| > this comment is like the Triple Crown of dumb GMO arguments Regarding points 1-5, did you miss that I said it was an honest question? I clearly did not say that it was an argument. I asked precisely because I knew there might be facts I am not aware of. Thank you for filling me in. > 6. All of this drastically misses the point of glyphosate, which is that it's a very simple, broad-spectrum herbicide that is better understood than the selective herbicides farmers use for non-GMO crops. Glyphosate targets a metabolic pathway present in plants and fungus that isn't present in animals. That's not true of selective (grass- or broadleaf- targeting) herbicides. "Conventional" weed control programs are known to be dangerous to humans, rather than the targets of FUD campaigns. And this addresses the concern that it may be a carcinogen... how? > 7. If you're "inclined to agree with IARC" about glyphosate, unlike a significant number of scientists, I have bad news for you about cooking food --- meat or vegetables --- which is also 2A-carcinogenic. And that also is not an argument for rejecting 2A carcinogenic labeling on glyphosate. So I ask again: This addresses the concern that it may be a carcinogen... how? Well, I ask rhetorically. Apparently an answer will not be given, only misdirection. Sorry but I don't have the energy to debate with people who won't read carefully or provide answers that are not misdirecting. You may have the last word. Good day and God bless. P.S., "a significant number of scientists" is a fallacious appeal to authority. A significant number of scientists is not the same as having a majority of consensus. |