| 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| is wrong, or superceded by information from a better study.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?
|
And you still haven't even looked at the document
you're referencing as evidence! It's not a study. It's
a 22 year old EPA fact sheet -- the official EPA position
on glyphosate. Don't you think a fact sheet on one
of the most popular agricultural toxins should maybe
be updated more often than 22+ years?

| 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.
|

Yes, it's my claim. You could check it out for
yourself if you take the trouble to read the study
you're referencing. Comically, it also happens to
be the claim of the man writing the blog that you
linked to in the first place:

http://tumblr.benlillie.com/post/108...es-dna-in-food

(de-obfuscated link)

He linked to the sham study that you never
read. You also clearly didn't read the blog post
you linked. Not really. Part of his point is that
people were spreading around a misleading number
about the DNA question. You came across the blog
post and proceeded to do exactly what he was
talking about: You saw fuel for the snide dig about
public stupidity and ran with it. The real kicker here
is that you continue to represent yourself as someone
who appreciates and understands science. You're
free to have your opinion about GMOs and organic
food, but if you're going to pretend it's somehow
scientific then you shouldn't be surprised when
someone challenges you on it.

| 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?

You said so yourself:

"You appear to have me confused with someone else."

| I recognized that you are using 1993 as if
| it somehow implies the study is flawed.

You're mixing up the EPA fact sheet with the
sham U of OK study that you originally referenced.
Perhaps it would help if you re-read the two
threads. You're conflating a number of things.
Then you might want to actually read the
documents you're offering as evidence.

Essentially you've just thrown in two unexamined
monkey wrenches, apparently because concern about
GMOs and organic food bugs you. First you made fun
of the general public for alleged scientific illiteracy,
equating "chemophobia" with stupidity. Now, in this
thread, you've thrown in a quote saying glyphosate
is safe. In neither case did you even look at, much less
consider, the alleged evidence for your statements.