There are lots of other things you should not chug. I remember an article where someone in Iraq (where they are hard up for entertainment) chugged a bottle of Frank’s Red Hot Sauce, but puked before getting down half the bottle. He said the worst part was the hot sauce geyser that shot up into his sinuses.
Chugging Roundup would not have gone very far because it is emulsified in surfactants and solvents, so it would be like chugging a mixture of something like laundry soap and rubbing alcohol.
Not to be pedantic (actually, I guess specifically to be pedantic), but herbicides can technically also be pesticides.
So your thesis is that PR people should have some credible understanding of both science and journalism before engaging with either. Good to know.
It’s not that I don’t agree with what you just wrote. It’s true. It’s also not at all as sensacionalistic as saying drinking a quart of glysophate is safe.
Just one question. What do you think he was trying to achieve by claiming that drinking a quart of the stuff is safe?
Because I’m thinking that that’s the only thing we see differently.
You’re asking me to read the mind of someone I’ve never heard of before this incident who was invited to the interview to talk about Golden Rice, apparently. Notice that the interview fades in midway through a sentence. What was the original question being asked? The answer he starts out giving is about whether it causes cancer.
This interview brings none of the real issues about glyphosate usage to light. The workers in the fields aren’t drinking the stuff, they’re coming in contact with it through their skin over years. There’s zero evidence that there’s a risk for people eating crops that have been raised in glyphosate protected fields. But what the public gets to see from this is: glyphosate == bad without any nuance or actual information being passed on.
Makes a great sound bite, just don’t trust anyone who’s willing to use it to argue their point.
I’m asking for your opinion. With the undersatanding that its your opinion and not objective truth.
I think I’ve given my opinion fairly clearly, though I’ve been a bit heavily moderated due to my interactions with another poster here, so it’s difficult to reference it at the moment.
I’ll recap, these are all my opinion:
Guy isn’t a PR person. Guy isn’t even a lobbyist as far as anyone can tell – no one can produce evidence to support that theory. Guy was invited onto a show to talk about GMO and specifically Golden Rice. Something he supports (and I support as well, if that matters). Guy was then led to talk about the recent claim by the WHO that Glyphosate probably causes cancer. I can’t find the interview in it’s entirety, even Canal+ has only released this soundbite as far as I can tell, but it clearly starts in the middle of an answer to a question we can’t hear. Based on the way he answers I expect the rest of the interview was fairly antagonistic. He responds that he doesn’t think it causes cancer and that it’s safe to drink.
That’s a dumb thing to say in this context, but saying dumb things doesn’t indicate malice. He backs up his dumb thing by pointing out a fact that has been echoed in this forum: Suicide by glyphosate has been attempted frequently and fails far more often than suicide attempts using other herbicides. This does, in fact, indicate a lower toxicity of the compound in question but the discussion wasn’t about toxicity, it was about carcinogenic behavior
Then the reporter, who seems unusually primed for this response, offers to let him drink a glass of it. This is also a dumb thing. As has been pointed out there are literally thousands of compounds in common use that are completely safe and no right-thinking person would drink them. The very fact that there have been successful suicides by glyphosate clearly indicates it does have some level of toxicity.
The discussion about whether glyphosate causes cancer is an important one to have, the consensus in the scientific community is that it probably does not. but as Cynical points out above, many manufacturing processes involve dangerous chemicals, which are then (in an ideal world) regulated to ensure worker safety.
But this report does less than nothing to illuminate this discussion. It actually harms it. People will come away from it thinking that the toxicity of the product is the reason it was being discussed, not whether it’s a carcinogen. You need to look no further than this board to see that effect.
Since much of the original conversation got moderated out of existence due to our interactions, I’m only going to point out that this is absolutely not what I said. When I used the term idiot I wasn’t referring to anyone in the clip presented.
I’m not doing this to further our interactions, I’m doing this so that my words are not misrepresented. If the BB staff feel this message should also be moderated out of existence, I’d appreciate it if the post I’m replying to were similarly moderated.
I’m also not thrilled that andy_hilmer’s comment referring to me as “liar-adjacent” was allowed to stand but my rebuttal to that was wiped.
That’s true but not the point. This interview reflects on exactly one issue: that venal advocates from groups like Greenspirit would have you believe whatever about things like glyphosate without any pretense of accuracy.
The greater issues of glyphosate use and safety would of course require looking at completely different things, as many here have said. But then, after all, this is just one clip from a documentary. I would hope the rest would take a capable look at the subject, though I can’t say how likely that is. But here we see at least this much, that there’s no point to bother any further with flacks like Moore in that look.
Many commenters here seem willing to ignore Moore’s claim in the first place, so maybe they’re considering that a trivial point, and it should be. But instead somehow think tanks and consultants like these get treated as if they were trustworthy experts all the time, so I’m happy to see a reminder of just how sensible it is to imbibe what they offer.
And that the interviewer in question would have you believe something different about glyphosate without any other pretense of accuracy? Why is this a one-way street? This crap, done on either side of many issues cheapens discourse around important subjects. But rah-rah if it agrees with our pre-conceived notions?
If Moore’s views on glyphosate are wrong, why not highlight that by using actually useful statements? He was talking about cancer rates in Argentina. Is the data not strong enough to disagree with him on that point? Or does it just not get as many hits on the Internet?
Or he could have challenged the interviewer to consume an entire bottle of aspirin. Of course, you’d also want a bucket handy for when he starts projectile vomiting blood.
Moore’s views on glyphosate are irrelevant because he is a professional liar, shown here offering a stupid lie. It doesn’t hurt discourse to show his credibility is fake, not compared to the harm we do by treating industry mouthpieces willing to say such nonsense as if they were an honest part of it.
Like I said, I would hope the actual documentary does make useful statements and look at actual data about the safety of glyphosates. It might, you know; or it might not, in which case it would be fair to complain about. Heck, I can’t even be sure it’s about glyphosates. For all your objections about what they say and don’t say, we haven’t seen as much as a whole minute out of it. All we’ve got is this one clip where Wormtongue gets thrown out on the steps.
It comes off as somewhat amusingly Blinky-like, and doesn’t preclude the kind of discussion you want, just highlights that despite how he sells himself Moore plainly isn’t honest enough to be part of that. He deserves it, and I think it’s good they take a moment to show it, I hope on top of an actual examination.
Which sort of imagery do you think is okay for a discussion? Concrete examples? A glass of water, perhaps, that we are told contains pesticide just after someone claims they could drink the pesticide with no ill effect? Or perhaps something more abstract and descriptive, to point out that you’ve aligned yourself with terrible PR lying (and who someone works for doesn’t change their job title), in a kind of way “adjacent” to it? Making the assumption that you are actually part of that community of shills does seem to be over the line, but it is acceptable for me to point out that you haven’t been applying consistent standards of credibility, merely applying argumentation such that you consistently stand with one particular team.
That word. I do not think it means what you think it means. He’s not paid by Monsanto. Any claims to the contrary should come with evidence. Also, and I hate to be overly logical here: Even if he was, it doesn’t mean he’s wrong, or a liar. I think that argument is actually the base-definition of the ad hominem fallacy. This incident proves literally nothing about anything anyone is concerned about, except maybe how journalism does and does not work.
More Generally (i.e., not specific to @andy_hilmer’s comment):
If you asked a fracking executive whether tap water in the area (the kind you can set on fire) is safe to drink, and offered them a glass of water, then it would prove something. Because the argument is inherently different: That this water is safe for daily drinking in large typical-water-serving-size amounts. Water is toxic to no one, and so tap water should be safe. This is where the Brockovich is effective, and demonstrates hypocrisy.
This man never advocated people drink roundup. His advocacy is no even extensive to the idea that drinking large quantities is completely safe. He is making the point that its acute toxicity is low. Any understanding of his remarks to the contrary is engaging in a deliberate attempt to misinterpret his point. Did anyone here watch that and interpret his words to mean, You should drink glyphosate in ridiculous quantities or It has zero effects at those levels? He essentially said: It won’t kill you.
You know who else made that argument and didn’t like demonstrating it, and demonstrated it a limited number of times? James Motherfuckin’ Randi. He “overdosed” on homeopathic medicines to make a point, but when asked to do it on-demand he would demur. It was never because he was wrong, it was simply because the stuff they make the (effectively placebo) capsules out of wreaked havoc with his digestion. If I were advocating for the safety of glyphosate, for whatever reason, I wouldn’t drink a glass of roundup, because honestly? Fuck that noise. People who are not mature enough to understand the difference between something that is toxic, and something that shouldn’t be consumed at high levels, are not people I’m willing to endure discomfort for.
It’s a stunt. It was a stunt when Randi did it, and it continues to be one. Why? Because it only convinces people who are already not persuaded by evidence. I.e. People who are deliberately ignorant. You don’t need to be a rocket surgeon to understand that homoepathy is predicated on flawed principles, that water that burns isn’t good for you, or that weed-killer isn’t delicious.
I have an idea for a stunt: Let’s feed it to animals and see what it does to them, and then collect data over the long term when humans are exposed to glyphosate under differing conditions. Not as flashy, I know, but it might actually prove something.
But the interviewer never claimed that it would be safe to consume an entire bottle of aspirin.
As far as the argument “just because something is unsafe to consume in large quantities doesn’t mean it’s necessarily unsafe to use in diluted form in certain contexts” goes, I agree. I mentioned fluoride earlier as one example, and bleach is another. We can and do safely add both substances to our drinking water as long as they are diluted to an appropriate amount.
Where the guest veered from “non-crazy defense of industrial chemical” to “ridiculous overstatement of safety” was when he claimed it was safe enough to drink a quart of the stuff. After that it became hard to take the rest of his argument seriously.
I don’t really know if he’s paid by Monsanto, but then I’m not supposed to. Like I said, Moore has been behind groups like Greenspirit Strategies, a consulting firm of the sort that obscures any such connections. But it doesn’t take much to find him doing things one would be hard-pressed not to call shilling, for instance his climate change denial or work with companies like Asia Pulp and Paper. Given this history, I have a tough time seeing what earns him the benefit of the doubt in this case.
I also have a tough time seeing why anyone would stand up for him here. You’re unhappy with people confusing long-term toxicity and potability? Good. Now how does that excuse the person who says something as ridiculous as that you can drink a quart of glyphosate without harm? Yes, he may have been set up for it; but like everyone here has agreed it’s still wrong, and irrelevantly wrong. I’d excuse it as hyperbole if it were clarified, but he leaves it and tries to move on.
Why would you care to excuse Moore for a false statement of exactly the type you’re objecting to, instead of the interviewer who doesn’t let it stand? What would that help? I have a tough time seeing how it would lead to any real information on glyphosate safety, which again I hope the rest of the documentary takes a real look at, for instance talking to people who don’t say ridiculous things about whether it’s safe to drink.
This is a crap story. Starting to lose me, boingboing.
DR. PATRICK MOORE RESPONDS TO A CAMPAIGN BY ACTIVISTS WHICH AIMS TO DISCREDIT HIM.
Dear friends and supporters,
I have been a dedicated environmentalist and ecologist for 45 years, beginning my career as a co-founder of Greenpeace. Since leaving Greenpeace almost 30 years ago I have operated as an independent voice on climate change, energy, forestry, agriculture, and in particular today on Golden Rice.
Because Golden Rice was produced with transgenic techniques I have been drawn into the entire controversy around GMOs. It is my position that of all the scientifically baseless campaigns, anti-vaccination for example, the campaign against the use of genetic science in agriculture is the most baseless of all. I have tried to stay focused on Golden Rice because it is the first GM plant to address a humanitarian need, the death of up to 2 million children each year from vitamin A deficiency.
I have always based my positions on science and logic, as opposed to sensationalism, misinformation, and fear. My high profile and ability to highlight anti-scientific statements and agendas by activists has greatly annoyed my opponents and has made me a target for fabricated smears and attempts to discredit me personally with lies. The lie that I am a lobbyist for Monsanto, for example.
This latest attempt (link 1 below) is just another example of a distraction from people that would rather attack the person than discuss the science.
So lets talk about what really happened:
For many years, my opponents have claimed that I am a paid lobbyist for GMO seed companies, in particular Monsanto. This is a technique used to avoid debating the science that proves Golden Rice and GM foods are safe. Monsanto has now issued a statement that I have never been employed by them (link 2 below) so I will no longer have to put up with that lie. Personally, I admire Monsanto’s leadership in improving many crop varieties, through both conventional breeding and transgenic breeding.
Unfortunately, I accidentally gave my opponents another distraction to use while being interviewed on French TV a few months back. I was extremely upset with this interviewer as he lured me to an interview under false pretences. It was meant to be an interview on Golden Rice and he pulled a stunt on me. The video has since been cleverly edited to distort my actual opinions on the subjects discussed.
I did not intend to say that glyphosate was “safe" to drink, it is not intended for consumption. My point was that in almost all cases it is non-lethal to drink in large quantities and therefore ‘safe’ in the manner that it is used in farming worldwide.
I conduct hundreds of live interviews each year and this is not the first time I have made a mistake under the pressure of a live interview and probably won’t be the last. Only those who put themselves in this situation would understand how difficult it is to do a live interview with a hostile host.
I had stated in a previous interview that glyphosate was safe to use in agriculture and mentioned that it has such low toxicity that drinking a large quantity of it at the concentrations used in farming would not cause permanent damage to humans. In the middle of the interview now being circulated, the interviewer abruptly changed the subject to glyphosate and asked if I would drink a glass of it on camera. I blew up at him because clearly only a fool would drink an unknown substance offered by a hostile stranger live on camera. I had never said I would drink glyphosate in the first place, only that nearly all the people who have tried to commit suicide by drinking it have failed. And they were drinking concentrations of glyphosate far higher than those used as a spray to control weeds. Glyphosate is sold as a concentrate and is typically diluted to 1- 2% with water before it is applied.
There is no scientific evidence that if glyphosate is used as directed by manufacturers, that it can cause cancer. The World Health Organization have done a disservice to science by stating that glyphosate “probably causes cancer". The studies they chose to base their finding on were not based on the quantities used in modern agriculture. The WHO also categorizes ‘coffee’, 'pickled vegetables’ and 'mobile phones’ as possibly carcinogenic! On the scale used by professional toxicologists, glyphosate is less toxic than table salt and vinegar. In fact, if you would like to make at home a spray more toxic to weeds than ‘Glyphosate’ then a mixture of vinegar, salt and dishwashing detergent would suffice.
Every toxicologist knows the first principle of their discipline is “the poison is in the dose”. Many substances that are harmless, or even required nutrients at low doses, can be toxic or even lethal at higher doses. Glyphosate Technical Fact Sheet http://ow.ly/KVQs4
I will not be distracted by the fabrications and games that our opponents play. Golden Rice has the potential to stop the deaths of 2 million children annually and that will be my only focus.
Thank you
Dr. Patrick Moore
Which still does not equal: “Paid by Monstanto.” Don’t argue by implication. Either he is paid by them, or he isn’t. Either you can prove it, or you can’t. All of this he-may-be-but-who-can-really-know is just a tip-toe around providing evidence.
What bothers me, more than anything in this discussion is how quickly everyone has abandoned basic critical thinking skills, and have generated a profligate number of well-established fallacies. Let me recap:
Being paid, cannot in itself, make you wrong about specific topic.
Being wrong about something else, cannot in itself, make you wrong about a specific topic.
Being an asshole, in itself, cannot make you wrong about a specific topic.
The confluence of these things, taken together, does not make a person wrong about a specific topic.
But, that’s very much where the thread is heading, with people like you actually in the minority. Which annoys me, because I’ve actually come to expect the BB commentariate to be better about these things, on average. I don’t expect people to agree with me, I do expect more logical disagreement. I really didn’t watch this, and for one second, assume that he meant, in a literal sense, that you can drink a quart of glyphosate and it would be awesome. What he said, is it wouldn’t harm him. For various definitions of the word “harm,” I absolutely knew what he intended that to mean: It won’t kill me, it won’t cause long-lasting issues, it’s not going to be the end of the world for me.
I believe he believes that he knows drinking a pint of glyphosate would be alright, and I believe that he didn’t want to do it, because it would have sucked to do, and because, to paraphrase Jon Stewart, he was not their monkey.
Also, have you noticed the implications get narrower and narrower without fallacious reasoning? It starts at, “Glyphosate is evil” and is steadily degraded until it becomes, “This guy went too far with his claim of safety.” One of which is actually not particularly noteworthy, and would not have made headlines.
Finally, and this is why I defend him: I could easily see myself using those exact words, and I have in the past. I have said, in the past, that you can eat pounds of ascorbic acid. I don’t remember the exact context, but I was making a broader point about Vitamin C’s relative non-toxicity compared to other vitamins. In reality, it would give you horrible diarrhea and probably isn’t great for you, but I didn’t intend it literally, or with the intention that people do it. It was a discussion about polar bear liver. I truly believe people are being deliberately obtuse, and deliberately applying a standard of literalism that is, frankly, dishonest.
my opinion of the original post, the actions of the participants in the interview, and the later statement from moore is that he used hyperbole qualified by some appropriate weasel words (. . . at the concentrations used in farming would not cause permanent damage to humans.) to describe the safety of glyphosphate and the interviewer hit with literality as a ploy to discredit him. in the end, moore responded poorly and ambiguously to the interviewer and came out seeming a little worse than the interviewer. my one contribution to the conversation upstream was an attempt to point that out.
although there are many relevant questions which could be posed–e.g. what is the relationship between moore’s consulting firm and monsanto or the chemical industry in general? what are the long-term risks to low-concentration glyphosphate exposure? did the interviewer actually prove anything by doing this other than getting moore to overreact?-- those kinds of questions seem to be getting lost in the noise.
isn’t this really about ethics in science journalism? 
I would also say that for the benefit of some of the activists::
Not being paid, cannot in itself, makes you right about specific topic.
Being wrong about basic facts, cannot in itself, make you right about a specific topic.
Being an asshole, in itself, cannot make you right about a specific topic.
But a lot of what passes for activism is simply online driving trollies. There are still people that think Michael Moore ambushing a doddering but gracious Charlton Heston in “Bowling For Columbine” was brilliant, as well as the cartoon equating gun ownership with racism. And I see very little daylight between them and the people that think Sarah Palin is a genius and Obama is a Kenyan - isn’t half the point just having annoyingly dumb things that repeat endlessly? Furthermore, this sort of activism actually converges on topics like RoundUp and other conspiracy theories. Go to some site that promotes organic food and you will be probably at most two mouse clicks away from a Holocaust denial site, because they are part of a diffuse conspiracy theory subculture. And a lot of what defines that subculture is a sort of us-against-the-world driving trollies.
When I see a story like that video, I am unimpressed but for a lot of people this will be some sort of defining moment because somebody got trolled and that just automatically rates as fucking brilliant.
