Three Talking Points Used in the Insane Defense of Monsanto
Posted on May 27, 2016
If you point out that 9 out of 10 Americans tested positive for Monsanto’s cancer-linked herbicide glyphosate, GMO defenders will reply that:
1. exposures are within allowed DOA and FDA limits and
2. reviews have show no evidence of human damage (yet), and
3. therefore you are a science denier.
In other words, objecting to having an artificial chemical added to your bloodstream without your consent makes you a Luddite and a malcontent.
Even though many scientific studies have already given cause to suspect this chemical may be dangerous.
Let alone the chemical soup problem: we know next to nothing about what happens when multiple artificial chemicals interact in your bloodstream.
(GMOs come into play because Round-up Ready GMO crops are what allows effective use of glyphosate against weeds. Also Round-up includes other chemical additives that have not been tested.)
In this short bit of propaganda you relied on the naturalist fallacy twice. “many scientific studies?” I noticed you linked to zero of those. Why? Because you don’t want anyone to point out the weaknesses or just made it up.
Thanks for the feedback, Eric. I’m happy to share with you links to those studies:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12012-014-9282-y
https://www.independentsciencenews.org/news/how-extreme-levels-of-roundup-in-food-became-the-industry-norm/
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-204X2003001100012&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en
http://www.urantiagaia.org/eng/vital/agrotoxico/agrotoxico_sul_america.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885576588800225
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1897/05-152.1/abstract;jsessionid=74202569AFA5C0DE0BEE680BB01C4187.f04t03