Are you asking me to describe modern pesticide safety testing protocols? I'm not qualified to do that authoritatively.
But I'm certain that "spray it everywhere for 30 years and see if people die" is not the way.
Bypassing the proper protocols, publishing dishonest research, is the issue under discussion today. Glyphosate might be safe, or safe enough. Proper research could reveal more subtle effects than mortality numbers.
I still don't understand what you're responding to.
Glyphosate is already out there.
We have large papers that look into occupational and dietary exposures of real world cohorts, and they don't converge on much of anything that should make us concerned about our dietary exposure.
Yet you have some sort of "testing protocol" in mind that would somehow be more robust than the analyses already being done on real world populations that were inconclusive?
At least pitch a rough idea of what these experiments look like.
If you tell me that EPA doesn't have a better process than "dunno, seems OK", then I'll humbly defer.
Not holding EPA up as infallible, just asserting that intentionally-deceptive research should not be tolerated -- and should demand a higher degree of skepticism of other research from the same entities or with the same beneficiaries.
This is what I've come to expect from discussion on things like glyphosate, cholesterol, seed oils, etc.
You supposedly are raising an issue, yet you can't even squeak out the smallest concrete claim.
You're "in the field" enough to claim they didn't do the proper "testing protocols", but when simply asked what you mean by that or how it's different from the existing research, you're so "out of the field" that you can't even elaborate on the words you just used -- that's a task for the experts.
I never claimed to be "in the field" or anywhere adjacent. One does not need to be an expert to know that dishonest research is bad for the world. Why are you OK with this??
And I'm not raising an issue. The article is.
For the record, I do not have an opinion on the safety profile of glyphosate at all. And I've spent zero time even wondering about cholesterol, seed oils, etc. You're dropping me into the middle of the wrong argument.
I do have strong opinions about research integrity, and this story about Monsanto is unfavorable. Do you disagree with that?
Well we have no idea what the effects of glyphosate are because almost everybody has it in their system. Is it possible that's why autism, depression, add are so much higher among us than amish? Who's to say?
The public discourse on glyphosate is useless. As witnessed by calling it a pesticide, which is quite common among those most vocal against its use.
Less is more when it comes to chemicals, which is why reasonable uses of glyphosate seems to be the best we have come up with so far as a species - regardless of abuses of the chemical.
It’s probably the most studied herbicide on the planet at this point with very little evidence that it causes human health issues when used as intended. Doesn’t mean it’s zero risk, but we also feed an incredible number of people off a very small amount of landmass at this point in history.
Herbicides are pesticides. Are you implying that I made a mistake with that word? I did not.
Your other points are valid, but would you advocate for dishonest research to be acceptable as evidence that a pesticide is ready for widespread human field trials?
Assuming you would not, then I think you'd agree that there should be repercussions. Monsanto is not Uber for agriculture.
> Herbicides are pesticides. Are you implying that I made a mistake with that word? I did not.
Fair, the word pesticide is technically accurate - simply not used where I am from to describe herbicides.
> would you advocate for dishonest research to be acceptable as evidence that a pesticide is ready for widespread human field trials?
I don't see where anyone is advocating this. I see a lot of attacks against the most tested and studied herbicide on the planet - many such studies and tests set about with a pre-determined agenda (by either side). If there was strong evidence of this chemical being widespread harmful to human health, I feel it'd have come out by now.
What it means is that instead of using glysophate, agriculture simply switches to less tested and newer chemicals that may end up actually being more harmful. Certainly more expensive. Using nothing is not an option for modern agriculture if we're going to feed the number of humans on the planet.
There are plenty of "bad actors" in this field (no pun intended) - but if used as directed and in conjunction with GMO crops engineered to reduce herbicide applications it's likely one of the best ag inventions of our lifetime. Why so many people are willing to die on this hill is beyond me. I see otherwise very intelligent people in my life who as they have aged went down the youtube conspiracy theory rabbit hole and now preach about how it's the devil.
If Monsanto (or others) conducted research or scientific fraud they should absolutely be punished for it. To be blunt - especially the scientists - since it is absolutely deleterious to public trust.
Right, I think we agree on everything of substance.
I'm just particularly bothered by sketchy research on the edges of contentious public health issues.
I hope this issue is litigated to conclusion, and if Monsanto is found to have pushed fraudulent research for their own benefit, I hope regulatory agencies around the world come down hard, even if the net effect on human health is small or zero. There's just no place for that kind of shite any more.
