Posted on 01/03/2026 3:24:11 PM PST by logi_cal869
In 2000, a landmark study claimed to set the record straight on glyphosate, a contentious weedkiller used on hundreds of millions of acres of farmland. The paper found that the chemical, the active ingredient in Roundup, wasn’t a human health risk despite evidence of a cancer link.
Last month, the study was retracted by the scientific journal that published it a quarter century ago, setting off a crisis of confidence in the science behind a weedkiller that has become the backbone of American food production.
- snip -
The 2000 paper, a scientific review conducted by three independent scientists, was for decades cited by other researchers as evidence of Roundup’s safety. It became the cornerstone of regulations that deemed the weedkiller safe.
But since then, emails uncovered as part of lawsuits against the weedkiller’s manufacturer, Monsanto, have shown that the company’s scientists played a significant role in conceiving and writing the study.
- snip -
In retracting the study last month, the journal, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, cited “serious ethical concerns regarding the independence and accountability of the authors.” Martin van den Berg, the journal’s editor in chief, said the paper had based its conclusions largely on unpublished studies by Monsanto.
There were indications that the authors had received financial compensation from Monsanto for their work, he said. There was no disclosure of a conflict of interest on the part of the authors beyond a mention in the acknowledgments that Monsanto had provided scientific support. As a result, Dr. van den Berg said, he “had lost confidence in the results and conclusions of this article.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
All science is bunk. As his all history. Thanks liberals and atheists. Who needs God but scientific monks.
I used the retail version to kill the weeds around my house...i feel like a mass murdered spraying that stuff its so good...
Personally, I would rather see Monsanto execs captured and imprisoned than Maduro.
Roundup has been banned in numerous countries over health concerns.
But it will be replaced by robots anyway. I’ve invested in a mutual fund that specializes in robotics.
Here’s a weed zapping robot that uses lasers:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KmxNtDMAj2A&pp=ygUTcm9ib3Qga2lsbGluZyB3ZWVkcw%3D%3D
Roundup is the homeowners agent orange... Works wonders around the house.
Lay off the booze
Count me in
Why is this an either/or proposition?
YET we live longer than ever, have more food than ever, and the fattest poor people.
cue the ‘muh capitalism!’ MIC worshippers who say corporations should be able to poison the food supply ‘and if you don’t like it, don’t buy the poisoned food!’
Roundup is the homeowners agent orange... Works wonders around the house.
“I’ve got my spine, I’ve got my Orange Crush!”
That’s both a rather biased, narrow snapshot and - at a minimum - an irony given your handle.
But alrighty, then. /s
Really? A guy that is directly responsible for the deaths of 10s of thousands of Americans with his drug exports and millions more f..up on his drugs vs a company that may or may not have sold a product that could e dangerous, or could not be. We just don't know for sure. But you want those execs in jail and Maduro running.free.
Who's freaking side are you on buddy?
Glyphosate is just a very strong fertilizer. Basically it overfeeds the plants it touches and they die.
More scaremongering.
I think the Vietnam Cong’s once third or 4th most favored ally David Fenton of the scaremongering company Fenton Communications is deceased now , but his legacy of fear lives on in the economic lawfare of the ecoterrorist movement.
The alternatives don’t work as well and are related to glyphosate anyway.
Without being told and without reading the label, I always considered Roundup dangerous because it really works. Evidently others cannot understand why they should not use it to brush their teeth.
Anti-Monsanto Lawyer And USRTK, Carey Gillam Collaborator Possibly Headed To Prison For Extortion
American Council on Science and Health ^ | 06/24/20 | Alex Berezow
Posted on 7/1/2020, 7:01:52 PM by Pining_4_TX
Surely, Timothy Litzenburg is a wealthy man. As one of the lead plaintiffs’ attorneys suing Monsanto over the alleged (but factually incorrect) claim that its product Roundup (glyphosate) causes cancer, he likely has had several nice paydays in recent years as the company has been slammed with one jackpot verdict after another. Lawsuits have cost its parent company, Bayer, billions of dollars.
The trouble with money, however, is that no matter how much you have, you never really have enough. You always want more.
Litzenburg wanted more, too, and he knew just how to do it. After seeing how easy it was to use junk science and sympathetic cancer patients (who Litzenburg referred to as a “parade of horribles”), he threatened to unleash hell on a different company called Nouryon unless they cooperated with him. And by “cooperated,” I mean capitulated to his extortion scheme. Instead, according to the Wall Street Journal, Nouryon called the U.S. Department of Justice.
That’s when things began to unravel for Litzenburg and his partner-in-crime (ahem, law partner) Daniel Kincheloe, who on Friday pleaded guilty to the attempted extortion of $200 million from Nouryon. According to local ABC News affiliate WHSV, they admitted to threatening to financially destroy the company unless it forked over $200 million in “consulting fees.” If Nouryon agreed, Litzenburg admitted that he would try to lose any case against the company and deter further litigation.
Unbelievably, they also admitted that they weren’t going to give any of this money to their clients — you know, the cancer patients they claim to be helping. Instead, they intended to keep all the money for themselves and their associates.
(Excerpt) Read more at acsh.org ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.