Support NeoGAF

[East Lake]

Lawyers suing the company on behalf of farmers and others, who claim exposure to glyphosate caused their non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, alleged in a court filing which was partially blacked out until Tuesday that the Environmental Protection Agency ”may be unaware of Monsanto's deceptive authorship practice."

The filing was made public by a federal judge in San Francisco handling the litigation. The judge said last month he's inclined to require a retired EPA official to submit to questioning by plaintiffs' lawyers who contend he had a ”highly suspicious" relationship with Monsanto. The former official oversaw a committee that found insufficient evidence to conclude glyphosate causes cancer and left his job last year after his report was leaked to the press.

The plaintiff lawyers said in the filing that Monsanto's toxicology manager and his boss were ghost writers for two of the reports, including one from 2000, that the EPA committee relied on to reach its conclusion.

”A less expensive/more palatable approach" is to rely on experts only for some areas of contention, while ”we ghost-write the Exposure Tox & Genetox sections," one Monsanto employee wrote to another.

The names of outside scientists could be listed on the publication, ”but we would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to speak," according to the e-mail, which goes to on say that's how Monsanto handled the 2000 study.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...f-ghost-writing-papers-on-roundup-cancer-risk

Story was updated a bit. ”If I can kill this I should get a medal."

The Environmental Protection Agency official who was in charge of evaluating the cancer risk of Monsanto Co.'s Roundup allegedly bragged to a company executive that he deserved a medal if he could kill another agency's investigation into one of the herbicide's key chemicals.

The boast was made during an April 2015 phone conversation, according to farmers and others who say they've been sickened by the weed killer. The EPA manager, who left the agency's pesticide division last year, has become a central figure in more than 20 lawsuits in the U.S. accusing the company of failing to warn consumers and regulators of the risk that its glyphosate-based herbicide can cause non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

”If I can kill this I should get a medal," said the EPA deputy division director, Jess Rowland, according to a court filing made public Tuesday that says the Monsanto regulatory affairs manager recounted the conversation in an email to his colleagues. The company was seeking Rowland's help stopping an investigation of glyphosate by a separate office, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, that is part of the U.S. Health and Human Service Department, according to the filing.

The lawsuit in question.

Thirty-seven lawsuits filed nationwide alleging that Monsanto Co.'s Roundup-brand weed killer causes cancer were centralized on Monday by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in California's Northern District, the site of two of the earliest-filed and most procedurally advanced actions, the panel said.
Monsanto is facing claims in 21 districts, which all allege that Roundup, a widely used herbicide containing the chemical glyphosate, can cause non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and that Monsanto failed to warn consumers and regulators about the alleged risks. Several of those cases have already made it past the motion to dismiss phase.

Since late July, the consumers have been urging the JPML to centralize the cases either in California, Illinois, Hawaii or Louisiana. The panel obliged on Monday by centralizing in California's Northern District, which is home to a suit filed by Edward Hardeman on Feb. 1 — which survived a motion to dismiss on April 8 — and another suit filed by Elaine Stevick on April 29.

Those cases are two of the earliest-filed cases against Monsanto and both are far along, the JPML said Monday, noting too that the Northern District is convenient and accessible for all parties. What's more, transfer there will give U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria, ”a skilled jurist," his first-ever chance to preside over an MDL, the panel said.

Monsanto had fought centralization, arguing that individualized facts concerning each herbicide user's case, such as the nature of exposure, the formulation of Roundup to which each was exposed and the specific type of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma each developed will predominate over common factual issues.

The JPML was unswayed, saying Monday that while there are undoubtedly some individual factual issues, they are not enough to overcome the efficiency that would be gained by centralization.

https://www.law360.com/articles/848160/monsanto-roundup-cancer-suits-centralized-in-calif

 

[Dan]

So... who are these scientists that are selling their souls?

The names of outside scientists could be listed on the publication, “but we would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to speak,” according to the e-mail, which goes to on say that’s how Monsanto handled the 2000 study.

 

[Ganhyun]

Shit like this is why people have trust issues regarding the GMOs that Monsanto is tied to.

 

[Trokil]

I am shocked! Shocked I tell you.

 

[Akuun]

Well, fuck you too Monsanto.

 

[Trokil]

Well, fuck you too Monsanto.

You should not do that, Glyphosate and Monsanto have a hardcore defense force here on neogaf.

 

[Dyson Industries]

You should not do that, Glyphosate and Monsanto have a hardcore defense force here on neogaf.

Those people are fools.

 

[Elfotografoalocado]

Those people are fools.

For some reason there is a Monsanto defense force on GAF, equating it with GMOs at large and claiming that GMOs in their current commercial use somehow save lives, when they just promote the use of awful herbicides.
In countries where Monsanto GMOs were outlawed we have similar agricultural performance with lower pesticide use. Fuck, here in the EU we have the Common Agricultural Policy constantly subsidizing farmers NOT to grow produce to prevent the huge surpluses they would otherwise have.
Besides, there's always the argument of becoming the white saviors that bring Africa and the poor Asian countries from their low agricultural productions and famines and whatnot, and it never worked, and it's always local research what does the trick.
It's just a buch of frankly evil companies (The only ones that can afford research) trying to fuck up the agricultural market to the interest of their profits.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

Of course Monsanto should go to trial and be prosecuted if the allegations are true and the EPA report should be redone under an independent review.

But of course Monsanto is the root of all evil in some people's minds. Most of the shit isn't true. Like suicides in India, or suing farmers for contamination.

Reading other independent sources, glyphosate is still unlikely to cause cancer. And Monstanto's willingness to cover controversial studies, probably for PR reason's is still very unethical.

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2016/05/18/glyphosate-and-cancer

 

[CrocMother]

Cue Monsanto defense force

 

[akira28]

Shit like this is why people have trust issues regarding the GMOs that Monsanto is tied to.

could be.

Well, fuck you too Monsanto.

you dare? you dare insult science?

 

[KHarvey16]

Cue Monsanto defense force

Cue the shameful anti-science section of liberalism.

No link between cancer and glyphosate can be determined. Notice all of these arguments tackle the sources and go "hmmmm!" and don't try to address the validity of the science. Same thing anti-vaxxers and more general anti-GMO types engage in.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Monsanto is not our friend.

 

[Easy_D]

Fuck them for doing that. Corporate interests should never fucking dictate scientific "results".

I mean unless your corporation is built upon providing a greener healthier Earth. But there needs to be stricter rules in place for shit like this.

 

[akira28]

Monsanto is not our friend.

I don't trust them at all.

I am not anti-GMO. But I am anti-Monsanto. They could actually help things along and people could support this stuff. But that's not the way the world works.

 

[KHarvey16]

Fuck them for doing that. Corporate interests should never fucking dictate scientific "results".

I mean unless your corporation is built upon providing a greener healthier Earth. But there needs to be stricter rules in place for shit like this.

That's not shown here, and it's only sort of alleged. It's a cynical attempt at tricking ignorant people. These lawyers want people on their side and plenty are falling for it.

 

[parrotbeak]

Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Occupational Exposure to Agricultural Pesticide Chemical Groups and Active Ingredients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

We systematically reviewed more than 25 years’ worth of epidemiologic literature on the relationship between pesticide chemical groups and active ingredients with NHL. This review indicated positive associations between NHL and carbamate insecticides, OP insecticides [my note: Roundup is an organophosphate], the phenoxy herbicide MCPA, and lindane. Few papers reported associations with subtypes of NHL; however, based on the few that did, there were strong associations between certain chemicals and B cell lymphomas. Our results show that there is consistent evidence that pesticide exposures experienced in occupational agricultural settings may be important determinants of NHL. This review also revealed clear research needs, including further investigation of some already studied pesticide active ingredients, of additional pesticides that have not yet been investigated in epidemiologic analyses, of the strength of association of pesticide exposures with subtypes of NHL, and of the relationship between NHL and pesticides in middle- and low- income areas.

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2016/05/18/glyphosate-and-cancer

That commentary concludes with line from the introduction of the meta-analysis that describes the challenge of doing the meta-analysis, but they way he quotes it makes it sound like oh well, too complex to study!

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

I don't trust them at all.

I am not anti-GMO. But I am anti-Monsanto. They could actually help things along and people could support this stuff. But that's not the way the world works.

They are contracted to produce Golden Rice, yet it's been a boondoggle of bureaucracy and
slander by Greenpeace and other anti-gmo groups.

Writing ghost papers and what they are accused of is totally unethical.

 

[Fudgepuppy]

I am pro GMO and pro regulated use pesticides.

I am not pro corporations who avoid regulations and check ups by lobbying and paying the regulators.

 

[Trokil]

Cue the shameful anti-science section of liberalism.

No link between cancer and glyphosate can be determined. Notice all of these arguments tackle the sources and go "hmmmm!" and don't try to address the validity of the science. Same thing anti-vaxxers and more general anti-GMO types engage in.

Well, there are two problems. If scientists are ready to give their name for a study like this, this does address the validity of science. Same goes for the problem that in GMO science you have a problem with conflicts of interest or do not disclose their financing.

The other problem, why even going through all of that which always can backfire and become a PR nightmare if you have perfectly save product? Makes no sense.

 

[KHarvey16]

Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Occupational Exposure to Agricultural Pesticide Chemical Groups and Active Ingredients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Read that in the context of the article mentioned here:

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2016/05/18/glyphosate-and-cancer

Now to the case of those farmers. They’re suing, as mentioned, because of a putative link between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, NHL. When you look into the medical literature, the best you can say is that no relationship between these forms of cancer and glyphosate exposure can be established, based on the available evidence. Some associations from meta-analysis of the literature barely reach statistical significance, but at a level that could easily be due to bias or confounding variables. If you want everyone to take numbers like this at face value, then all of medical science is going to be thrown into confusion, because we normally need a lot stronger evidence than this. Here’s the IARC’s meta-analysis for comparison. They rank the evidence for an association between glyphosate and B-cell lymphoma higher, but that 2016 analysis linked first says that “Meta-analysis is constrained by few studies and a crude exposure metric, while the overall body of literature is methodologically limited and findings are not strong or consistent“.

 

[M3d10n]

AFAIK you're already supposed to wear full body protection while applying glyphosate, like most pesticides. Did the plaintiffs inhale the stuff or something like that?

 

[Trokil]

They are contracted to produce Golden Rice, yet it's been a boondoggle of bureaucracy and slander by Greenpeace and other anti-gmo groups.

Well, there maybe a reason for that. If your feeding study is breaking the law and the medical ethical codes, this is pretty bad.

Also there is this

http://www.futurity.org/golden-rice-gmo-1176342-2/

GMO proponents often claim that environmental groups such as Greenpeace should be blamed for slowing the introduction of Golden Rice and thus, prolonging the misery of poor people who suffer from vitamin A deficiencies.

A new study published in the journal Agriculture & Human Values reports little evidence that anti-GMO activists are to blame for Golden Rice's unfulfilled promises.

”The rice simply has not been successful in test plots of the rice-breeding institutes in the Philippines, where the leading research is being done," Stone says. ”It has not even been submitted for approval to the regulatory agency, the Philippine Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI)."

If you read the whole article based on the study, it not only claims, that Golden Rice may still years to actually work, it is not even sure how it will work or if the goal of helping poor children with GMO technology may actually ever be reached.

 

[Boney]

Cue the shameful anti-science section of liberalism.

No link between cancer and glyphosate can be determined. Notice all of these arguments tackle the sources and go "hmmmm!" and don't try to address the validity of the science. Same thing anti-vaxxers and more general anti-GMO types engage in.

There is a naive view of scientific progress will bring forth utopia.

Monsanto is the epitome of such delusions. Like automotation, monopolizing food production will make collapse of Mexico's agricultural business through NAFTA seem like child's play. Most reservation aren't found on how toxic GMO is to human ingestion, but how toxic it is to the food production process. The belief that GMO will bring forth the end of world hunger due to the exponential rise of food production with lower associated costs is fantasy.

 

[Trokil]

There is a naive view of scientific progress will bring forth utopia.

The problem it is not naive, it is just incredible lazy. If science is solving the problem, you will not have to change and you can continue like before. So if scientists and companies promise, we can solve the problem for you, you are free of any responsibility.

I tried so many times to explain, to actually make a change, we would have to do a lot of things, which would also include, buying local food, eating way less meat and spending more money on food for fair wages and protecting the environment.

But this is all hard and would mean less money for other things, so the promise of change for free is an easy way out. And funny enough protecting the environment when it it comes to food production is somehow controversial.

 

[KHarvey16]

Well, there are two problems. If scientists are ready to give their name for a study like this, this does address the validity of science. Same goes for the problem that in GMO science you have a problem with conflicts of interest or do not disclose their financing.

The other problem, why even going through all of that which always can backfire and become a PR nightmare if you have perfectly save product? Makes no sense.

Correlation and causation are not the same thing. If there are illegal or unethical practices, find them and expose them. These claims, made by a plaintiff in a lawsuit, strike me as similar to the email scandal in climate change years ago. Out of context people can write any story they'd like. And just like there, whether or not these specific people are behaving improperly it doesn't change facts. Currently there is no identified link between glyphosate and cancer.

There is a naive view of scientific progress will bring forth utopia.

Monsanto is the epitome of such delusions. Like automotation, monopolizing food production will make collapse of Mexico's agricultural business through NAFTA seem like child's play. Most reservation aren't found on how toxic GMO is to human ingestion, but how toxic it is to the food production process. The belief that GMO will bring forth the end of world hunger due to the exponential rise of food production with lower associated costs is fantasy.

So that's how you justify anti-science then.

 

[Vamphuntr]

AFAIK you're already supposed to wear full body protection while applying glyphosate, like most pesticides. Did the plaintiffs inhale the stuff or something like that?

Unless he spends his whole time in his field with full body protection he's bound to get "contaminated" one way or another. With they amount they probably spray the whole fields and surrounding area is probably contaminated by glyphosate.

 

[Trokil]

Correlation and causation are not the same thing. If there are illegal or unethical practices, find them and expose them. These claims, made by a plaintiff in a lawsuit, strike me as similar to the email scandal in climate change years ago. Out of context people can write any story they'd like. And just like there, whether or not these specific people are behaving improperly it doesn't change facts. Currently there is no identified link between glyphosate and cancer.

That is the problem. If you use the US system and I have to prove, that it cause cancer it is pretty nice for the company to use tactics like that. In the European system you have to prove that it is save, so it changes the game and that is why a lot of products are not legal in Europe.

So that's how you justify anti-science then.

At which point did GMO become the same thing as all of science?

Unless he spends his whole time in his field with full body protection he's bound to get "contaminated" one way or another. With they amount they probably spray the whole fields and surrounding area is probably contaminated by glyphosate.

It is everywhere, even in your blood and urine and it was also found in breast milk. But people are willing to defend that as well and will tell you, that it is no problem. So it is up to you in the end.

 

[KHarvey16]

That is the problem. If you use the US system and I have to prove, that it cause cancer it is pretty nice for the company to use tactics like that. In the European system you have to prove that it is save, so it changes the game and that is why a lot of products are not legal in Europe.

Read the article I linked to earlier to see how and why one agency listed glyphosate as they did with regard to possibilities. There is no actual cancer link.

At which point did GMO become the same thing as all of science?

Being anti-GMO in general is being anti-science, just as being anti-climate change or anti-vaccination is. You have to ignore scientific principles and rely on ignorance and "gut feelings."

 

[Trokil]

Read the article I linked to earlier to see how and why one agency listed glyphosate as they did with regard to possibilities. There is no actual cancer link.

Just about studies in this field. Again why even risking that, if there is no problem at all?

Being anti-GMO in general is being anti-science, just as being anti-climate change or anti-vaccination is. You have to ignore scientific principles and rely on ignorance and "gut feelings."

Look at this article

Written by a scientist about Golden Rice and how it falls short. Based on a study.

You can be critical towards GMO based on science. I know it is hard to understand, but there are actually more good reasons to support organic farming as a solution for the future all based on science as well.

 

[Operations]

Oh boy, this will only embolden the anti-GMO critics. Thiis reminds me of that email scandal regarding climate change.

 

[Deleted member 80556]

Ah damn, I was writing with some friends an article on Roundup's toxicity. Gonna have to wait to see which articles are retracted.

 

[KHarvey16]

Just about studies in this field. Again why even risking that, if there is no problem at all?



Look at this article

Written by a scientist about Golden Rice and how it falls short. Based on a study.

You can be critical towards GMO based on science. I know it is hard to understand, but there are actually more good reasons to support organic farming as a solution for the future all based on science as well.

Suggesting golden rice might not solve world hunger isn't anti-GMO. Saying that since it won't stop world hunger we can ban it or there is a problem or GMO is bad is anti-science.

 

[devilhawk]

For some reason there is a Monsanto defense force on GAF, equating it with GMOs at large and claiming that GMOs in their current commercial use somehow save lives, when they just promote the use of awful herbicides.
In countries where Monsanto GMOs were outlawed we have similar agricultural performance with lower pesticide use. Fuck, here in the EU we have the Common Agricultural Policy constantly subsidizing farmers NOT to grow produce to prevent the huge surpluses they would otherwise have.
Besides, there's always the argument of becoming the white saviors that bring Africa and the poor Asian countries from their low agricultural productions and famines and whatnot, and it never worked, and it's always local research what does the trick.
It's just a buch of frankly evil companies (The only ones that can afford research) trying to fuck up the agricultural market to the interest of their profits.

The US has had crop rotation programs since the dustbowl days, if not longer....

 

[Kinyou]

The names of outside scientists could be listed on the publication, “but we would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to speak,” according to the e-mail, which goes to on say that’s how Monsanto handled the 2000 study

Yes, I'm sure this was just done to keep the costs down.

 

[Trokil]

Suggesting golden rice might not solve world hunger isn't anti-GMO. Saying that since it won't stop world hunger we can ban it or there is a problem or GMO is bad is anti-science.

GMO in its actual use is bad. Because it adds to the environmental problems we already have, thanks to food production. There is always this straw man, that GMO can go beyond the conventional production, we are using now. But there is pretty much no research in that field, because there is no money to be made. Golden Rice was always the poster boy for that, but as it comes more obvious, that it will probably not work, there is nothing left. Just the idea, that producing more food in the western world would be a good thing. We already throw away up to 50% of our food, which is also adding to climate change.

According to climate science, we would have to do something now, to reduce climate change, which also includes food production. Organic farming is proven to be more effective, but somehow we should rather wait for the GMO industry to present a solution instead of acting now. So somehow supporting the solution of local organic farmers to fight climate change is anti science, even if it is recommended by scientists. And rather than accepting this as a different solution GMO supporters rather claim that organic farming would never be able to feed the planet or is evil or not even real, which is all actually proven to be wrong; again by science.

 

[Madness]

Suggesting golden rice might not solve world hunger isn't anti-GMO. Saying that since it won't stop world hunger we can ban it or there is a problem or GMO is bad is anti-science.

Any reason why you're shilling so hard for Monsanto or just playing devil's advocate? Genuinely curious. I am not anti-GMO, but I have heard enough about their practices worldwide and their legal behaviors and their 'shadiness' to know that they aren't as an upstanding company as you want them to be and how everything is alleged and that people always have it out for them.

 

[CrocMother]

That's not shown here, and it's only sort of alleged. It's a cynical attempt at tricking ignorant people. These lawyers want people on their side and plenty are falling for it.

The one trying to trick ignorant people is you.

 

[KHarvey16]

GMO in its actual use is bad. Because it adds to the environmental problems we already have, thanks to food production. There is always this straw man, that GMO can go beyond the conventional production, we are using now. But there is pretty much no research in that field, because there is no money to be made. Golden Rice was always the poster boy for that, but as it comes more obvious, that it will probably not work, there is nothing left. Just the idea, that producing more food in the western world would be a good thing. We already throw away up to 50% of our food, which is adding to climate change.

According to climate science, we would have to do something now, to reduce climate change, which also includes food production. Organic farming is proven to be more effective, but somehow we should rather wait for the GMO industry to present a solution instead of acting now. So somehow supporting the solution of local organic farmers to fight climate change is anti science, even if it is recommended by scientists. And rather than accepting this as a different solution GMO supporters rather claim that organic farming would never be able to feed the planet or is evil or not even real, which is all actually proven to be wrong; again by science.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. Why do you have to be against GMO if you're for organic farming, or vice-versa? They have their places.

Any reason why you're shilling so hard for Monsanto or just playing devil's advocate? Genuinely curious. I am not anti-GMO, but I have heard enough about their practices worldwide and their legal behaviors and their 'shadiness' to know that they aren't as an upstanding company as you want them to be and how everything is alleged and that people always have it out for them.

I'm not shilling anything. The "shadiness" and "legal behaviors" you've heard about are almost entirely bullshit and there are plenty of us here who try to point that out.

This "shilling, defense force herp derp" nonsense is infuriatingly childish and ignorant.

The one trying to trick ignorant people is you.

Do you somehow forget how badly you do in every single GMO thread? Because I don't.

 

[Trokil]

I have no idea what you're talking about here. Why do you have to be against GMO if you're for organic farming, or vice-versa? They have their places.

Well, that would be new. Every time there is something about organic farming, people call it anti science or a way to ignore "real" science. People make up the most mind blowing stuff when it comes to organic farming.

But if you accept it as a different solution, I have no problem with that. So you will support your solution and I will favor mine.

 

[Pomerlaw]

Some people will see this as a proof their anti-science bullshit is real.

If Monsanto fucked up they need to be prosecuted.

I still believe GMOs are and will be useful.

 

[akira28]

I'd be willing to genetically modify myself before I trusted Monsanto to do it to my food for me.

Now if another company were to pop up that didn't immediately raise my "this dude is a motherfucker" alarms, I might be more willing to consider. We're all eating GMO already if we eat snack foods. But that doesn't mean I have any type of goodwill towards companies like Monsanto, when news like this pops up.

 

[Pomerlaw]

Organic farming is proven to be more effective, but somehow we should rather wait for the GMO industry to present a solution instead of acting now.

Can you provide me some evidence of this? Thanks

 

[Xe4]

Yeah, seeing as a ton of "news stories" have sad in the past that Monsanto is hiding the cancer risk of Glyphosate, I'll have to do some more digging into this. My gut right now tells me this is a bunch of nothing sauce, just as 99% of anti-GMO stories have been in the past.

 

[Trokil]

Can you provide me some evidence of this? Thanks

Well, according to the FAO

http://www.fao.org/organicag/oa-specialfeatures/oa-climatechange/en/

or to several studies mentioned in this article

http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...ld-as-global-warming-takes-hold-a6872501.html

But it is climate change that may give organic farming the edge. As the new research underlines, ”organically managed farms have frequently been shown to produce higher yields than their conventional counterparts" during droughts, because the manures they use retain moisture in the soil. And severely dry conditions ”are expected to increase with climate change in many areas".

There are several aspects also mentioned in this article. Also the point about developing countries.

Organic techniques, moreover, are even more effective in developing countries, where most farmers cannot afford to buy much artificial fertiliser or pesticide. One UN report which looked at 114 projects, involving nearly two million African farms found that they more than doubled yields.

Or check this article
https://thinkprogress.org/with-clim...ventional-agriculture-f5290c559ca0#.4v98z4jlb

 

[Seiryoden]

It's possible to believe in the vital importance of GMOs to humanity's future and despise Monsanto's shitty practices in the same way that it's possible to believe in the vital importance of nuclear power, yet not trust TEPCO as far as you could throw them. Monsanto flacks on this board seem to have a hard time understanding this.

 

[KHarvey16]

It's possible to believe in the vital importance of GMOs to humanity's future and despise Monsanto's shitty practices in the same way that it's possible to believe in the vital importance of nuclear power, yet not trust TEPCO as far as you could throw them. Monsanto flacks on this board seem to have a hard time understanding this.

The issue is when that distrust of Monsanto is based entirely on myths like suing farmers for seeds that blow in the wind or farmers who commit suicide or terminator seeds and on and on.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

The full Monsanto statement.
http://monsantoblog.com/2017/03/14/monsanto_did_not_ghostwrite_glyphosate_paper/

 

[Easy_D]

That's not shown here, and it's only sort of alleged. It's a cynical attempt at tricking ignorant people. These lawyers want people on their side and plenty are falling for it.

Oh I didn't mean to imply Monsanto was one of the "good guys" so to speak, just saying that there needs to be some regulation in place regarding shit like this. Tricking people like this is not cool at all, especially when dealing with negative health effects. Unless I misunderstood your post?

Edit: Oh you're saying Monsanto didn't ghost write this at all and people are getting tricked into believing that is the case?

 

[CrocMother]

The issue is when that distrust of Monsanto is based entirely on myths like suing farmers for seeds that blow in the wind or farmers who commit suicide or terminator seeds and on and on.

Did you not even read the damn thread you're posting in?

If you're actually pro-GMO (which I am) you should be anti-Monsanto. They are completely destroying the public's trust in science by constantly doing shady shit. I lived in Hawaii for a bit and their land practices there are atrocious. Their experimental pesticides get carried downstream and destroy other people's farms and they don't give a fuck because nobody dares challenge them in court.

You either work for them or are some sort of corporate zealot because you are in every thread about them like a fly on shit.