- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Stung by paying billions of dollars for settlements and trials, chemical giant Bayer has been lobbying lawmakers in three states to pass bills providing it a legal shield from lawsuits that claim its popular weedkiller Roundup causes cancer.
Nearly identical bills introduced in Iowa, Missouri and Idaho this year — with wording supplied by Bayer — would protect pesticide companies from claims they failed to warn that their product causes cancer, if their labels otherwise complied with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s regulations.
But legal experts warn the legislation could have broader consequences — extending to any product liability claim or, in Iowa’s case, providing immunity from lawsuits of any kind. Critics say it could spread nationwide.
I don’t know whether or not Roundup caused cancer. From what I understand as a layperson, there are contradicting studies on the matter.
However, I do know this- more CO2 means that we don’t just get global warming, but “global greening” as plants thrive in an atmosphere with increased CO2. That sounds great, right? High crop yields! The only problem is that weeds will also thrive. So we need to find a safe herbicidal solution and we need to find it ASAP.
It’s probably safe to assume the studies saying it doesn’t were bought and paid for by Bayer and are shitty studies.
Big Tobaco. Big Oil. Social media.
The problem is, that the studies on glyphosat are way too small. As far as I know it is not particularly cancerous. That is other weed killers are worse. But Monsanto who did these studies and Bayer who bought Monsanto and miscalculated the risks; they did a poor job with these studies, which caused this massive confusion and are therefore largely to blame themselves for the disaster.
Here is a good video on the topic. It’s in German, though: https://youtu.be/2K0TAphTfaI?si=rXimwbUfEY51fSdq
This btw. is how it works. You have a product you want to bring to the market, so you have to prove it’s safe. It’s the regulator’s job to decided if the provided evidence is enough.
You absolutely do not need to prove something is safe to bring it to market in the US. You just have to show that it isn’t unreasonably dangerous.
Yeah, there are two basic approaches to safety: evidence of harm and evidence of safety. Evidence of safety is the higher standard (e.g. broad long-term independent studies). Evidence of harm is a low standard (e.g. small studies, short-term studies). Guess which one is used for herbicides, pesticides, food, …
I honestly do not know enough to say because it absolutely is not my field. I just know that a safe herbicidal solution needs to be found or crops will get overwhelmed by weeds. If that can’t be Roundup because it causes cancer, that’s understandable. But it has to be something.
I’m not a scientist, but roundup is a core product for a massive mega-corp.
They absolutely would have positive studies published to support their profits. I don’t know if round up causes cancer. But I do know that’s one of their best tools to avoid regulation. And mega corps like that do it all the freaking time.
Sure, but just because a megacorp makes something doesn’t necessarily mean it’s dangerous. Remember, that was an argument people were making about COVID vaccines. I am absolutely willing to grant that it could be very, very dangerous. As I said, I don’t know enough about it. But I don’t think the simple fact that Bayer makes it is really enough of an argument to prove that it’s carcinogenic.
And obviously, I am not arguing against regulation. Quite the opposite. Hence my emphasizing a safe herbicide.
Roundup has been studied a lot by many different people include universities and is almost always found harmless. It has been around for decades and is in very widespread use (though in tiny amounts it is mixed with a lot of water as used), so many different people have studied it. Some are Bayer, but most are not.
Glyphosate causes far more than cancer. It inhibits absorption of vital nutrients that prevent a host of diseases.
As far as plants thriving in in increased CO2 goes, that is only where conditions permit plant growth but climate change is making huge parts of the world either too hot, too dry or too wet for trees and crops to grow, much less produce food.
That second paragraph needs some context. There is a limit to how much more CO2 helps plant growth and where we are heading is definitely past that limit. Our crop yields will also be less nutrient dense. More CO2 leading to warming will be creating more sought conditions overall and more torrential rains which are both bad for crops. You are right that weeds will also thrive and your point overall that we need a safe herbicide is correct. In fact many of them do much better with more CO2 than our crops do. But the higher crop yield claim that many on the right mention is in an isolated bubble and won’t happen in reality. More water can be good for many plants but monsoons are bad for most.
Fair enough on the crop yield. I was more talking about what people would assume about global greening.
herbicide sucks. it’s always going to be an arms race. like everything else, violently forcing a monoculture does not build resilient systems, it only sets us up for more violence. we must learn to take our hands mostly off the ecosystems, and tread lightly, harvesting only what we need.
deleted by creator
https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/