Panteralandia
13 HN mentions · mentioned in 10 months, 2016–2025
0:46 · 2.4M views · Mar 27, 2015
A short clip from a Canal+ interview in which a Monsanto-linked lobbyist says Roundup is safe to drink, then declines when offered a glass. The clip circulated widely as an example of industry spokespeople not trusting their own claims.
HN cites it, mostly critically, as an example of the GMO and pesticide lobby losing credibility.
13 comments from Hacker News
I'm just copying an old comment: I've been telling HN about this, and mostly derided for it. I was working as a sysadmin for a bigag company in 2010 or so, who touted themselves as good ol local farm people who take care of their own. Come to find out, the millions the owner got to fund his extravagant lifestyle (besides from daddy), was from selling some of the genetic modifications to Monsanto. I was in the middle of my Decartes reset after getting back from Iraq, and dug into Monsanto. Monsanto is one of the worst companies in America. As a constitutionalist, my primary issue is with their blatant undermining and corruption of the legal process, for example a SCOTUS who formerly worked for them refusing to recuse himself from relevant cases, infiltration and takeover of the top positions at the FDA and other regulatory capture issues, and the stifling of free speech through their massive propaganda machine, which includes online. As a military person, I came to find out they were the ones who had been responsible for agent orange in Vietnam. Something many of my friends and family have directly had to deal with. (to be fair, it was a different business than the current Monsanto, the same in name only) I learned they were one of the main sources of lobbying to allow patenting of organtic material (so they could patent genes in their gmos), that they created the BT killer strain of seeds designed to prevent farmers from saving their seeds, (incidentally Monsanto gmo seed bus
I've been telling HN about this, and mostly derided for it. I was working as a sysadmin for a bigag company in 2010 or so, who touted themselves as good ol local farm people who take care of their own. Come to find out, the millions the owner got to fund his extravagant lifestyle (besides from daddy), was from selling some of the genetic modifications to Monsanto. I was in the middle of my Decartes reset after getting back from Iraq, and dug into Monsanto. Monsanto is one of the worst companies in America. As a constitutionalist, my primary issue is with their blatant undermining and corruption of the legal process, for example a SCOTUS who formerly worked for them refusing to recuse himself from relevant cases, infiltration and takeover of the top positions at the FDA and other regulatory capture issues, and the stifling of free speech through their massive propaganda machine, which includes online. As a military person, I came to find out they were the ones who had been responsible for agent orange in Vietnam. Something many of my friends and family have directly had to deal with. (to be fair, it was a different business than the current Monsanto, the same in name only) I learned they were one of the main sources of lobbying to allow patenting of organtic material (so they could patent genes in their gmos), that they created the BT killer strain of seeds designed to prevent farmers from saving their seeds, (incidentally Monsanto gmo seed business has been tied to large numb
The distinction you point out is part of the problem I have with Snopes because those statements are not fully qualified. We really do not know the long term effects of exposure and to dismiss that aspect ignores the cautionary principal which has been ignored far too much in this debate. We can look at DDT as an example of what can happen when ignore and dismiss long term results. It is true DDT didn't affect those who wallowed in it and that was used to "prove" it was safe, but it is also true it affected their children, especially females, and not until they were adults did those effects become apparent. It is also true that eating food is not the only source of exposure for everyone. And it's also true that homeowners and farmers don't always follow the instructions and laws for using these products. So, if we read Snopes "Fact Check" on this issue it's very easy to come away thinking all those who've done independent research are wackos and glyphosate is "Safe" and may even lead some of them to say they believe it's "Safe to drink a quart of it" and therein lies the problem. this video
Just because we keep doing something does it make it safe? I’m inclined to agree with the WHO because I can’t see how they could profit from having the results be the way they are, if you believe the conspiracy theories. The old adage, “follow the money” still holds true; so if there is a conspiracy where is the money for calling RoundUp harmful? That Reuters article is loaded with conspiracy. No actual evidence of wrongdoing, unless I just missed it. Honest question: If glycosate is safe couldn’t you drink it? Why then did this Monsanto lobbyist refuse to drink it? Honest question. this video
It's no surprise when corrupt regulators cozy with industry are ineffective. It's not that regulation is bad, it's the nuance of having sensible and effective authority, legislation and enforcement that is desperately needed to properly regulate chemicals as and how they are used in many industries. This is almost as bad as Monsanto guy offered to drink glyphosate and then refused to drink it. this video