There are a lot of people with a lot of claims in the world. We can’t watch all their lectures.
But, I didn’t deny glyphosate was dangerous.
Sorry Kelly, but I didn’t say science doesn’t expose the dangers of glyphosate.
If you had read my post, you wouldn’t have bothered to comment (nor did I post a picture).
So Kelly, since you decided to call me out, even though I made no judgement of glyphosate, I will just quote the EPA (hardly “the victim of a well-organized and well-funded corporate disinformation program”),
“EPA’s worst case risk assessment of glyphosate’s many registered food uses concludes that human dietary exposure and risk are minimal. Existing and proposed tolerances have been reassessed, and no significant changes are needed to protect the public.”
Perhaps you can uncover some of this information and post links to it here.
For a breakdown of the GMO-truther movement (which addresses glyphosate), view this (NSFW) lecture. Bonus: it is only half the length of the video you posted and I watched.
The beginning of the video tells the story. It is an “organic” group sponsoring it and that means they are by definition in favor of “natural” (as it’s commonly defined) and therefore against GMO. So in any particular case they’re against GMO in principle and they have a financial interest in spreading the meme that GMO is bad.
There was a Pew Research Poll released recently highlighting the difference of opinion between the general public and scientists on scientific matters. The single largest difference by far amongst the 13 issues polled was on the GMO issue. Basically, most of the public thinks GMOs are unsafe while most scientists think they are safe. See poll at link.
At this point, introducing a new food and touting it as non-GMO is the easy way to go as far as making money. Lots of people are dogmatically against technology applied to food and Soylent is going against that tide.
Reminds me of the differential between the public and scientists on the acceptance of evolution.
I am no expert on this subject but it seems pretty damning that scientists would by a large margin accept the safety of GMO’s while laymens like you and I tend to be against GMO.
Although, there does seem to be a bit of disconnect over the use of pesticides themselves and not GMO’s. The nature of this topic is concerning pesticides specifically and it seems that pesticides isn’t the same landslide as it is with GMO safety among scientists. While 88% of Scientists are ok with GMO, 68% (or rounded up is 70%) accept the safety of pesticides - But not all pesticides are created equal - However, light shines on this thought by EPA discussions of glyphosate itself. Rics’ comment has more information on this.
Maybe I am a pleb that is easily impressed by men in lab coats, but until there are good studies to show just how dangerous glyphosates are and evidence showing a conspiracy to cover up the truth about it, I will continue behaving as a pleb and accept the EPA’s comment on the subject.
Unfortunately this thread has become about GMOs because the OP made the mistake of saying he/she didn’t want pro-GMO people to comment.
I simply asked that commenters first understand my concern based on the science of glyphosate. GMOs are part of the glyphosate story, so no surprise pro-GMO people are compelled to voice their position. Back and forth pro/con GMOs was not my intention here. If I were a zealot, would I be using Soylent?
I’m pleased to know that Rosa Labs committed to answering my question. I look forward to their reply and my decision to continue using Soylent will be informed by it.
So in any particular case they’re for GMO in principle and they have a financial interest in spreading the meme that glyphosate is safe.
I see that Soylent goes with the tide, not against it.
Reversing a statement like you did does not always make it valid (in fact, it is rarer when it actually does). For one, without context your “they” is unclear.
Don’t think you should call us pro-GMO people… There is a difference of indifference. We simply realize that it is safe and a nonissue. GMO is nothing more than changed genes… Labeling all GMO as bad is the same as saying any gene mutation is bad. Evolution would also be bad then. What really matters is what was changed and what this change does… You can then decide if you are for or against the specific gene change… That would be rational… Pesticides is another issue.
To define the indifference, “pro-GMO” would indicate we demand that GMO products be in our food. We don’t. All the evidence indicates that GMO is a non-issue. So it can be there or not. We don’t care.
I understand, but he didn’t ask if glyphosate was a problem. He asked if Soylent contained it. If I hypothetically knew it was glyphosate-free (say through emails with the company), then wouldn’t that be enough? Why would I need to know what it is to credibly be able to say it isn’t in Soylent?
It’s like saying “Tell me if there’s any nuclear warheads in your basement, but don’t bother answering if you don’t know nuclear physics or how they work.” I wouldn’t really need to know that information, as I’m quite sure already that there’s no nuclear warheads in my basement (hypothetically…)
I agree that the OP was being condescending when he/she said that. That’s what raised a red flag with you and I and maybe others.
Effective telling pro-GMO people he/she didn’t want them to post on this thread. This painted a bullseye on this thread for everyone who thinks GMOs are harmless.