The stuff on roundup is well, not entirely correct.  The active chemical, glycosphate, is entirely non-toxic to humans.  It blocks an enzyme in the shihomate (spelling off, sorry) biochemical pathway which leads to a subset of amino acids.  In human terms they are regared as 'essential amino acids' as it is essential that they are in our diet as we just do not have that biochemical pathway. 

The chemical blocks a pathway that we just do not have anyway, it simply can not affect us. 

There are other chemical in round-up as well but of little to no human toxicty.

Basmas-

You're absolutely right about glyphosate, by itself it's not obviously harmful to humans. However, there have been tests done that indicate it can interfere with the enzymes that produce testosterone and estrogen. There have also been other tests done that indicate it could be a disruptor of the endocrine system. And yes, of course there are other chemicals in Roundup- much of the controversy comes from this-

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9464316

which puts forth the position that Roundup caused genetic problems in mice and that they didn't believe that it was due to glyphosate specifically but another substance in roundup or an unanticipated side effect of the combination of various substances.

Of more alarm is that while Roundup may not have much of an immediately obvious affect on humans, it's pretty nasty to fish and aquatic species. And run off from large agricultural plots into rivers and local water tables has always been a significant issue, even more so compounded with the amount of herbicides that could be in that run-off.

What I do know is that the European Union has classified Roundup as dangerous for the environment and toxic for aquatic organisms. There are also two documented cases in which laboratories hired by Monsanto to perform tests on the effects of glyphosate were caught red-handed falsifying their results, and this was found to be a routine occurrence.

-but-...... Let's be real here. I am not a chemist, nor am I a biologist. Everything I've posted about can be found online by any joe-schmoe (that's me!) and regurgitated after 5 minutes of searching online. Admittedly, the finer details of what Roundup does or does not do on a chemical or biological basis are entirely over my head. What's important to remember here is that Monsanto has a past of compulsive lying.

They lied about Roundup being biodegradable.... they knew full well that it takes so long to degrade appreciably that the term "biodegradable" was not truthful. But it took a law suit from the New York Attorney General filed in 1996 AND Monsanto kept the case tied up in court for over 11 years. In 2007 they were convicted of false advertising.

And let's not forget the whole 40 years of pumping PCB's into water tables unfiltered thing. If it were up to me, Monsanto should have had it's charter revoked for that alone, it's board of directors going to prison, and the massive profits the company accrued over decades of criminal negligence going towards restitution of it's victims and R&D for pure science (just my two cents)

In short, Monsanto is indeed one very evil company!

You forgot to mention that they ruin farmers with their terminator seeds in thirdworld countries and make them entirely dependable on them.

It is a crying shame that crops and cattle have been industrialized so much that it is almost a perversion of nature. It is unethical and immoral, but good business. Greed is never a positive motivator, no matter what neolibertarian economists say. A social component has to keep that in check to make things sustainable for the benefit of everybody, not just some large companies. This is not communist, either, it's common sense. I don't get why people are paranoid about the government having too much control but don't mind at all if a business corporation with only its own interests manages to monopolize one of the most important things for our survival - argriculture.

I'll get to the round-up thing later but no farmer in any part of the world has ever been forced to buy terminator seeds. 

Famers the world over have bought terminator seeds because they chose to. 

If the third world farmers want to have seeds that they can collect and use next year then they can buy them; monsato has not, nor can not, stop the supply of these seeds.

Most farmers buy seeds every year as in the main they use cross-bred seeds to take advantage of a genetic phenomon called hybrid vicor.  The seeds makers cross breed two line and the first generation is stronger than both parents, due to the mix of genes, and this benfit is reduced with each generation.

On mass seeds require carefull storage if you want them to germinate the next year anyway, something that most farmers do not have.

Power to the people!

And this is one of many reasons why I just don't trust corporations...

The problem here is that you have a combination of greed and bad laws. Faulty watchgroups like the FDA and EPA, ridiculous laws preventing anyone from publishing their findings about a crop because of an EULA? etc.

if people got their heads out of their asses and voted some people into office that will clean up the FDA than things will get better. Or maybe if more upstanding people went into politics.

Why are people afraid of big government? if the government was less pervasive and perverse we could have independant researchers publishing documents about those things.

The FDA needs to be dissolved, not given more power to abuse.

Agreed.

I can agree with the second sentence here. Seems like politics is wrapped up in science way too much.

No thanks, I like my food and drugs pure. Not so keen on the whole finding heads in food or drugs that kill you. I do agree though on the point of needing an overhaul. (Oh, btw, I don't buy the idea of the market replacing it...*points at article*)

Be well, ~Alderic

Social market economy (like in Germany) has the government as a component to ensure a fair competition because the economy is there fore the people and not the other way around. Uninhibited greed and bad laws are supposed to be kept in check that way and it works mostly.. unless you have too many regulations of what is considered fair like the EU does by labeling and defining everything. But it is still a better way to do things than saying that the market regulates itself. It doesn't because greed is not for nothing one of the seven deadly sins. Greed alone is never positive, no matter what sort of spin you put on it.

I am not really sure how things work in Europe parallel to the FDA. Brussel is a sort of enigma to most with its bureaucray and administration and special committees for all sorts of things. It may not be less corrupt than the FDA and its lobbyists are.

Sorry, I misspoke, it needs to be dissolved and reformed into a less corrupt organization... as in, fire everyone and start over. We definitely NEED oversight, but it needs to be good oversight.

Why do you assume greed is the ONLY component of self regulating markets? in a self regulating market consumer education, morals, and intellect battle greed. In a government regulated one, government beurocracy protects the greedy from the moral people.

You need to combine both, a free selfregulated market and an oversight to make sure that it stays in the limits of what is best for the society and the country. Check out Ordoliberalism - theoretic principle underlying the social market economy.

Ahuh, you "misspoke" just like a politician does. Just admit it, you said what you said.

Be well, ~Alderic.

Nice argument. Please provide real-world examples. I've got a few for you-

Self-regulated markets-

ENRON- they were only able to do what they did (lie, cheat, steal, and ruin lives) because they had folks in the government that were sympathetic to their cries for deregulation. Once said deregulation occurred, they lied, cheated and stole as much as they could until a few folks in the press...and a few employees with a troubled conscience.... blew the whistle, by which point the damage was done.

Banking Meltdown- The shenanigans that occurred in the banking industry happened because several laws passed in the 30's (to prevent another great depression) were repealed in the late 90's, all in the name of self-regulated markets. Also, many of the key individuals in the SEC and Fed Reserve were either in bed with the banks or asleep at the wheel and mostly oblivious to what was going on. There was one fellow in the SEC that was on to Bernard Madoff's scam years before it was officially discovered, they passed this information up the chain internally, as they were supposed to but it was either dropped or suppressed by upper levels of management. Again leading back to the regulatory folks either in bed with the industry they were supposed to regulate or asleep at the wheel.

Tobacco Industry-

If you'll remember back in the 90's all the major tobacco producers screamed to high heaven that there was nothing wrong with their products, they were not carcinogenic and that all the tests done that proved that there is a direct link between smoking and cancer were "junk science" They used this line again and again and were forced, kicking and screaming, to finally admit that yes, smoking does cause cancer, reduce your lifespan and all other sorts of ailments. Had it not been for regulation, do you seriously thing the tobacco producers wouldn't have voluntarily gone

"hey guys, sorry, the products we make and depend on for our revenue and profits are bad for your health and can kill you, kthanx!"

A regulated market is just like any other system in life- it needs rules. Just like the traffic system, there need to be rules of the road enforced by an impartial third party (the police)

What would life be like if the roads were completely "de-regulated" and it were left up to all drivers to just kinda sort things out on their own? (No traffic lights, no stop signs, no yield signs, no cops looking for speeders or drunk drivers etc)