This book is extremely biased in nature, written by an activist paid by those who profit from demonizing glyphosate. Strom is using her name as a New York Times journalist to guide customers to this book. Glyphosate’s status as a legal pesticide is being debated right now in the European Union. Such a social media post is extremely inappropriate given the Times’ own guidelines.
It’s being decided in European and American courts right now. And about that American lawsuit:
The court documents included Monsanto’s internal emails and email traffic between the company and federal regulators. The records suggested that Monsanto had ghostwritten research that was later attributed to academics and indicated that a senior official at the Environmental Protection Agency had worked to quash a review of Roundup’s main ingredient, glyphosate, that was to have been conducted by the United States Department of Health and Human Services.
The documents also revealed that there was some disagreement within the E.P.A. over its own safety assessment.
This seems much more unscientific than the perfectly rational claim that herbicides are toxic (they are specifically designed to be toxic). Monsanto, according to these records, appears to be actively corrupting science and trying to undermine the basic epistemological framework surrounding its product. And it’s not the first time. They have been lying, getting sued and losing lawsuits for decades. They have paid out countless millions in fines. They have knowingly sown death and disease and have been punished for it time and again. In 1984, they paid out some $80 million in one lawsuit alone to settle against veterans who had been poisoned by Agent Orange.
Where are all your articles calling out the unscientific behavior of Monsanto over the years? You accuse people in reviews at Amazon of bias, but your lack of concern over Monsanto’s war on science seems a little strange since you make yourself out to be staunchly pro-science.
To me, the most reasonable position is to be anti-Monsanto and pro-GMO. Both of these stances are based on inductive logic and sound reasoning. Monsanto has worked hard to conflate these issues so that people who are anti-Monsanto can be painted as anti-scientific. People on both sides of the divide have fallen into the trap and take all-or-nothing approaches to GMO and Monsanto. Why take the bad with the good when you don’t have to?