When Cocaine and Monsanto's Roundup Collide, . . . .

[ensho]

http://blog.buzzflash.com/analysis/894


When Cocaine and Monsanto's Roundup Collide, War on Drugs Becomes a Genetically-Modified War on Science


At the intersection of cocaine and Roundup in rural South America, Monsanto and the U.S. government are struggling to keep up appearances. That's becoming more and more difficult as the unanticipated hazards of genetic modification become clearer.

Back in April, Argentinean embryologist Andrés Carrasco gave an interview with a Buenos Aires newspaper describing his recent findings suggesting the chemical glyphosate, a chemical herbicide widely used in agriculture as well as in U.S. anti-narcotic efforts, could cause defects in fetuses in much smaller doses than those to which peasants and farmers in his country were already being exposed. Loud calls for a ban on the substance were issued by Argentinean environmental lawyers, and the country's Ministry of Defense banned the planting of glyphosate-resistant soya crops in its fields.

Then came the backlash. An article in an Argentinean paper recently reported that Carrasco was assaulted in a way he described as "violent" by four men associated with agricultural interests:

Two of the men were said to be members of an agrochemical industry body but refused to give their names. The other two claimed to be a lawyer and notary. They apparently interrogated Dr. Carrasco and demanded to see details of the experiments. They left a card Basílico, Andrada & Santurio, attorneys on behalf of Felipe Alejandro Noël.

-snip-

The Transnational Institute (TNI), a nonpartisan international group of scholars, has drawn attention to the inconsistencies and basic errors in studies refuting the dangers of glyphosate. This should come as no surprise, since Monsanto has been involved in several known cases of scientific fraud regarding the same chemical, wherein the EPA found multiple instances in which labs were paid to falsify preferred results for the company. Monsanto has also been charged in multiple jurisdictions for disseminating misleading information about its Roundup products.

-snip-

But punishment is meted out unequally. Because glyphosate is an herbicide and is not specifically targeted to work against drug crops (as is easily deduced by the fact that it's used against coca and poppy plants as well as against household weeds in the U.S.), the spray kills legitimate crops, too.

-snip-

It seems that the whole operation may have backfired though, at least from the perspective of the governments that are promoting such a strategy. The effort has lead to coca growers cutting down national forests -- where such spraying is often against the law -- to produce their illicit crops. But Mother Nature may be rebelling against drug policy as well. coca plants appear to be either evolving on their own (or with the help of coca farmers' active selection) -- or they are possibly crossing with Roundup Ready crops already on the ground -- to produce a glyphosate-resistant crop known as Boliviana negra.

-snip-

The group suggested that South American countries band together to refuse U.S. anti-narcotic spraying on environmental and human safety grounds, as has been done in Afghanistan.

-snip-

So while there's no solid proof that the men threatening Andrés Carrasco belong to the same corporation that falsified lab results on the harm caused by glyphosate or the group that told lies about Roundup, there's no doubt in my mind that they belong in the same sick club.
------------------------------------

may Monsanto fall down and never get up

[Kievan Rus]

1. Monsanto is from the devil

[Sebastian Doyle]

2. Which is why I like to call them....

MonSatan :grr:

[valerief]

4. Goo d name! nt

[slay]

6. Yeah FUCK Monsanto - they truly are evil

I even have a friend who works for them - she just doesn't get it. :banghead:

http://www.monsantosucks.com/

Millions Against Monsanto Campaign -- http://www.organicconsumers.org/monlink.cfm

[valerief]

3. Anything to help Amerika's War FOR Drugs. nt

[rurallib]

5. I heard on an NPR program a couple years back that several varieties of weeds

or unwanted vegetation had evolved a resistance to Roundup. Some fields in Ohio that were early test cases were overrun with weeds.

[formercia]

11. That's all that's left

About 10 years ago, I tried Roundup to clear an overgrown area to plant a small test garden. It killed most of the grasses but the weeds that did survive were worse than the original growth.

I gave up on the area and let the grass grow back. It did a better job of keeping the weeds down.

Since then, I have sworn off pesticides.

[Maru Kitteh]

29. Um, that would be an herbicide. Pesticides kill bugs. - and you're right about the weed thing.

mulching is much friendlier and more effective.

[SlipperySlope]

37. Pesticides kill pests, including plant pests.

Pesticides kill pests.

Herbicides are pesticides that kill plants.
Insecticides are pesticides that kill insects.
Fungicides are pesticides that kill fungus.

Etc...

[LiberalAndProud]

7. The Monsanto Mafia.

RICO laws should be applied to bring that evil behemoth down.

[Ignis]

8. And cue our resident Monsanto shills in 3...2...1...

Because big, soulless corporations need your love too, apparently. :shrug:

[flvegan]

9. Do we really have those here?

Man, nothing shocks me anymore.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. It's what he calls skeptics.

Everybody's in on the conspiracy, according to the conspiracy theorists.

[Ignis]

12. True skepticism has nothing to do with a slavish devotion to the status quo.

In fact, I'd argue it's diametrically opposed. And if you'd studied the history and writings of the original Skeptics, you'd know that.

But please, tell us yet again how Monsanto can do no wrong! All those Latin American farmers are obviously conspiracy theorists. :eyes:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. Who said anything about slavish devotion to the status quo?

Or about how Monsanto can do no wrong?

Or Latin American farmers, for that matter?

[Ignis]

17. I did, because that's often what I see in your posts.

Oh, it's thinly veiled as "critical thinking," of course--but most critical thinkers I know aren't quite so quick to employ the argumentum ad verecundiam and argumentum ad ignoratiam fallacies.

But let's be honest: You've already decided that I'm "anti-science" or a "woo" or a "conspiracy theorist"--which I find amusing, given my advanced technical degree and 20+ years of employment in an extremely evidence-driven profession--so why bother pretending otherwise?

Scientism is not the same thing as skepticism.

---

Edited to add: That being said, I do enjoy your snark and your ability to completely disarm irrational posters with a 1- or 2-line post. So nothing personal on my end! :hi: I simply think your approach to anti-corporate criticism is deeply flawed.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. No, you don't, you're making that up.

Show me one example where I've made an argument by authority or ignorance.

"which I find amusing, given my advanced technical degree and 20+ years of employment in an extremely evidence-driven profession"

Well now that's a very good example of argumentum ad verecundiam you've provided there, but that's not exactly what I was talking about.

"You've already decided that I'm "anti-science" or a "woo" or a "conspiracy theorist"--"

Of the things I've decided you are, "woo" is probably the least of the things to worry about.

[Ignis]

19. *shrug* OK, you've never, ever, ever used a logical fallacy.

Unlike the rest of us, you are perfect in every way, and never suffer from a misstep.
You never, ever attack posters personally for the content of their posts.
And to top it all off, you have tremendous intellectual honesty!

:eyes:

Look, I'm really not bothered by what you think about me, given that you can't even manage to sort out the fact that the title and the first line of my previous post were two different sentences. If you were any Mere Mortal, I'd say that you should really be asking me to prove that your posts show a "slavish devotion to the status quo" rather than the two listed fallacies, and thus you're poking at the old Strawman here.

But since you have never employed a single logical fallacy while here at DU, the point is moot.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. That's another logical fallacy.

Straw man fallacy, ironically.

"I'd say that you should really be asking me to prove that your posts show a "slavish devotion to the status quo"

Either or would do, buddy.

[Ignis]

23. So...you use some fallacies, but not others?

Would you provide a list, so I can cross-reference? I don't know which particular fallacies you deign to use and which you wouldn't possibly dream of using--and you can't tell the players without a program.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

24. Generally, Ignis, I try to avoid making fallacies.

If you see me make any, please let me know so I can correct them.

[Ignis]

25. Fair enough. Please return the favor. (nt)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. Way ahead of you.

[Ignis]

27. It would be better if you did so correctly, however.

Ridiculous assertions such as "I never use X fallacy" or "I know you are a Y because you say Z" do nothing to further your claims of skepticism.

---

So then! Since you've claimed to have "won" this argument, how about that list? I'm hardly going to waste my time on the Search function unless I know which logical fallacies you never, ever, ever employ. Is it merely -authority and -ignorance that you abhor and eschew? Because given your track record on DU, I'm concerned that you'll dismiss any one of the many examples I'll find as out-of-bounds unless we establish the ground rules.

Then again, I'm inclined to believe you'll simply obfuscate and tergiversate any example I find, so I'm disinclined to do the exercise. That's the problem with arguing with absolutists--whether religious fanatics, Objectivists, or scientismists: They're absolutely convinced that they're absolutely correct in absolutely every case.

Not a very scientific approach, if you ask me. But then, I'm not a fan of pseudoskepticism.

---

So, if it really causes you physical pain to be civil, let's have at. :hi:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

28. Come again?

"Ridiculous assertions such as 'I never use X fallacy'"

And where did I assert this?

You accused me of making logical fallacies, the onus is on you to demonstrate where.

"I know you are a Y because you say Z"

Y = conspiracy theorist

Z = people who disagree with you are Monsanto (or should I say Monsatan?) shills who conspire against you.

"That's the problem with arguing with absolutists--whether religious fanatics, Objectivists, or scientismists: They're absolutely convinced that they're absolutely correct in absolutely every case."

Lulz

[Ignis]

30. No thanks.

You accused me of making logical fallacies, the onus is on you to demonstrate where.

Well, I'd have ample evidence of the argumentum ad hominem fallacy if your posts weren't such mod-bait for deletion. (What is it about certain female posters that enrages you to the point of spittle-flecked incoherence, anyway?)

people who disagree with you are Monsanto (or should I say Monsatan?) shills who conspire against you.

That would indeed be compelling evidence...if I'd ever said that. If you think I'm suffering from senile dementia and somehow forgot the fact that I posted that argument, please show me where I did.

Or are you just embarrassed for having answered "ME! ME! I'm here now! Present! Hey, over here! Pick me! Pick me!" when I mentioned the impending arrival of Monsanto shills?

Lulz, verily.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

32. Say what?

"Well, I'd have ample evidence of the argumentum ad hominem fallacy if your posts weren't such mod-bait for deletion."

Ah, you accuse me of logical fallacies, but you can't provide any evidence. How convenient.

"(What is it about certain female posters that enrages you to the point of spittle-flecked incoherence, anyway?)"

So now I'm sexist? Prone to anger? Incoherent? Got any evidence of that?

What are you going to accuse mr of next? Membership in the Communist party? Or witchcraft?

(btw, you may have noticed you accused me of ad hominems directly before calling me sexist, irrational, and incoherent. Are you just going through a list of logical fallacies? I mean, you could be teaching a course in what not to do.

"That would indeed be compelling evidence...if I'd ever said that. If you think I'm suffering from senile dementia and somehow forgot the fact that I posted that argument, please show me where I did."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6437880&mesg_id=6438126

[Ignis]

33. I have no idea whether you're sexist or not.

But the first thing the Search function showed me is that you have some very nasty, ugly, long-standing feuds with several DUers, and they appear to be predominantly female. I'm not sure whether or not the fact that they're female is an important data point, but it's what jumped out on a quick perusal of your post history.

It's apparent that you don't realize the difference between the argumentum ad hominem fallacy and a simple pejorative description. Saying that you posted an angry, ugly post is not the same as saying that your argument is invalid because you are an angry, ugly person. I'm certainly no saint, but I try to be careful not to engage in the latter.

Again, if you don't understand this fallacy, please do a little research before flinging the old asparagus, eh?

---

Your posted link doesn't demonstrate in the slightest that I said "people who disagree with {me} are Monsanto...shills who conspire against {me}." If that's really what you think I posted, you're going to have to spell out the argument more carefully.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

34. Oh, so then you can provide links.

"It's apparent that you don't realize the difference between the argumentum ad hominem fallacy and a simple pejorative description. Saying that you posted an angry, ugly post is not the same as saying that your argument is invalid because you are an angry, ugly person."

Ah, so then you see the wisdom of my arguments.

"Your posted link doesn't demonstrate in the slightest that I said "people who disagree with {me} are Monsanto...shills who conspire against {me}." If that's really what you think I posted, you're going to have to spell out the argument more carefully."

Breathtaking innanity. A few years ago some creationists were in a court case over creationism in classrooms. They'd give speeches on the courthouse steps to their supporters going on about how they were bringing the bible back to the classroom, in front of the judge the whole time. Then in the courtroom they'd swear up and down their cause had nothing to do with religion. The judge described their lies as "breathtaking innanity."

"But the first thing the Search function showed me is that you have some very nasty, ugly, long-standing feuds with several DUers, and they appear to be predominantly female. I'm not sure whether or not the fact that they're female is an important data point, but it's what jumped out on a quick perusal of your post history."

Did that really happen, Ingis? Or did you just get some PMs from some bitter losers? You know, while we're on the subject of skepticism, you shouldn't believe everything you read. Especially from crazy people.

[Ignis]

36. I'm baaaaack!

(Sorry, delay in response due to travel.)

Ah, so then you see the wisdom of my arguments.

Which ones? I evaluate arguments based upon their consistency, strength, and support--not upon whether or not I think the poster is an asshole, hypocrite, etc. Of course, I'm unlikely to bend over backwards to helpfully infer something that a poster didn't properly elucidate if they've done nothing but insult me, but I'm only human.

I'm glad that you're big enough to admit your misapplication of the ad hominem fallacy, though. To do otherwise would have shown an incredible intellectual dishonesty. :hi:

Breathtaking innanity {sic}.

If I say "Here come the clowns," and you interpret that to mean, "Ignis is a paranoid who thinks anyone who disagrees with him is out to get him," then the onus is on you to prove that I said so. You haven't done so, and you know that.

The intellectually honest thing to do would have been to admit you were trying to put words into my mouth, but ... well, you didn't do that, did you? Hey, no one likes to be wrong, but you painted yourself into that corner.

Or did you just get some PMs from some bitter losers?

Oh, man...you seriously overestimate how well I'm liked here at DU. :) Granted, I'm not quite as nefarious as yourself, but that's probably merely due to the limited amount of time I have to post here.

Besides which, at this point, no one's reading this thread but ourselves.

But I did receive one email from a concerned friend who reminded me of the recent mod clarification on re-opening old wounds by posting links to threads that have deteriorated into flamewars, so I'm not going to post links to those posts. You and I both know exactly which threads I'm referencing, so I'm not going to post a big "Ban Me!" sign on my back over it.

[Ignis]

13. Exxon, Shell, Nestle, Monsanto: All great corporate citizens!

Or so we hear with increasing, strident frequency here at DU.

If you disagree, the ONLY possible reason is that you're a conspiracy theorist.

Bit strange, innit? :shrug:

[Sebastian Doyle]

15. Or that you're "anti-science"

...if you don't believe that a chemically altered, mercury tainted "sweetener" made from mutant corn should be a mandatory ingredient in all food.

[Ignis]

16. Yes, that's the primary cudgel being used to silence dissent.

Not 100% convinced that GMO foods are 100% safe?
You're the "woo"--despite the extremely short testing life cycle between lab and market for GMO foods and the preponderance of Big Ag / Big Chem money involved in the studies.

Not 100% convinced that Monsanto is 100% innocent of all claims made against it?
You're a "conspiracy theorist"--despite the thousands of claims made by thousands of farmers regarding Monsanto's unethical practices.

Not 100% convinced that the primary goals of multi-national corporations are the health and safety of all humanity and the biodiversity of our environment?
You're a "wacko," "nutjob," or "anti-science Luddite"--despite the evidence of many, many corporations putting profit over people over the past 75 years and then hiding/whitewashing the evidence.

It's amazing what you can learn on DU, eh? :hi:

[Hannah Bell]

20. pharmacorps don't let independent researchers test their products - but critics = "anti-science".

it is to laugh.

[Ignis]

22. It is, indeed, when the other option is to cry.

:hi:

[troubledamerican]

31. "Roundup" is an interesting, politically-charged double-entendre

[Quantess]

35. Here is where bees, cocaine, herbicides/pesticides, meet.

We always knew honeybees were effected by pesticide makers like Monsanto...but did you know that honeybees are also effected by cocaine? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081223091308.htm