GardenBanter.co.uk - View Single Post

24-08-2003, 09:02 AM

) wrote in message om...
Is glyphosate as "safe as table salt" as alleged by Monsanto, or is it
extremely hazardous as contended by some environmentalists? What are
the latest opinions? Thanx, Jack

By now you should have learned what an honest question of yours has
caused a flamewar in three newsgroups....

Let me first introduce myself. I am a newcomer of rec.gardens, and I
never read nor posted in sci.environment and alt.native. However, I
have participated in some of the hottest newsgroups of Usenet and I
have experienced or witnessed all kinds of personal attacks,
emailbombs, someone posting your names, addresses, phone numbers and
wrote "you" offer sex services, and the disputes in this thread are
nothing compared to what I have seen.

I myself do not use anything ending in -cide -- though I admit I
bought Sluggo and used it sometimes after I learned its ingredients
(iron phosphate). I also purchased Neem oil concentrate from local
Home Depot on the indoor plant, used only once or twice. I deal with
most slugs with handpicking, I deal with cutworms and other
underground pests with beneficial nematodes (and if I found them
during digging, they are fed to my Nepenthes after washing clean).
European crane flies are sent to my Sarracenia, and earwigs and aphids
on my roses are delivered to my Drosera. I am not interested in
purchasing Roundup at all.

And I use several bags of compost, from Lowes and Home Depot, each
season, compared to the fertilizer I use, in ounces.

But I think during this dispute, I myself more or less tend to side
with Bill Oliver's comments. By the way, I forgot to mention I do not
own stocks of Monsanto.

I think there are some issues people involved in this discussion
forgot or ignored, and maybe it helps for me to point them out.

First, saying something like "the scientific society did not find
Roundup dangerous" is not equal to "the scientific society found
Roundup safe". You have to define "dangerous" and "safe". As someone
pointed out in this thread, drinking too much water (faster than your
body can expel them) could kill you, and it does not mean water is
"dangerous". Taking two pills of Tylenol for your headache is fine,
and taking a whole bottle could kill you. This does not mean Tylenol
is dangerous or safe. Basically it means "Roundup when used as
directed, was not found to be dangerous on (plants, humans, pets)."
"Not found dangerous" is simply not found, maybe one week later it
will be found dangerous in another study.

On the other hand, honey is safe for us, but it is dangerous for
babies under 1 year old even when used as directed (like diluted in
water). Should we say honey is safe, or honey is dangerous? On the
other hand, if someone says chicken eggs are safe, and you ask them to
swallow the whole egg, including the shell, is that reasonable? This
is in comparison with the claim "if Roundup is safe then you should be
able to drink it".

Secondly, we should know different fields have different meanings on
issues. The scientific society can believe something like Roundup is
safe when the legal society can believe it is dangerous. The medical
society might believe adding fluoride in drinking water is safe when
the ordinary people feel otherwise. A court might order Monsanto to
remove the commercial slogan "as safe as table salt", becaue (1) it is
a lie, or (2) it is misleading for the average people. Such a ruling
(and it seems to be a settlement outside the court) is not a proof
that Roundup is dangerous. We all know what lawyers can do in a
court, like convincing a cup of hot coffee from McDonald is dangerous
and the restaurant did not warn the customers so it has to be
responsible for a burn on the customers. The legal system found the
hot coffee dangerous. Do we?

Some other similar examples are, say, EPA says enjoying tuna is fine
and it is safe, but some others might warn the mercury content is too
high and tuna is not good for expecting mothers and babies. So, is
tuna "safe" or "dangerous"? On the other hand, table salt is
definitely "safe" for most people, but if you have hypertension, this
"safe" material could kill you, and if you pour this "safe" material
over your plants, your plant could wither in one day. On the other
hand, is monosodium glutamate safe? Many people use it in their meals
without problems, and some people demonstrate strong allergy
reactions.

To sum up, when we talk about "safe" and "dangerous", be sure to
specify the definitions. Being "safe" in one field and being
"dangerous" in another field could coexist and both of them are valid;
neither one is lying.

In addition, this thread is on whether Roundup is safe or dangerous,
not on whether Monsanto is telling the truth or lies.

For Bill Oliver, I think you have already made your points clear.
There is no reason to continue arguing. If you do, you will only
convince people to put you in their killfiles in rec.gardens. If you
keep responding to any one followup in this tread, maybe it will reach
a point that the sci.environment and alt.native readers will start
killfiling you.

For others arguing against Bill, I advise you that rec.gardens is a
"peaceful" newsgroup; it is not a newsgroup discussing abortion
policy, gun control, or Saddam Hussein. Those loving flowers, fruits
do not look like the group of people using harsh words against someone
else, digging up Bill Oliver's information and post it in public
domain, and so on. If you feel offended and furious over Bill's
comments, go to a Starbucks/SBC/Tully's coffee shop, enjoy a Latte,
and you will feel better.

Now let me go back and watch the aphids struggling for their lives on
my Pinguiculas. I am the saint of the newsgroup. :P