It tastes like the inside of an Erlenmeyer flask?

originally posted by Otto Nieminen:
"I do find your analogy between public tolerance for carcinogenic additives in food without labelling and an individual's informed choice to drink, smoke or even drink Roundup logically objectionable though."

Why? IARC has a clear system for classifying carcinogens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinogen#International_Agency_for_Research_on_Cancer). If we can make the choice to drink a known carcinogen (alcohol) and most of us can do so in a safe way, why should we worry about traces (not additives) that are far below any known level that causes problems? Alcohol is in Group 1 on IARC's list and they put glyphosate in group 2A. And they're the only ones I know of who put glyphosate in such a group.
Click to expand...

If you can't see the difference between a choice made in awareness of the facts and state tolerance of an undisclosed risk to public health (your analogy only works at all if you stipulate the risk), then I doubt I could say anything further to persuade you. Even if you merely mean that I, knowing the relative risks of both, tolerating one, should tolerate the other in what I ingest (a pointlessly reduced argument since it has no bearing on public policy, which is what we are discussing), the analogy is still a lousy one since the personal benefits I get from drinking wine, thus giving me a motive for tolerating the risk, far outweigh any benefit I might get from allowing a large corporation to use a herbicide in a widespread way.
 
But the levels of residue in our food are tiny. And alcohol is a very real risk. So I don't get it? Is your argument that everyone knows the risks of alcohol whereas glyphosate isn't a well known chemical? So the risks of one are supposed to be public knowledge but the practically non-existent risks of the other aren't? And that's why we need to warn people of the non-existent risk?
 
originally posted by Otto Nieminen:
But the levels of residue in our food are tiny. And alcohol is a very real risk. So I don't get it? Is your argument that everyone knows the risks of alcohol whereas glyphosate isn't a well known chemical? So the risks of one are supposed to be public knowledge but the practically non-existent risks of the other aren't? And that's why we need to warn people of the non-existent risk?
Click to expand...
Look at the part where I say that your analogy only matters if you stipulate the risk. If you don't, there's no analogy at all. You are just reassuring your first claim that there is no risk and doing it in a logically irrelevant way.
 
And all other reviews of the material state that the risk of cancer is negligible. So is your argument now that all the others should be ignored and the single outlier cited by Bittman should be trusted instead?
 
originally posted by Otto Nieminen:
And all other reviews of the material state that the risk of cancer is negligible. So is your argument now that all the others should be ignored and the single outlier cited by Bittman should be trusted instead?
Click to expand...

My argument remains what it was: your analogy is lousy. I have no position on Bittman's claim, having insufficient science. I do have an experiential position on Roundup, having used it in my yard in France. It is scarily effective on weeds and seems to me almost surely toxic in some way or other. We avoid it now. I make no scientific claims.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by Otto Nieminen:
And all other reviews of the material state that the risk of cancer is negligible. So is your argument now that all the others should be ignored and the single outlier cited by Bittman should be trusted instead?
Click to expand...

My argument remains what it was: your analogy is lousy. I have no position on Bittman's claim, having insufficient science. I do have an experiential position on Roundup, having used it in my yard in France. It is scarily effective on weeds and seems to me almost surely toxic in some way or other. We avoid it now. I make no scientific claims.
Click to expand...

Glyphosate is certainly toxic to plants and bacteria. Because it is an inhibitor of an enzyme that higher organisms don't possess, there is no a priori reason to think that it should present toxicity issues for humans or animals. The only conclusive way to tell, however, is to do a detailed toxicity study. Those that have been done support the idea that glyphosate is among the least toxic herbicides ever developed. When one considers that the alternatives (2,4-D, atrazine) have all been shown to have serious human health consequences, once should not be too quick to reject glyphosate if a herbicide is needed.

Mark Lipton
 
originally posted by MLipton:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by Otto Nieminen:
And all other reviews of the material state that the risk of cancer is negligible. So is your argument now that all the others should be ignored and the single outlier cited by Bittman should be trusted instead?
Click to expand...

My argument remains what it was: your analogy is lousy. I have no position on Bittman's claim, having insufficient science. I do have an experiential position on Roundup, having used it in my yard in France. It is scarily effective on weeds and seems to me almost surely toxic in some way or other. We avoid it now. I make no scientific claims.
Click to expand...

Glyphosate is certainly toxic to plants and bacteria. Because it is an inhibitor of an enzyme that higher organisms don't possess, there is no a priori reason to think that it should present toxicity issues for humans or animals. The only conclusive way to tell, however, is to do a detailed toxicity study. Those that have been done support the idea that glyphosate is among the least toxic herbicides ever developed. When one considers that the alternatives (2,4-D, atrazine) have all been shown to have serious human health consequences, once should not be too quick to reject glyphosate if a herbicide is needed.

Mark Lipton
Click to expand...

Rereading, I realize that I misled on why Roundup scared me a little. It wasn't that it did kill weeds (what you buy it for after all) but that there were warnings about contact to skin, eyes, nostrils, etc. and that some skin contact did cause me mild irritation. I am quite willing to accept that it doesn't cause cancer and won't be toxic, via agricultural products exposed to it. As a general rule, if given informative labels, I would avoid food exposed to herbicides as I might not GMO food, and this in full knowledge of the carginigenic effects of alcohol cited by Otto. The situations aren't remotely similar.
 
originally posted by Otto Nieminen:
Nathanael Johnson from Grist (left-leaning IIRC?)
Click to expand...
Grist itself is a publication with a green emphasis.

Nathanael Johnson is a recent staff addition and is drawing all kinds of perplexed looks from both sides. Apparently, his ultimate stance is that the pro-/con- GMO argument doesn't matter... which neither side wants to hear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top