Re: What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?

Page 7 of 10  
snipped-for-privacy@netscapeSPAM-ME-NOT.net (paghat) wrote in

So, what you're saying is that they try to keep up the sales so they are big enough later on to pay for the claims. That could be true, but remember, these are not claims about the damages-caused, but about knowing about the facts and knowingly lie about them. If that can be proved any judge will kill their business.
If the situation is as serious as you say it surely musn't be that hard to prove a case. There are lots of ngo's that have enough money to finance a research like that and after convincing evidence is shown it only remains to be proven that MS knew about it.
I find it hard to believe that if MS _knows_ that this stuff is as dangerous as you claim it to be that they would go on and make these false statements. So, since they keep doing it, they do not know for sure it is that dangerous. And if they don't _know it, how can _you be so sure.
Btw, I'm certainly not a friend of MS, far from it, and I disaprove strongly of their business practice of forcing gentech on the rest of the world, but if we can not prove a case as 'clear' as this one, then who is to blame for the consequences? I think MS is a technocrats business plan, but that is just one part of our society. If ppl disagree massively, and the case is as clear as you say, than surely it must me easy to stop them.
Ursa..
--
==================================
Ursa (Major)/ mailto: snipped-for-privacy@iname.com \ *-*-* *
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Or to pay their attorneys so that they never have to pay the claims. Even when they settle out of court, they rarely pay off the settlements. So the real point is that they are so heavily invested in RoundUp they can't let go of it no matter how bad it is, they must use every trick in the book to keep it legal. It directly impacts the nature of the crop seed they're also producing. By providing glyphosate-tolerant grains that grow up to be sterile crops, they trap famers into an eternal cycle of always having to buy new seed, plus they can sell them increasing tons of glyphosate to slather all around the crops. Monsanto will make billions & billions off this selling toxins to use on crops that are genetically modified to be tolerant of toxins. This is already far outpacing what they're making by feeding us harmful bovine growth hormones in milk, as they can't actually control the flow of the milk the way they can control seed crops by altering them to never produce fertile seeds. They could have all their products banned & still be a super-giant so long as they can keep glyphosate legal. So they can afford a few million for the attorneys when billions are the reward.

Certainly when the lies add up to thirty years worth & the evidence that they are lying is finally too great & definitive for them to lie any longer, their usual excuse is "we really didn't know." But that assumes there are no actual scientists in the company. They have plenty of scientists. So they know.
-paggers

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Apparently you have not kept up. Monsanto is on an endless loop of lawsuits being posed upon them, for any number of reasons.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think this is an succinct and definitive rebuttal to the hysterical dogmatism of Paghat and other unthinking haters of big business.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Aaaa, stop with the hysterics Davy. If hate were an issue, it would not be unthinking. Some things spring from love of the environment and very careful thoughtfulness, but I can see that sort of thing could be too alien for a few to imagine.
That you suppose it is shows how little you think. The same sorts of gullible dolts who'd trust murderers as their personal bodyguards, rapists to babysit their kids, or thieves to guard their money WOULD trust that the same people who lied about agent orange for 40 years are tellin' ya the truth now about glyphosate. Even if it requires overlooking one hell of a lot of uninvested independent evidence to the contrary to see only the known-liars-generated proof of safety. And the depth of that gullibility is reflected in said dolts' continued "faith" even after Monsanto is caught time & again faking data. To praise Billo whose primary citation was from a chap caught promoting data he already knew had been faked shows how little you are thinking. It takes only the simplest observational skills to notice Monsanto's persistent habit of lying, which wouldn't be necessary if their product was even half as safe as they pretend.
But even if as a sophist exercise one pretended Billo's "succinct and definitive" statement were in limited cases somewhat true, this also supposes people pig-ignorant enough to trust known liars as cited by Billo must in THIS case finally be telling the truth (while non-advocates of Monsanto who're not financially invested in the lies become the dogmatic hysterics), well, surely even you can see that such pig-ignorant people as gullible as all that will never be using such products "properly." That's the equivalent of the word "maybe" or "might" -- "IF used properly" is the term tossed in for continued deniability, as even if it is only because you used your left hand, the purveyors of lies & falsified data can always find something you did improperly so that your injury is never going to be the fault of their products. "If used properly" isn't even as safe as "if used as directed." As directed, they could still be culpable. But if "properly" means not at all, they're never culpable, your own ignorance will always be at fault -- just as Philip Morris first told you it was safe to smoke, then claimed nobody was ignorant enough to not realize they were killing themselves so the company's not at fault.
Anyone who DID think would not for long puzzle over why Monsanto mined the tobacco industry's biggest "scientific" proof-finders & hired those very same people onto teams whose only goal is to "prove" glyphosate & GM crops are, like smoking, totally safe when used properly. That you don't even raise a brow over the selection of Philip Morris data-generators to provide the same sorts of "proofs" for Monsanto suggests you're within the target audience for the product -- dumb enough to believe anything the boss tells you, & slather around the place any ol' poison they say's great to use -- & maybe something good does come of it if the gene pool is cleaned up a little bit.
-paghat the ratgirl
--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Indeed. If paghat applied her rationale to everything, she could not eat anything. The vaunted study that showed negative effects of chronic exposure were at over 1000 mg/kg/day.
If that were asprin, that would mean taking over 200 aspirin pills a day for a year. Not, of course, that you would live for a year that way. Obviously, that means that taking two aspirins three times a day for a week will kill you, right?
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Aha! So you're STILL advocating the "safe as salt" idea that glyphosate should be EATEN. I beg you to do so. Keep the laptop bagged and ready, so you can report back to us on what a good idea THAT was from your hospital bed.
-paggers
--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I'm sure there aren't many who believe Billo when he advocates using glyphosate as table salt, nor nearly as apt to believe safety statistics generated by people hired away from Philip Morris to whitewash glyphosate as tidily as they previously whitewashed cigarettes. I'm also sure not many people would trust any statement generated by Monsanto researchers, once aprised that of their long & continuing history of lying & falsifying data, their thirty years of insisting agent orange was as safe as glyphosate is now being only the tip of the iceberg. The more recent issue of their claiming bovine growth hormone does not remain in the milk you & I buy was based on data revealed to be falsified.
But even knowing nothing Monsanto claims can be relied upon, and at best it is wrong, dangerous, & unnecessary to use RoundUp, people use it anyway, a mite guiltily, perhaps furtively, but the endless need to weed the garden wears some gardeners down, and maybe just this once, just this tenth, just this spot, just this weed -- and it's just impossible to set foot in a garden store without being tempted by toxins that promise easy shortcuts for this or that.
Would it change anything to know that Monsanto is politically active against free speech? Because they are.
By means of lobbying & paying huge amounts of money to Congress, Monsanto was handed a special law that made it illegal to mention on organic products such as milk or corn flour that it is completely free of genetically engineered products. Armed with this special legistlation written specifically for Monsanto, so that stating mere facts is criminalized, they have gotten the government involved in suppressing factual labeling. They simultaneously going into civil courts to sue organic farmers out of business -- because even if Monsanto loses, they can better afford the legal costs -- whenever any advertisement or newspaper editorial or commentary of any kind implies even indirectly that genetically engineered products or bovine growth hormones (major Monsanto products) might be less than ideal. The goal is to stop farmers from even mentioning if their products are free of GM products, and using as their premise the idea that even to mention its lack implies that its inclusion is harmful therefore they have a civil suit for slandering their products. They really don't care if they're wrong or right; they just want to stop the discussion and honest labeling; they want to stop organic farming because their profits hinge on the success of chemical-dependant farmers; & they want the public to be as unaware as they can possibly keep people.
So even if Billo weren't being absurdist when stating glyphosate could be safely used as table salt and good science about glyphosate can be had from the same hired guns who previously whitewashed tobacco... even if that were in some alternate universe actually plausible, even then, we should not support a company that is against free speech.
Fox TV, lately trying to sue Al Frank out of his constitutional write to satirize Fox TV, is also joining forces with Monsanto to stop free speech about genetically engineered products: http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/fox.html And you thought only in their trashiest "news" editorials were they far-right Republicans.
Here's a legal expert's take on Monsanto's ongoing assaults on free speech: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20030814_jackson.html The important statement to take out of this is: THE MONSANTO SUIT UNDERMINES FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. Period.
I remember organic farmers being sued by Monsanto as long ago as fifteen years, when I was a volunteer at the Food Coop and first became aware of their more sinister tactics in trying to stop organic farming by whatever tactics they could concoct. So this is nothing new, andtheir current attempts to drown a small New England dairy in legal costs for selling growth-hormone-free milk is merely the latest of hundreds of campaigns Monsanto has undertaken. It's about time one of these disgusting acts against small, honest farmers became a cause celebre, & Monsanto seems finally to have awakened the wrath of civil rights attorneys.
If I don't want bovine growth hormones in my milk, I should be permitted the right to select an organic product that has none. In almost any other country this information is available, and some countries have even banned these Frankenfood hormone-tainted products for human consumption. But in the good ol' USA, Monsanto was able to pay Congress to back their desire to criminalize merely stating genetically engineered products and hormones are not used. Monsanto's claim that the growth hormone is safer than table salt is beside the point. The claim is itself highly questionable & they Monsanto was caught (again!) in the this past year falsifying data about this hormone. But even if it WAS completely safe, I should be permitted the right to select products without growth hormone if I want, whether from paranoia, over caution, because I hope for better treatment of cows than occurs on chmically-boosted factory lines, or because my religion doesn't permit it. By Monsanto's reasoning it could become illegal to mention a product lacks PORK because to mention it contains pork implies it is unhealthful. I sure as hell don't want to eat pork because the pork industry got the kind of special laws Monsanto has been given that would deny me the right to know what has pork in it, with the pork industry suing kosher restaurants the way Monsanto is suing organic farmers.
Make no mistake. These people are not satisfied merely to poison you for profits. They want to take away your civil rights as well. The people who lied about Agent Orange will lie about everything. And there's nothing liars hate more than the truth, as the light of truth always shows them out to have none on their side.
-paghat the ratgirl
--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This is, of course, untrue. You would be more convincing, paghat, if you did not start off your screeds with an untruth, and go downhill from there.
My claim was, and is, that Roundup is safe if used as directed. You have not been able to provide a peer-reviewed scientific article that even claims this is untrue. You have instead misstated what the articles you *did* reference said.
I await a peer-reviewed scientific article that states that Roundup is dangerous when used as directed. Go for it.
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Better go back & read your own posts. It was your FIRST shot out the gate repeating Monsanto's outdated table salt canard. It's what happens when you take your perspective solely from Monsanto -- you end up repeating their stupidist tacts.
I've tried not to regard you as a liar but only as confused and self-deluded, but as you descend into this sort of thing, I may have to rethink the respect I've tried to hold for you even while thinking you wildly silly in your devotion to Monsanto. But when you call others liars who are being truthful, I must rethink much of what you've been pulling. Now I'm thinking that when posted early in this thread that glyphosate was perfectly safe except at levels that would make even table salt a danger, your statement was not unintentionally stupid beyond belief, but intentional fabrication, & when it came off as silly as it was, you now claim I lied to even notice.
Anyone who wishes to do a groups.google.com search using the terms Glyphosate plus Salt will find the "no more dangerous than table salt" made scores of times by people getting the entirety of their perspective from Monsanto's PR efforts. And the most recent to repeat that hoary fable will come back Billo -- who I'm sorry to see has resorted to flaming over arguing. Billo riddling his commentaries with ad hominum can be creative, but less soin projecting his worst faults onto someone who doesn't actually share that Monsanto -- &now apparently Billo -- legacy of fabrication
-paggers
--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This is untrue. Please provide the quote. You cannot.
My challenge stande. Please provide a single publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that purports to show that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed.
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Again... you are shooting yourself in the foot...
"Safe as table salt" is NOT the same as "using glyphosate as table salt".
At this point, you are the only one stating that people should be using this stuff instead of salt.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I never made that claim, and I continue to challenge you to provide a reference to it. You have abandoned any attempt to use science, and now you are merely lying about what I wrote in a vain attempt at a personal attack.

I did not, of course, write it. You could easily prove me wrong by providing the quote, but you cannot.
Why do you persist in this lie?
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
So it isn't a triple-dark-fudge brownie with a scoop of vanilla bean icecream on

See also: http://tinyurl.com/kdgn
Saying that table salt is deadly is nowhere near the same as saying "safe as table salt", nor even "using glyphosate as table salt."
Paghat's argument is not helped when she alters what was said in order to support her statements.
--
gekko

A person who smiles in the face of adversity... probably has a scapegoat.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

She didn't make the quote. It was Monsanto's ad campaign that did. "Roundup, Safe as Table Salt..." It was mandated by the court to be removed immediately from their ad. New York State vs Monsanto.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Interestingly, a google search on 'New York State vs Monsanto' came up with nothing.
Ditto New York State v Monsanto
New York vs Monsanto
New York v Monsanto
NY vs Monsanto
NY v Monsanto
opined:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Perhaps you need to take lessons. Send me your Visa info & I'll charge you a hundred smackeroos if you need some very elementary instruction. For when I tried it, I got HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS of hits. Here's just the first couple items from the first page alone: Monsanto fined, agrees to change their labeling & stop lying in their ads: http://www.organicconsumers.org/monad.html but of coruse two years later they were sued again by NY Attorney General. Here's an eye-popping criminal record for Monsanto: http://www.greenpeaceusa.org/media/publications/criminaltext.htm including but by no means restricted to the successful NY Attorney General first successful action, but it needs updating, Monsanto's most recent criminal record has doubled since this page was prepared -- they're getting worse as time goes by! Presently there's a similar yet another suit (filed by NY this past April) against Dow which exactly like Monsanto reneged on their earlier settlement in which they agreed not to lie so agregiously to the public about pesticides. You might have to use news.google to find some of those stories, but I don't want to give away too much of the lesson for free.
-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@bunabayashi.com says... :) Interestingly, a google search on 'New York State vs Monsanto' came up with :) nothing. :) :) Ditto New York State v Monsanto :) New York vs Monsanto :) New York v Monsanto :) NY vs Monsanto :) NY v Monsanto :) In the late 80's early 90's most states adopted in their governing bodies of Pest control services/products that the wording in advertising or solicitation, even if true, can not contain wording that gives the suggestion of pesticides being benign products. Part of Texas' is
(5)    a statement directly or indirectly implying that a pesticide or device is recommended or endorsed by any agency of the state or federal government, such as "EPA Registered" or "EPA Approved"; (6)    a true statement used in such a way as to give a false or misleading impression to the consumer; (7)    disclaimers or claims which negate or detract from labeling statements on the product label; (8)    claims as to the safety of a pesticide or its ingredients, including statements such as "free from risk or harm", "safe", "non-injurious", "harmless", or "non-toxic to humans and pets", with or without such a qualifying phrase as "when used as directed"; (9)    claims that the pesticides and other substances the licensee applies, the application of such pesticides, or any other use of them are comparatively safe or free from risk or harm; (10)    claims that the pesticides and other substances the licensee applies, the applications of such pesticides, or any other use of them, are "environmentally friendly", "environmentally sound", environmentally aware", environmentally responsible", pollution approved", "contain all natural ingredients", "organic", or are "among the least toxic chemicals known"; and (11)    claims regarding its goods and services for which the licensee does not have substantiation at the time such claim is made.
I have never seen the New York suit but I believe it was not directed at Monsanto alone, but Monsanto was part of the group the listed in the suit. I have heard the "gotcha" part of the suit was the equivalent to #11. No long term environmental study of table salt has been done in the environment, so how could they know if long term it was safer?
--

http://home.comcast.net/~larflu/owl1.jpg

Lar. (to e-mail, get rid of the BUGS!!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 23:22:44 GMT, "David J Bockman"

Yeah sure David sorta like nothing came up on using arsenic treated lumber for planters and greenhouses!!!
"Acts of creation are ordinarily reserved for gods and poets, but humbler folk may circumvent this restriction if they know how. To plant a pine, for example, one need be neither god nor poet; one need only own a good shovel. By virtue of this curious loophole in the rules, any clodhopper may say: Let there be a tree--and there will be one"
Aldo Leopold
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
No, plenty came up on that tommy, including the EPA's published finding that cca treated lumber is safe.
Dave
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.