Not even if you wash them in Ecover.
1 Like
Our kids are going to have to bear the brunt of life-style changes to control carbon output, but perhaps their kids might see a brighter future:
Katharine Hayhoe, chief scientist for the US Nature Conservancy, makes a similar point. It’s good to see scientists along with environmentalists warning against simple ‘tech solutions’ - they can only be a minor part of the solution - but some fix on them because they don’t want to admit that big, fundamental changes to our lifestyles and economies are what’s really needed.
This is fun!
(Don’t watch if you drive an SUV… Or maybe you should…)
The fact that there are TV chat shows like the discussing trivia, shows how far away we are from really getting a grip of the situation, or even the reality of it. I thought Ash Sarkar might say something along those lines but she merely joined in with the same argument from her view. When on earth are we going to wake up?
Woke prats, its possible to own an SUV shaped small engined vehicle. They are talking bollix. Plenty and any large engined car will be heavier than its small engined equivalent.
The Guardian: Glyphosate weedkiller damages wild bee colonies, study reveals.
It is not just bees, Glyphosate destroys human gut microbiome, Monsanto pattented it as an antibiotic but didnt follow it up as it destroyed the gut microbiome so well if left people open to c-difficile.
It is in most people as it is so widespread so reports say.
The European Chemicals Agency published an opinion just this week stating that Glyphosate was not carcinogenic which could mean the EU will reauthorise it’s use for another five years.
Yes I have been reading some of the arguments. Shame the ECA are just looking at its carcinogen properties and not all the other reasons it should be banned! Plenty of farmers suffered liver cancer BTW, in France too.
1 Like
It was patented as a herbicide from the start - it is an antibiotic in the sense that the metabolic pathway that it targets also occurs in bacteria but the patent for that was awarded in 2010, whereas the original herbicide patent was 1971.
Just about all antibiotics alter the gut biome - it’s pretty much inevitable but I don’t think that c-diff was even known about in 1971 and scan interest was paid to the effect of gut bacteria on general health.
It’s a pity because it is a very useful herbicide, but effectively saturating the planet in the stuff was bound to have unforeseen consequences.
Very true, but generally targeted towards an issue and because of the trillions we carry only some are killed/inactivated but glyphosate is a gut H bomb, when you mess with one you open up to over colonisation of others with dia effect. Same as introducing a non native species of animal, often the indigenous populations suffer. Millions of years of evolution messed up due to a few shareholders greed.
Not really in this case - Monsanto never intended glyphosate as an antibiotic, they are on record as saying it was the normal sort of patent activity in which large companies engage pretty much continuously - it gives them a “toe hold” in that space ( agents which target the Shikimate pathway in bacteria) which they can use to block further patents by prior art (or leverage licensing deals).
As to “shareholder greed” - you mean, by having shares? Are companies not supposed to make profits? Do those shareholders not include charities and pension funds?1
The real problem with Glyphosate IMO is not glyphosate itself which is a stunningly non-toxic product in humans but the development of resistant crops which allowed farmers to literally saturate their fields in the stuff (and the zeal with which Monsanto defends those patents is where it got a lot of it’s “evil agri giant” reputation)
Glyphosate has been given a bad press because of massive overuse - there just about isn’t a part of the Earth where you cannot find trace amounts, nor any biological system. When you expose the biosphere that widely to a substance you are pretty much guaranteed to find idiosyncratic toxic effects from the most benign of substances.
1] This is a separate philosophical point which can be developed if you like - should profit be the prime motivation for collective endeavour, is there a better way of organising ourselves, would human nature get in the way of such efforts (for bonus points independent generation of the communist manifesto can be arranged). Assuming we accept profit as a motivation it is not amoral to own shares to that end.
2 Likes
Yes agreed, it is possible to own shares in ethical companies. I cannot agree to non toxic in humans tho. Only so far as they hadnt studied the microbiome, as this is the hot topic going forward if we are going to better treatments taking a powerful anti biotic into our bodies over a long time is never going to be a good outcome. Obesity can be cured by a re population of the gut by beneficial bacteria, maybe diabetes treatments will follow. Re licensing something that ramps up the medical bills for health services should be a levy on Monsanto’s share dividens/profits and not just Monsanto.
1 Like
Find some research which conclusively proves harm - I don’t think there is any (outside internet armchair conspiracy theorists).
Also define “ethical”.
Monsanto’s aim has been to feed the world - something it has been successful in doing - that doesn’t sound such a bad goal does it?
As far as bees go, however, I think that there is some evidence implicating glyphosates (but I also suspect organophosphate insecticides play a huge role and they are widely used for pest control in large scale agriculture) - we rather need bees so anything which avoids harm to them I think is worthwhile. Whether that is a complete ban on glyphosate or a restriction as to commercial use I am less sure.
How did we manage before monsanto, or statins etc.
Whilst the gut is a newish branch of science and chronic digestive problems including but not limited to cancers there may not be a mass of evidence yet but I feel sure it will come.
We had significantly fewer mouths to feed. Don’t forget the dire predictions in the 70’s of not being able to feed everyone?
There isn’t much there about toxicity to humans as opposed to their gut bacteria.
I did want to correct your original assertion that “Monsanto pattented it as an antibiotic but didnt follow it up as it destroyed the gut microbiome so well if left people open to c-difficile”
Because I don’t think that there is any evidence that Monsanto seriously thought of it as an antibiotic. In fact here is the statement they made:
He goes on to say
They did not persue glyphosate as an antibiotic in mammals for lots of reasons, none of which were to do with the gut biome.
Back to that…
Lots of things can affect the gut biome - the western diet being chief culprit, you don’t need to go hunting bogeymen here.
What is happening at the moment - and here I agree with you that trace amounts of glyphosate could well have an effect - is the importance of gut backteria to our well being generally is being increasingly realised.
But everyone who takes an antibiotic has their gut biome messed with to one extent or another.
Everyone who changes their diet has their gut biome messed with.
We don’t (yet) know exactly how it all hangs together.
1 Like
We managed by starving or dying much younger than we do today. It made pensions much less expensive! In many ways being able to worry about gut flora is a luxury bourne of wealth and affluence almost unthinkable to ordinary people more than 3 generations back.
5 Likes
Indeed, one should be *very* wary of the rose tinted retrospectoscope.
That said I suspect that what people did eat was “better” for them - more plant material, less red meat and lower amounts of rapidly absorbed carbohydrate.
3 Likes
Exactly, the most influlential parts will no doubt come later. I am still trying to find out via the Zoe gut microbiome links the effect of my chemo as I have done my best to eat foods deemed to strengthen it.
1 Like
Just unthinkable in most cases I would agree, this will probably revolutionise medicine going forward.
Pension + massive drain on medical cost, living longer but with a shed load of health issues. Then educating bacteria to a point where we are running out of antibiotic treatments. Wholistically questionable.