Quote:

---

"What took them so long to retract it?" asked Michael Hansen, senior scientist of advocacy at Consumer Reports. "The retraction should have happened right after the documents came out."

---

RFK Jr is what happened.

So, is this a situation where the original paper was clearly bogus and fraudulent but it turns out that it's actually safe? Thus, we lucked out that it turned out to be ok for use despite Monsanto's entire body on the scale?

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

And OP is right. The "Peer Review" system of publishing and scientific acceptance is deeply flawed and incredibly broken. The quality of review in many specialty journals is suspect, the trust level is way too high, statistical rigor is often non-existent, and there is not nearly enough of a platform for unsuccessful replication. What we're inevitably left with is sloppy research, fraud, and sometimes pseudoscience parading around with a false veneer of veracity and authority. Not all science or research is bad, and indeed much or most of it is good, but a disturbing amount of it discredits the test due to a shocking lack of academic skepticism. We like to think we've moved on from the centuries of alchemists and crackpot scientists making fantastical claims about their research and abilities, but instead we've just given them more tools to feign legitimacy.

---

Truly well said.

YouBet said:

---

Quote:

---

"What took them so long to retract it?" asked Michael Hansen, senior scientist of advocacy at Consumer Reports. "The retraction should have happened right after the documents came out."

---

RFK Jr is what happened.

So, is this a situation where the original paper was clearly bogus and fraudulent but it turns out that it's actually safe? Thus, we lucked out that it turned out to be ok for use despite Monsanto's entire body on the scale?

---

Yep. In a nutshell.

With the proviso of being within "normal" exposure limits - I think it is fair to say that taking daily baths in it might present a problem according to some/many, but I don't know/care enough to offer more thoughts than that.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Teslag said:

---

It's not harmful to people. It's also legal and used widely in Europe, which your list says has more healthy food than us.

---

For the most part, it's still not legal to use for 99.9% of people.

I think people on this thread pimping it, as the arbiters of knowledge and truth, portraying its use in Europe is dishonest. It's an extremely limited trial use only in which many countries are making it impossible to use.

Highly regulated commercial use only on a trial basis for 10 years to see how it goes

That said several countries are still essentially outright banning it, and several have put enough restrictions on it that it might as well be banned.

Are you implying that Europe is impervious to American style profit before the safety of its residents?

I don't think that I think it's pretty obvious looking at the demographics the leaders have instituted.

Same evil *******s.

---

anyone can buy glyphosate off amazon and have it delivered in 3 days.

Seems a good thread to revive this:

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Teslag said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Teslag said:

---

It's not harmful to people. It's also legal and used widely in Europe, which your list says has more healthy food than us.

---

For the most part, it's still not legal to use for 99.9% of people.

I think people on this thread pimping it, as the arbiters of knowledge and truth, portraying its use in Europe is dishonest. It's an extremely limited trial use only in which many countries are making it impossible to use.

Highly regulated commercial use only on a trial basis for 10 years to see how it goes

That said several countries are still essentially outright banning it, and several have put enough restrictions on it that it might as well be banned.

Are you implying that Europe is impervious to American style profit before the safety of its residents?

I don't think that I think it's pretty obvious looking at the demographics the leaders have instituted.

Same evil *******s.

---

This is a bunch of hogwash.

---

OK, tell me about it. This is not something that I've given a ton of thought to but a really low level. Basic query shows most of what you're saying is not true.

If I have bad information, I would like to know that

I presented you with information that I looked up

---

You asked an ai bot…

And you consider it's answer to be gospel truth…

And you think the food supply is the problem?



Mmmmmm kaaay.

Burdizzo said:

---

Oh, this debate again...

https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/glyphosate

---

Did the EPA cite this retracted paper as the basis for this conclusion? If so, then you are only proving the OP's point for him

YouBet said:

---

Quote:

---

"What took them so long to retract it?" asked Michael Hansen, senior scientist of advocacy at Consumer Reports. "The retraction should have happened right after the documents came out."

---

RFK Jr is what happened.

So, is this a situation where the original paper was clearly bogus and fraudulent but it turns out that it's actually safe? Thus, we lucked out that it turned out to be ok for use despite Monsanto's entire body on the scale?

---

Where is the evidence that it is safe that did not rely on this retracted paper?

DallasAg 94 said:

---

Been going on forever...

Even this:
https://gobraithwaite.com/thinking/edward-bernays-and-why-we-eat-bacon-for-breakfast/

The Gov said a few years ago that there was no science nor study behind the propaganda of reducing your cholesterol and reduce the number of eggs you eat. Probably Kellog and Big Cereal behind it.

---

I've been reading one of Bernays' books, in which he gives examples and case studies of different PR or influence efforts he worked on (or studied from). Pretty interesting to see how sophisticated his methods were at the dawn of mass media.

I don't think I am buying that most Americans ate light breakfasts of a roll and coffee for breakfast prior to the 1920s.

Much more manual labor back then - especially farm work - and a light breakfast wasnt going to take you far.

Read Farmer Boy by Laura Ingalls Wilder and take note of how much food was consumed (provided it was available).

Plus, bacon was a cured meat making it a practical staple.

Quote:

---

Oh- and burn Monsanto etc, to the ground and whoever was stupid enough to buy it. There need to be consequences,

https://usrtk.org/pesticides/landmark-glyphosate-safety-study-retracted-for-monsanto-ghostwriting/

---

Monsanto has done more to feed people and keep food costs down than any company in history, And your source is a bunch of pseudo-science crap

BrazosDog02 said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Wait do you actually think it's harmful?

---

Yes, I do. I also think Tylenol is harmful. So are dough conditioners and modern wheat.

Just because it's on the market and you can use it doesn't mean that it's not harmful to do so

You have to decide whether or not to use herbicides. I will if I find that I need to.

Very carefully and in very limited amounts.

---

I agree with you to a point.

think all synthetic pesticides, herbicides, and medications are harmful when not utilized per labels. I use glyphosate regularly, but I don't spray it into the wind to blow all over me and I try not to drink it as part of my morning coffee.

I think that if you use RoundUp in your underwear 5 days a week and spray it into the wind and let it blow on you and into you and you breathe it and you completely ignore all safety precautions outlined explicitly on the label...it absolutely will harm you eventually. If it didn't, there wouldn't be a label outlining its use.

Moderation and safe usage is the key...that's true for Sivanto, Glyphosate, Yellow #5, and questionable women.

---

There absolutely would be a label regardless because of the billions of dollars spent in litigation every year. Why do you think toasters have stickers that warn you not to use it when taking a bath or lawn mowers have huge yellow and red warning labels to not stick your hand or feet under the deck, especially while it is running?

SunrayAg said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Teslag said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Teslag said:

---

It's not harmful to people. It's also legal and used widely in Europe, which your list says has more healthy food than us.

---

For the most part, it's still not legal to use for 99.9% of people.

I think people on this thread pimping it, as the arbiters of knowledge and truth, portraying its use in Europe is dishonest. It's an extremely limited trial use only in which many countries are making it impossible to use.

Highly regulated commercial use only on a trial basis for 10 years to see how it goes

That said several countries are still essentially outright banning it, and several have put enough restrictions on it that it might as well be banned.

Are you implying that Europe is impervious to American style profit before the safety of its residents?

I don't think that I think it's pretty obvious looking at the demographics the leaders have instituted.

Same evil *******s.

---

This is a bunch of hogwash.

---

OK, tell me about it. This is not something that I've given a ton of thought to but a really low level. Basic query shows most of what you're saying is not true.

If I have bad information, I would like to know that

I presented you with information that I looked up

---

You asked an ai bot…

And you consider it's answer to be gospel truth…

And you think the food supply is the problem?



Mmmmmm kaaay.

---

Oh, make no mistake about it - despite the poster's inability to do his own research, our food supply is definetly in need of a massive overhaul. Food is plentiful here, yes. But quality healthy food? Not so much.

Teslag said:

---

Glyphosate is safe and one of the best chemicals ever devised. There's a farmer that posts on this board and is very conservative and you'd be hard pressed to ever take his glyphosate.

You can still buy the concentrate at tractor supply so you don't have buy that reformulated glyphosate free half ass roundup at the big box stores.

---

Monsanto made a corporate decision to rebrand "Roundup". "Roundup" used to mean 41% Glyphosate Now it's used as a generic name for any herbicide sold to consumers, It may have 2,4=D or many other chemical, but it won't have glyphosate.

They still use Roundup for some of their farm chemical brands,

And yes, anyone can buy glyphosate, and pretty cheaply, now that the patent is out and you can buy generics..

sam callahan said:

---

I don't think I am buying that most Americans ate light breakfasts of a roll and coffee for breakfast prior to the 1920s.

Much more manual labor back then - especially farm work - and a light breakfast wasnt going to take you far.

Read Farmer Boy by Laura Ingalls Wilder and take note of how much food was consumed (provided it was available).

Plus, bacon was a cured meat making it a practical staple.

---

Yes, there was far more manual labor, which does play a role for sure.

But the food supply was also much, much different than it is now. It was much smaller in terms of available products and there were little, if any, highly processed foods available. Folks weren't eating hot pockets and little debbies back then - most food was pretty fresh. Lard and tallow were the oils used to fry in instead of processed canola oil or other seed based oils that we consume a huge quantity of now. More butter was consumed. Raw milk was consumed, etc.

The industrialization of our food supply combined with the fact that after the tobacco lawsuits were settled and a whole bunch of the tobacco scientists migrated to the food industry and began really working on developing foods that are flat out addictive (sugar is one of the worst things Americans consume way, way, way too much of), our food supply essentially turned against us. There is a reason most people you see now are fat and when you go back and look at pictures of people from the 80's, 70's and before they are generally in much better shape across the board.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Glyphosate is safe and one of the best chemicals ever devised. There's a farmer that posts on this board and is very conservative and you'd be hard pressed to ever take his glyphosate.

You can still buy the concentrate at tractor supply so you don't have buy that reformulated glyphosate free half ass roundup at the big box stores.

---

Monsanto made a corporate decision to rebrand "Roundup". "Roundup" used to mean 41% Glyphosate Now it's used as a generic name for any herbicide sold to consumers, It may have 2,4=D or many other chemical, but it won't have glyphosate.

They still use Roundup for some of their farm chemical brands,

And yes, anyone can buy glyphosate, and pretty cheaply, now that the patent is out and you can buy generics..

---

Yeah, their newer formula is mostly tryclopir (spelling?) and diquat IIRC. No more glyphosate salts.

BigRobSA said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Glyphosate is safe and one of the best chemicals ever devised. There's a farmer that posts on this board and is very conservative and you'd be hard pressed to ever take his glyphosate.

---

He has a name, and it's CanyonAg77. As in 77, not 1977. He's old!


;-)

And, yes, he probably sprinkles glyphosate on food like we do salt/pepper.

---

It's for Class of '77, you cretin!



And no, I'm not that stupid, as to add intentional exposure.

But I know lots of farmers, farm hands, and aerial applicators. None of whom are dealing with health problems from Roundup. And those would be the groups most affected.

Madagascar said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Quote:

---

"What took them so long to retract it?" asked Michael Hansen, senior scientist of advocacy at Consumer Reports. "The retraction should have happened right after the documents came out."

---

RFK Jr is what happened.

So, is this a situation where the original paper was clearly bogus and fraudulent but it turns out that it's actually safe? Thus, we lucked out that it turned out to be ok for use despite Monsanto's entire body on the scale?

---

Where is the evidence that it is safe that did not rely on this retracted paper?

---

No idea. I guess they are in the body of work that the EPA cited.

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Glyphosate is an herbicide, not a pesticide. If they can't even get that right I wonder what else is in that list.

---

---

Sorry to be the nit-picking Agronomy major.

Glyphosate IS a pesticide. It is, more specifically, a herbicide. Pesticide is anything used to control a pest.

Weed pest: herbicide

Rat pest: rodenticide

Fungus: fungicide

etc

CrackerJackAg said:

---

TX_COWDOC said:

---

Signel said:

---

Idon't know what the problem is with the US food supply, but we absolutely have one.

---

Can you elaborate?

---

Bread…start with bread.

Being that you asked and have clearly never traveled to another country and saw this with your own eyes I'll pull it up for you.

Quick Genuine Query:

Question:

Tell me some of the things that are wrong with the US food supply and why it is unhealthy

Start with low hanging fruit like bread that American eat.

If you think there's nothing wrong with it and it's perfectly healthy tell me that as well.

Answer:

"The US food supply is often criticized for several issues that can make it unhealthy, and it's definitely not universally considered "perfectly healthy." These issues often stem from how food is produced, processed, and regulated.
Starting with your "low hanging fruit":
American Bread and Ultra-Processed Foods
Many common breads in the US are highly refined and fall into the category of ultra-processed foods (UPFs), which are a major concern across the entire food supply.
1. Refined Grains and Lack of Fiber
Most sliced white bread uses highly refined flour, where the bran and germ (which contain the majority of fiber, vitamins, and minerals) are stripped away.
This results in a high glycemic index (GI), meaning the carbohydrates break down quickly and can cause rapid spikes in blood sugar. Repeated spikes are linked to an increased risk of type 2 diabetes and obesity.
Though vitamins are sometimes "enriched" back into the flour, they don't offer the same complete nutritional benefit as the whole grain.
2. Additives and Preservatives
American bread often contains food additives, preservatives, and dough conditioners that are banned or heavily restricted in many other countries (like the European Union).
Potassium bromate (a dough conditioner) has been linked to potential cancer risk.
Azodicarbonamide (ADA) (a dough conditioner and bleaching agent) has been linked to cancer risk.
Bleaching agents like Benzoyl Peroxide and Chlorine Dioxide are used to whiten flour.
These chemicals extend shelf life and improve industrial production but raise concerns about long-term health effects.
3. Added Sugar
A significant amount of bread sold in the US, even some whole-grain varieties, contains added sugars (like high-fructose corn syrup or cane sugar) to improve flavor and texture. This is less common in bread from many other countries.
Broader Concerns with the US Food Supply
The issues extend far beyond bread to the broader food system:
1. Ultra-Processed Foods (UPFs) Dominance
This is arguably the most significant criticism. Over 70% of the US food supply is estimated to be composed of ultra-processed foods, which are commercially manufactured from ingredients that are extracted or synthesized (like starches, sugars, oils, and chemical additives).
Health Risk: Studies increasingly link high consumption of UPFs to a greater risk of obesity, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, cancer, and other chronic illnesses. One study found that people on an ultra-processed diet ate more calories and gained more weight than when eating a minimally processed diet.
2. Chemical Contaminants and Additives
The sheer number of approved food additives (over 10,000) in the US is a concern. Many have not been re-reviewed with modern science in decades, or are allowed despite being banned in other developed nations.
Pesticides: The widespread use of chemicals like Glyphosate (Roundup) on non-organic crops, including wheat, is a significant concern for some people regarding the gut microbiome and potential cancer risk.
Other Additives: Ingredients like BHA (Butylated Hydroxyanisole) and certain food dyes (e.g., Yellow 5, Blue 1) are under scrutiny for potential links to cancer, hormone disruption, or behavioral issues in children.
3. Food Safety and Oversight
There are ongoing concerns about the effectiveness and structure of US food regulatory agencies (FDA and USDA).
Recent data has shown increases in foodborne illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths related to pathogens like Salmonella and E. coli.
The regulatory system is often criticized for being slower to ban or restrict controversial additives compared to the EU.
4. Market and Policy Incentives
Subsidy Misalignment: Federal agricultural policies often heavily subsidize a narrow set of commodities (like corn, soy, and wheat), which are the main ingredients for cheap, highly processed, calorie-dense foods (sugars, oils, and refined starches). This makes healthier, whole foods relatively more expensive.
Over-Consumption: The system is engineered to provide an abundance of low-cost, calorie-dense foods, which drives over-consumption and contributes to high rates of overweight and obesity.
In summary, while the US food supply is abundant and technically safe from acute food poisoning in most cases, the high level of processing, the use of controversial additives, and economic incentives that favor cheap, refined calories are the primary reasons critics consider it to be a key driver of chronic, diet-related diseases."

---

Loafers.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Oh- and burn Monsanto etc, to the ground and whoever was stupid enough to buy it. There need to be consequences,

https://usrtk.org/pesticides/landmark-glyphosate-safety-study-retracted-for-monsanto-ghostwriting/

---

Monsanto has done more to feed people and keep food costs down than any company in history, And your source is a bunch of pseudo-science crap

---

The retraction was done by the original publisher for the reasons listed in "my source". These are documented in court filings.

Monsanto may indeed be great for humanity, but it appears some misstepped here. Calling for consequences for what appears to be outright fraud, well - I won't apologize. Assuming this went down as now documented, it could have had very poor consequences.

And, I think Bayer bought Monsanto's interest and liability, so not sure this will affect Monsanto at all. I'm assuming Bayer did due diligence before the sale?

FWIW.

schmellba99 said:

---

sam callahan said:

---

I don't think I am buying that most Americans ate light breakfasts of a roll and coffee for breakfast prior to the 1920s.

Much more manual labor back then - especially farm work - and a light breakfast wasnt going to take you far.

Read Farmer Boy by Laura Ingalls Wilder and take note of how much food was consumed (provided it was available).

Plus, bacon was a cured meat making it a practical staple.

---

Yes, there was far more manual labor, which does play a role for sure.

But the food supply was also much, much different than it is now. It was much smaller in terms of available products and there were little, if any, highly processed foods available. Folks weren't eating hot pockets and little debbies back then - most food was pretty fresh. Lard and tallow were the oils used to fry in instead of processed canola oil or other seed based oils that we consume a huge quantity of now. More butter was consumed. Raw milk was consumed, etc.

The industrialization of our food supply combined with the fact that after the tobacco lawsuits were settled and a whole bunch of the tobacco scientists migrated to the food industry and began really working on developing foods that are flat out addictive (sugar is one of the worst things Americans consume way, way, way too much of), our food supply essentially turned against us. There is a reason most people you see now are fat and when you go back and look at pictures of people from the 80's, 70's and before they are generally in much better shape across the board.

---

The reason most people are fat now is they sit on their butts and stare at screens all day. People used to actually work and be active. A total lack of personal responsibility also doesn't help.

I used to know a guy who drank 12 cokes a day. Shockingly enough, he was massively overweight. Totally coca cola's fault, right? Not a matter of looking in the mirror and saying, gee, maybe that extra 3000 calories is not good for me.

Monsanto hasn't existed for quite a while. They were purchased in full by Bayer several years back.

Quote:

---

Raw milk was consumed, etc.

---

Somewhat true, however by 1920 milk pasteurized was widely used in the US. Pasteurization is one of the greatest inventions in mankind's history.

SunrayAg said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Teslag said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Teslag said:

---

It's not harmful to people. It's also legal and used widely in Europe, which your list says has more healthy food than us.

---

For the most part, it's still not legal to use for 99.9% of people.

I think people on this thread pimping it, as the arbiters of knowledge and truth, portraying its use in Europe is dishonest. It's an extremely limited trial use only in which many countries are making it impossible to use.

Highly regulated commercial use only on a trial basis for 10 years to see how it goes

That said several countries are still essentially outright banning it, and several have put enough restrictions on it that it might as well be banned.

Are you implying that Europe is impervious to American style profit before the safety of its residents?

I don't think that I think it's pretty obvious looking at the demographics the leaders have instituted.

Same evil *******s.

---

This is a bunch of hogwash.

---

OK, tell me about it. This is not something that I've given a ton of thought to but a really low level. Basic query shows most of what you're saying is not true.

If I have bad information, I would like to know that

I presented you with information that I looked up

---

You asked an ai bot…

And you consider it's answer to be gospel truth…

And you think the food supply is the problem?



Mmmmmm kaaay.

---

It's just baseline info. I asked you to tell me what was wrong.

AI is pretty ****ing good dude.

You may be behind the times on that one. It's pretty good

SunrayAg said:

---

Monsanto hasn't existed for quite a while. They were purchased in full by Bayer several years back.

---

Thanks, not sure if Monsanto still lived in some form.

YouBet said:

---

Madagascar said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Quote:

---

"What took them so long to retract it?" asked Michael Hansen, senior scientist of advocacy at Consumer Reports. "The retraction should have happened right after the documents came out."

---

RFK Jr is what happened.

So, is this a situation where the original paper was clearly bogus and fraudulent but it turns out that it's actually safe? Thus, we lucked out that it turned out to be ok for use despite Monsanto's entire body on the scale?

---

Where is the evidence that it is safe that did not rely on this retracted paper?

---

No idea. I guess they are in the body of work that the EPA cited.

---

Sounds like no one knows where this evidence is then. I mean aside from the "experts."

Madagascar said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Madagascar said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Quote:

---

"What took them so long to retract it?" asked Michael Hansen, senior scientist of advocacy at Consumer Reports. "The retraction should have happened right after the documents came out."

---

RFK Jr is what happened.

So, is this a situation where the original paper was clearly bogus and fraudulent but it turns out that it's actually safe? Thus, we lucked out that it turned out to be ok for use despite Monsanto's entire body on the scale?

---

Where is the evidence that it is safe that did not rely on this retracted paper?

---

No idea. I guess they are in the body of work that the EPA cited.

---

Sounds like no one knows where this evidence is then. I mean aside from the "experts."

---

Uh, no I don't know. lol.

I'm not remotely an expert and know nothing about this stuff. That's why I asked what I did.

I'm not sure how you misinterpreted that.

Edit: I guess you changed your reply.

Pretty sure this stuff was a factor in the death of my grandfather and the leukemia my uncle experienced ~10 years ago.

Given its broad use and the impact it has had on changing the crops we grow and consume (saying nothing of legal action Monsanto itself has levied on roundup ready plant genes spreading) the herbicide should be relentlessly reviewed and questioned.

Not calling for a ban, but anyone spouting off that it's perfectly safe and no need to worry is playing a fool.

Why you are pretty sure it gave him leukemia?

Do you feel same about 24D? Triclopyr? Any others? Why specifically glyphosate?

schmellba99 said:

---

BrazosDog02 said:

---

.it absolutely will harm you eventually. If it didn't, there wouldn't be a label outlining its use.

Moderation and safe usage is the key...that's true for Sivanto, Glyphosate, Yellow #5, and questionable women.

---

There absolutely would be a label regardless because of the billions of dollars spent in litigation every year. Why do you think toasters have stickers that warn you not to use it when taking a bath or lawn mowers have huge yellow and red warning labels to not stick your hand or feet under the deck, especially while it is running?

---

Another Agronomist nit-pick, "label" has a specific meaning when it comes to pesticides. It is not only the papers that accompany every gallon sold, it is the legal authorization to sell the product. "Getting a label approved" means you have the ability to sell the product.

And the label has a very specific layout, everything from toxicity levels, to use instructions, to PPE, to disposal, etc. etc. etc

When I was studying this stuff intently back in the day (70s and 80s), it took about 5 years and $25,000,000 to get a label approved. Can only be worse today.

The problem with glyphosate as in any pesticide is not the chemical but how it is used and in many cases, misused.

We have lost some very good pesticides in controlling pests because people are sloppy in handling it or do not take the precautions that are on the label seriously, or misapply it.

Like the individual that won a multi million dollar settlement supposedly due to his exposure to glyphosate openly admitted to being bathed in it not once but several times.

I have used glyphosate for over 40 years and like any pesticide, I take protective precautions very seriously.

Having been both a Texas and Federal certified restricted use pesticide applicator, the one thing that is posted is that the label is the law, which is greatly ignored.

I used to work on research stations, and managed one for a while, where we did research to get experimental chemicals labeled.

Once an active ingredient is approved for research it takes 7 to 8 years of residue research (and hundreds of millions of dollars) before that chemical gets labeled.

A product label has many restrictions on rates, timings, and exposures. And they are all meant to be idiot proof, to avoid residue in food. It might say no use within 1 month before harvest, even if 3 days is perfectly safe.

One of the research farms I worked on was owned by my father in law. In the early 80's he worked with an agricultural product which was found to cause a specific type of cancer. It was immediately banned, and every drop destroyed world wide. In 2006 he passed away from that cancer, and his family got a small settlement from a fund the company had set up when the product was banned.

I also worked with a chemical in the early 90's that was banned as a carcinogen. The very minute this information dropped, I had to follow the following protocol.

Put on a full body tyvek suit and respirator, and double gloves.

Put every container in a ziplock bag full of kitty litter. Then put that bag in a larger bag of kitty litter. Then put that bag in a 55 gallon drum, and top it off with kitty litter. Then I had to drive it to Pasadena, where it was loaded on a barge, taken out into the Gulf, and burned at some insanely hot temperature to break it down to the molecular level.

So based on my personal and family experience, any product which is found to cause cancer goes away immediately once the link is proven.

Burdizzo said:

---

Our food supply is like our healthcare. We have worked hard to remove risk, commoditize it, and be as efficient as possible. The result is that we have fewer people providing it in order to reduce cost, and it lacking a lot of detail and finesse. But it is readily available, and it one who truly needs it can get it because the cost is spread among a lot of people. We keep most everyone's bellies full and their hearts beating, but they may not necessarily be healthy. As is often stated, American is one of the few places in the world where people labelled as poor are also fat and have heart disease and diabetes. We keep everyone alive because that is the metric we use, but we rarely talk about health.

---

Excellently stated. I'm very prone to attack both of these systems that you have compared but it's good to keep in mind that they are generally speaking, and even in many specific situations, quite good. But we have made policy trade-offs to reach that end, so a lot of other good things are often not achieved because of the particular policy decisions we have made. Kind of like how we can all complain about democracy, but it's the least worst system there is!

DallasAg 94 said:

---

Been going on forever...

Even this:
https://gobraithwaite.com/thinking/edward-bernays-and-why-we-eat-bacon-for-breakfast/

The Gov said a few years ago that there was no science nor study behind the propaganda of reducing your cholesterol and reduce the number of eggs you eat. Probably Kellog and Big Cereal behind it.

---

WOW! The fact that they use Bernays as an example of what they can do with marketing is a little distasteful.

Bernays is also the reason women started smoking and a multitude of other projects where he used human psychology to make decisions that were not actually in their best interest.

The father of advertising, he is also one of the founders of American media propaganda and even foreign (CIA backed) media; An evil genius.