia so far.] Thanks for clearing it all up. I hope you don't actually talk to people in real life like this, you know face-to-face in person, because most people don't appreciate being treated like idiots just because they don't agree with you, [Again, not me - science. It’s not about disagreeing with an opinion I have. It’s about denying all the conclusive scientific research.] or question the safety of what is going into their bodies. [Continue to question. That’s never a bad thing. Just don’t be foolish enough to use Mercola or GMO Free USA (or any of the links you actually used) as your sources to back up your predetermined conclusion. Oh, and don’t have a predetermined conclusion.] You're welcome to respond again but I'm done. You win, how does that ego feel?

Oh, and this. Which I'm sure is all "anti-science" propaganda:

Republication of Seralini study: Science speaks for itself

1. You call me an asshole, then suggest I might want to consider not being rude. That's pretty funny.

2. You misrepresented what I said, then said I misrepresented what you said. Also funny.

3. It's not me being sure of anything about glyphosate. It's peer-reviewed science.

4. My ego is doing wonderful, thank you. It's my id that I worry about.

5. Yes. It is. :)

Scientists react to republished Seralini GMO maize rat study


European Food Safety Authority dismisses Seralini GMO rat food 'contamination' study

*****     *****     *****

I just want to leave this here.

New York Times publishes emails of Charles Benbrook, paid organic consultant who produced 'industry talking points'

And this…

FOIA emails reveal anti-GMO, pro-organic spin 'A team' led by Tom Philpott and Michael Pollan

And this…
(The M2M Program is a Washington State University program paid for by the organic industry to show nutritional benefits in organic.)

And how about this...

[Shilling’ ain’t easy, but it sure is fun!]

And sure why not this…

The Dirty Truth About 'Organic' Produce

Aaand this…

Organic industry spends big on unconventional lobbying

And this…

European scientific advisers say glyphosate unlikely to cause cancer

And howzabout this…

Scientists for hire: UK's David Goulson produces pre-determined pesticide research for activist funders?

This here is a good one...

Infographic: Examples of International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Carcinogen Classifications

And a little on the confusing IARC classification concerning what is cancer-causing...

IARC adds ‘risk’ vs ‘hazard’ confusion

Finally, this (I apologize for the misleading title to this post):

How Coffee Became a Carcinogen: The World Health Organization's classification system is seriously flawed.



Keep these logical fallacies handy. I started inserting them in appropriate points within this post, but they became distracting, so I took them out. Instead, I'm including them here for you. I've been collecting them as I find them. (I should create a new one for my Burger King fallacy.)

*****     *****     *****

And now for something completely different.

Possibly the only good thing to ever come from The Chipmunks.
And someone else did it.

SoundCloud: The Chipmunks on 16 Speed

No comments:

Post a Comment