
Europe still burns witches – if they’re named Monsanto - doener
https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/europe-still-burns-witches-%E2%80%94-if-they%E2%80%99re-named-monsanto
======
JohnGB
This article reads like a political agenda providing few verifiable facts, and
many broad, unsubstantiated claims. If one is going to make bold claims, they
should be substantiated by fact, not by other bold claims.

I am no expert on glyphosates, but that article has left me less than
convinced that they are "safe".

~~~
dotdi
I came here to write a very similar thing.

While activists exaggerate to persuade people it's not safe because it might
be carcinogenic, the author is on the other extreme: it's safe until proven
otherwise.

It also sports a fair share of whataboutism: "what about bacon, that's also
considered carcinogenic!?".

~~~
zaarn
I recall my chemist teacher repeating the age old phrase "the dosage makes the
poison" so often that I'm basically immune to anyone crying "X is poison".

It's all about "how much?" and "over which time period?" and "where did you
put it into your body?" to determine if something will kill you or cause
cancer.

~~~
redblacktree
I haven't yet had time to properly investigate, but I have heard that wheat
crops are sprayed liberally with glyphosate directly before harvest as a
desiccant to make harvesting easier. (perhaps also increasing yield, I don't
know) So the dose may be quite a bit higher than you'd generally expect.

Also note that glyphosate is Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) by the FDA,
which means that it can be used in any quantity. With that designation,
arguments about dosage carry less weight for me. If a regulatory agency were
concerned with dosages in final food products, I'd feel a lot more
comfortable.

~~~
zaarn
I live in Europe so things are different. As such the maximum dosage that is
allowed in food is 0.1mg per kg of body weight and per day.

Thusly my argument on dosages in final food products hold and I feel fairly
comfortable. I suggest either petitioning the FDA to introduce food safety
standards or moving to another country with food safety standards.

~~~
redblacktree
Moving is a rather drastic step. Instead, I buy USDA Organic wheat, which
doesn't allow the use of glyphosate.

------
pjmlp
We will gladly burn them in multiple fires, I like to eat healthy food,
without influence of greedy multinationals that even impose patent suits into
farmers.

------
yodsanklai
This article raises some valid points. If anything, it makes me want to learn
more on glyphosates and have an informed opinion. I'd like to hate Monsanto,
but for valid reasons! Many commenters here criticise the article without
providing any argument other than "you are brainwashed/paid by the lobbies".
Not the standard of argumentation one expect on HN!

------
Yaa101
Guess who is paid by Monsanto...

~~~
cholantesh
Good ol' shill gambit.

------
mcphage
> You can still burn the witch in Europe — if the witch is called Monsanto.

Wait, so Monsanto is a person, not a company? And they've been murdered by a
mob?

Oh, wait, no, just their product was licensed for 5 years instead of 15. Yeah,
I guess how that's similar to a mob grabbing women and murdering them by fire.

------
reacweb
Whatever the brainwash of lobbies, I am sure an herbicide can not be effective
and healthy at the same time.

~~~
j7ake
Any herbicide whether natural or artificial that prevents other organisms from
eating your crop cannot be effective and healthy at the same time. This
applies also for vegetables that are naturally resistant to pests (e.g.
Vegetable strains that are Much more bitter than the wild type ).

The solution is to not to have an expectation that vegetables should be free
of any insect or animal contact. But not everybody likes caterpillar bite
marks on their vegetables.

~~~
kuang_eleven
Herbicides aren't intended to keep animals from eating crops. That would be an
insecticide, in the case of insects. Herbicides are designed to kill plants,
and Glyphosate in particular really only does that.

~~~
j7ake
Thanks for the clarification i was not clear with my words

------
eesmith
"I don't want to over-hype it, but it felt a little like mob rule. You can
still burn the witch in Europe — if the witch is called Monsanto."

The author may not want to over-hype it, but successfully did so.

Using the same argument, the FDA ban is a witch-burning mob because of its ban
on sodium cyclamate, despite its approval in the vast majority of other
countries and despite the continued lack of evidence that it's a carcinogen.

------
singularity2001
What a sad piece of propaganda. If they want to white-wash poison, they should
try harder.

------
matt4077
The author is really not doing himself any favours with the comparisons.

Would anyone dispute that bacon and sun exposure are risk factors in cancer?
Contrary to his assertion, Australia also ran a pretty well-funded campaign
against sun exposure in the 80s and 90s.

The reasons why bacon and the sun aren't banned are simply that the former is
that eating bacon is a decision people can take individually, and banning it
would intrude on peoples' lives and culture much more strongly than banning a
pesticide. As for the sun, it is really hard to ban, and has been shown to
have benefits that counterweight the cancer risk.

Mocking the risk designation of "working as a hairdresser" is similarly hair-
raising: Hair-dressers handle all sorts of chemicals, such as colouring
agents. I wonder how easily the author could be convinced to expose himself to
the lifetime exposure of a typical hairdresser.

~~~
eviltandem
Literally everything you said could go both ways:

The reason glyphosate isn't banned is simply that the decision to use is it is
one people take individually, and banning it would intrude on people's lives
and culture - for argument sake I assume farmers also count as people.

As for glyphosate, it is really hard to ban, and has been shown to have
benefits the counterweight the cancer risk.

------
friedButter
Well, the real problem with burning witches was that they were actually Human!
I dont see whats the problem with a market illogically choosing to boycott a
product, if the market wants a less efficient solution, so be it!

------
fredley
The article mentions that Glyphosates are cancerous, but so is bacon, which
people eat in large amounts. But this is only a qualitative measure. How much
exposure are we getting? How much exposure gives an equivalent risk factor to
eating one portion of bacon a week? Lazy comparisons like this raise a red
flag for me. A scientific look at the harm caused by Glyphosates this is not.

~~~
stonewhite
It doesn't say Glyphosates are cancerous, it says the same international group
(IARC) considers them to be cancerous, even at a higher risk level.

Also the authority and integrity of IARC is at question in this article.

------
matt4077
Even if the author is right, and Monsanto is treated unfairly: It borders on
immoral to compare the plight of women who were burned alive to environmental
concerns hurting a multinational's ability to earn a profit.

I know it's used metaphorically, but it's just the wrong metaphor.

