OK, but that is not how you properly test pesticides for safety.

hombre_fatal an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Well, don't leave me hanging.

Though I didn't prescribe a test. I set a low bar of evidence that we should at least pass before we Kony up over our bowl of Cheerios.

	▲	quesera 36 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Are you asking me to describe modern pesticide safety testing protocols? I'm not qualified to do that authoritatively. But I'm certain that "spray it everywhere for 30 years and see if people die" is not the way. Bypassing the proper protocols, publishing dishonest research, is the issue under discussion today. Glyphosate might be safe, or safe enough. Proper research could reveal more subtle effects than mortality numbers.

▲

phil21 38 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

The public discourse on glyphosate is useless. As witnessed by calling it a pesticide, which is quite common among those most vocal against its use.

Less is more when it comes to chemicals, which is why reasonable uses of glyphosate seems to be the best we have come up with so far as a species - regardless of abuses of the chemical.

It’s probably the most studied herbicide on the planet at this point with very little evidence that it causes human health issues when used as intended. Doesn’t mean it’s zero risk, but we also feed an incredible number of people off a very small amount of landmass at this point in history.

	▲	quesera 28 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Herbicides are pesticides. Are you implying that I made a mistake with that word? I did not. Your other points are valid, but would you advocate for dishonest research to be acceptable as evidence that a pesticide is ready for widespread human field trials? Assuming you would not, then I think you'd agree that there should be repercussions. Monsanto is not Uber for agriculture.