"Mayayana" writes:

| I went directly to where everyone else that has background
| in the issue has gone. The wikipedia authors have undoubtedly fought
| out the exact wording of that section for years. What remains is full
| of attributions (cites). Any of which you are free to research
| yourself.
|

Which is what I did, as I explained. I went
to EPA and downloaded their PDF info file on
glyphosate -- the one that *you* referenced
in your posted quote. It's dated 1993.

You STILL have not established that a study in 1993
is wrong, or superceded by information from a better study.
What's wrong with a study from 1993?

It was a similar case to what you did in the
other thread, where you referenced a study
claiming 80% of people think DNA should be
banned from foods. It turned out that the study
was a sham defense of GMOs perpetrated by
a college in farm country.

That's your claim, and not relevant to this issue.

You not only hadn't
looked at the actual study. You also didn't
recognize it when I responded.

How the F do you know what I recognized?
I recognized that you are using 1993 as if
it somehow implies the study is flawed.
That's just wrong, so I had no reason to look
any more than I did.

In a humorous twist of irony it turned out that
study related to GMOs and I assumed you knew
that. I only realized afterward that you hadn't
actually seen the study and had no idea that you
were posting on-topic. That was just a coincidence.
Your only intention was apparently to make fun of
scientific ignorance.

Please try to stay on subject.

| Sorry, the issue of glyphosate came up and I commented
| directly on the issue raised.
|

Yes. More cherry picking.

Really, answering a question is cherry picking?
How does that work?

But you did, at one point,
make clear that you thought concern over GMOs
was unwarranted. You advanced the interesting
"scientific" theory that your personal health depends
on exercise and is unrelated to what you eat:

"I believe I preserve my health through activity,
not fear of what I eat."

Yes, unreasoning fear.

| 3) At the EPA's own site they make clear, as they
| always have, that they see their job as one of balanced
| assessment and action. They don't just decide whether
| something is poison and should therefore be banned.
| They weigh economic and other factors.
|
| And that's a problem how?
|

As the page explains, the EPA takes various factors
into consideration. For instance, the EPA issues guidelines
for "allowable" mercury exposure from tuna. In setting
that limit they'll take into consideration both research
and the tuna industry. Tuna catchers need to make
a living. People want to eat tuna. So the EPA will never
say, "Don't eat tuna. Period."

Not that I'm complaining about the EPA. They're better
than nothing. But nor would I base my own dietary
guidelines on EPA reports.

If you think the EPA only considers cost of remediation
you are completely wrong. If the amount of mercury in
Tuna was thought to be causing harm, Tuna would be banned.

The EPA does give some cautions:

http://www.epa.gov/mercury/advisories.htm

Fish Consumption Advice

To enjoy the benefits of eating fish while minimizing exposure to mercury, you should:

eat mainly types of fish low in mercury, and
limit your consumption of types of fish with typically higher levels of mercury.

Fish are important in a healthy diet. They are a lean, low-calorie
source of protein. However, some fish may contain methylmercury or other
harmful chemicals at sufficiently high levels to be a concern.

| 4) The referenced EPA fact sheet is *22* years old.
| Why, when glyphosate is so common in the food
| supply, has it not been looked at in 22 years? Could
| that possibly have anything to do with Monsanto's
| clout in gov't? Maybe not. But if one searches for
| 'monsanto revolving door' a lot of interesting links
| come up.
|
| Congratulations. More idiocy.
| You have been watching all this time and no further
| research has been done? How do you know that?

Hello?! That was the fact sheet that *you* linked
to! It was the reference (note 20) in your quote from
Wikipedia. Again you're not even looking at your own
references.

And you appear to be, and the best you come up with is
1993. What's the problem with a study from 1993?
Do you have a subsequent study that gives a different result?
You haven't posted it, so all I can conclude is that your
mind is already made up and you'll try any tactic to
try to confirm your beliefs.

If 1993 is the best you can come up with then I was fine
assuming that since the article was full of references
it wasn't somebody pulling information out of the air.

| So, from the right, we hear about how the Dems are trying
| to destroy business with over regulation, but your theory now is that
| the EPA is in cahoots with Monsanto (for at least 22 years).
|
Did you look at any revolving door links? Where
do you think gov't regulations come from? Just
today the NYT has an expose on how the company
that's been making faulty guardrails has responded
with a massive lobbying push. If Glyphosate is found
to be more toxic than expected, do you think Monsanto
will say, "That's OK. We don't need those billions of
dollars. We've got plenty of money now." ? Or might
they call up a few congressmen and start making
more donations? Do you want to bet your health on
your answer to that?

Like I said, unreasoning fear.

| Your counter arguments don't even make sense.
| Especially where you tell me I'm not on topic.
| My reply was obviously not addressing GMO.

Right. And GMOs are the topic. That's another
example of what I mean by cherry picking to avoid
further thought.

Still not making the slightest bit of sense.
The thread is about GMOs. Someone else made
comments about Roundup. I looked it up,
trimmed the post down to only the part I was replying to and replied
with a credible source.

Cherry picking? Not in the least.

(Are you a tuna nut, by any chance?

Tuna is a fish, not a nut.

I don't eat any kind of fish, I don't like the taste of fish.

Those of us criticizing GMOs are concerned about
exposure to toxins, among other things. You're putting
a lot of effort into rebutting that concern with various
data that you haven't actually looked at, yet you
also claim that you don't care about GMOs. And you
you regard concern about GMOs as pointless fear.
....You seem a rather hotheaded partisan for someone
who doesn't care about the topic.

Yeah, citing information is a common tactic of a hot head.

--
Dan Espen