Our first responsibility must be to curtail foods which cause cancer in long term, one cannot wait when a while later, suddenly cancer is found.
Mere possession of someone selling anything prone to cause cancer is a crime.
One cannot say, "Oh well, my food will not cause cancer." They cannot hide behind the fact that it won't happen to a majority.
Life causes cancer.
Do you mean Red Meat? Yes, switch to Vegetarian food. Sadhguru explains fantastically well how we can do this.
No, I meant living. If your cells divide, you're at risk for developing cancer.
Of course, there are things that can modify that risk, including diet. If you want to move beyond talking about X causes cancer, where X includes living, red meat, and vegetarian food, you need to start quantifying relative risk.
True, but what point are you trying to make here that's related to what they said? Commenting on how absolute they were about saying "causes cancer"...?
Yeah, pretty much. Curtailing foods that "cause cancer in the long term" means curtailing pretty much everything. It's about balancing risks and rewards. One shouldn't stay inside 24/7 to avoid our carcinogenic sun, and smoking weed every now and then is probably alright too. It's OK to enjoy a variety of foods and there is no way to abolish the risk of cancer in the long term. You can reduce it, but you may also choose to live a little.
For understanding things better, first we will need to stop hiding behind Usernames to get a tiny bit of credibility. Solutions exist for this, period.
I don't need NLP bots wearing me down. I've had enough of that.
Now you'd be surprised to know we're entering a period where personalities we admire may not exist.
Say an actor, a person we chat with through mobile(practically everyone), powerful people, etc. they might not exist but their profile might be generated via AI. Such possibility was not possible 20 years ago. Today, a 20 year kid can generate fake profiles.
There's a grain of truth to that, but it really isn't directly relevant to this thread. Based on just this one tiny interaction, I'm a little concerned about your mental health. I hope if you need help, you're already getting it.
Oh my God are you fucking kidding me!? I've been hearing about Monsanto and Roundup for decades now!! Of course they are just hiding it again. Every goddamn documentary in the world that focuses on Roundup has been screaming into the void about the dangers and how Monsanto just lies/lobbies/hides...
I don't know whether or not Roundup caused cancer. From what I understand as a layperson, there are contradicting studies on the matter.
However, I do know this- more CO2 means that we don't just get global warming, but "global greening" as plants thrive in an atmosphere with increased CO2. That sounds great, right? High crop yields! The only problem is that weeds will also thrive. So we need to find a safe herbicidal solution and we need to find it ASAP.
It’s probably safe to assume the studies saying it doesn’t were bought and paid for by Bayer and are shitty studies.
Big Tobaco. Big Oil. Social media.
The problem is, that the studies on glyphosat are way too small. As far as I know it is not particularly cancerous. That is other weed killers are worse. But Monsanto who did these studies and Bayer who bought Monsanto and miscalculated the risks; they did a poor job with these studies, which caused this massive confusion and are therefore largely to blame themselves for the disaster.
Here is a good video on the topic. It's in German, though: https://youtu.be/2K0TAphTfaI?si=rXimwbUfEY51fSdq
It’s probably safe to assume the studies saying it doesn’t were bought and paid for by Bayer
This btw. is how it works. You have a product you want to bring to the market, so you have to prove it's safe. It's the regulator's job to decided if the provided evidence is enough.
You absolutely do not need to prove something is safe to bring it to market in the US. You just have to show that it isn't unreasonably dangerous.
Yeah, there are two basic approaches to safety: evidence of harm and evidence of safety. Evidence of safety is the higher standard (e.g. broad long-term independent studies). Evidence of harm is a low standard (e.g. small studies, short-term studies). Guess which one is used for herbicides, pesticides, food, ...
Roundup has been studied a lot by many different people include universities and is almost always found harmless. It has been around for decades and is in very widespread use (though in tiny amounts it is mixed with a lot of water as used), so many different people have studied it. Some are Bayer, but most are not.
I honestly do not know enough to say because it absolutely is not my field. I just know that a safe herbicidal solution needs to be found or crops will get overwhelmed by weeds. If that can't be Roundup because it causes cancer, that's understandable. But it has to be something.
I’m not a scientist, but roundup is a core product for a massive mega-corp.
They absolutely would have positive studies published to support their profits. I don’t know if round up causes cancer. But I do know that’s one of their best tools to avoid regulation. And mega corps like that do it all the freaking time.
Sure, but just because a megacorp makes something doesn't necessarily mean it's dangerous. Remember, that was an argument people were making about COVID vaccines. I am absolutely willing to grant that it could be very, very dangerous. As I said, I don't know enough about it. But I don't think the simple fact that Bayer makes it is really enough of an argument to prove that it's carcinogenic.
And obviously, I am not arguing against regulation. Quite the opposite. Hence my emphasizing a safe herbicide.
That second paragraph needs some context. There is a limit to how much more CO2 helps plant growth and where we are heading is definitely past that limit. Our crop yields will also be less nutrient dense. More CO2 leading to warming will be creating more sought conditions overall and more torrential rains which are both bad for crops. You are right that weeds will also thrive and your point overall that we need a safe herbicide is correct. In fact many of them do much better with more CO2 than our crops do. But the higher crop yield claim that many on the right mention is in an isolated bubble and won't happen in reality. More water can be good for many plants but monsoons are bad for most.
Fair enough on the crop yield. I was more talking about what people would assume about global greening.
I don’t know whether or not Roundup caused cancer
Glyphosate causes far more than cancer. It inhibits absorption of vital nutrients that prevent a host of diseases.
As far as plants thriving in in increased CO2 goes, that is only where conditions permit plant growth but climate change is making huge parts of the world either too hot, too dry or too wet for trees and crops to grow, much less produce food.
herbicide sucks. it's always going to be an arms race. like everything else, violently forcing a monoculture does not build resilient systems, it only sets us up for more violence. we must learn to take our hands mostly off the ecosystems, and tread lightly, harvesting only what we need.
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.