Or maybe to give a better and more accurate view on round-up toxicity, this summary from a scientific journal article prepared by The Department of Pathology, New York Medical College, Valhalla, New York, link to full article follows:

Results from several investigations establish that
the acute toxicity and irritation potential of Roundup
herbicide in humans is low. Specifically, results from
controlled studies with Roundup showed that skin irritation
was similar to that of a baby shampoo and
lower than that observed with a dishwashing detergent
and an all-purpose cleaner; no dermal sensitization,
photoirritation, or photosensitization reactions were
148 WILLIAMS, KROES, AND MUNRO
observed. Furthermore, the incidence of occupationalrelated
cases involving Roundup is low given the widespread
use of the product. Data from these cases indicated
some potential for eye and skin irritation with
the concentrated product, but exposure to dilute spray
solutions rarely resulted in any significant adverse
effect. Most importantly, no lasting dermal or ocular
effects were noted, and significant systemic effects attributable
to contact with Roundup did not occur. Studies
of Roundup ingestion showed that death and other
serious effects occurred only when large amounts were
intentionally ingested for the purpose of committing
suicide. These data confirmed that the acute oral toxicity
in humans is low and consistent with that predicted
by the results of laboratory studies in animals.


http://www.ask-force.org/web/HerbizideTol/Williams-Safety-Evaluation-Risk-Assessment-RR-2000.pdf

Obviously, we are devoid of some context, but the very opening words from 'doctor' is a reference to his not believing that glyphosate is contributing to cancer rates in Argentina, you can drink a quart of it and it won't hurt you.

In this context, it would sound like the claim had been made that round-up usage was causing cancer in Argentina? Unless Argentina is selling round-up as an energy drink, the discussion is in the frame of consumers of food containing products from plants grown in fields that were at some point sprayed with diluted round-up. The good doctor is declaring it far fetched to claim eating something grown in a field that was at some point sprayed with round up is causing cancer. He then exaggerates in his own right observing you can safely drink a quart of it...

As to the typical usage concentration, you are pretty wrong to say most guys will use the max concentration to get the most effect. Spraying a field at 10% costs 10 times as much money as spraying it at 1%, and 100 times as much money as spraying it at 0.1%, which is the span of recommended rates. Guys are going to use the lowest concentration they can while still being confident it will have the effect they want.

I stand by the notion that round-up and glyphosate and vinegar and acetic acid are equally pertinent comparisons in language for expected concentrations of a substance. Nobody uses 100% glyphosate on their field anymore than they use 100% acetic acid on their food.

When talking about round-up, your audience is supposedly people that might actually use it. NOBODY uses it at 100% concentration unless they are the type to go home and heat their house with a fireplace full of money too. Round-up in most situations is terrifically effective against plants at less than 1% concentration. When you talk about round up and the associated risks, your talking about what is expected to be sitting in the tank of the sprayer.

The vinegar example is one you've used to nicely illustrate my point. Vinegar is nothing more than diluted acetic acid. In common language nobody talks about the hazards of vinegar being the same as those of concentrated acetic acid. Concentrated acetic acid though is not something you want on your skin or anywhere near your mouth. The whole point of my making such an unfair comparison is to illustrate that the same is true of round-up. In common usage, nobody's sprayer tank that they take into a field is gonna be anywhere close to 100% concentrated, it's gonna be much, much closer to 1%. That makes a difference, and glossing over that is also dishonest.

Anyone with that hairdo should be rounded up and lead to the death camps. That will solve more issues than banning tipping.

Yeah, this broke my heart when I saw it the other day. Sure we've been genetically modifying food for millennia, but I'm pretty certain none of that resulted in the new organism producing round-up-like pesticides on its own.
And I don't know why it has to be controversy when the general populace says it doesn't want to be some shit-corps fucking guinea pigs.

Can't stand politics. Apolitical. In a reasonable world, politicians would be rounded-up and placed in internment camps awaiting trial for crimes against humanity....Or wait, that's too harsh-Dress 'em in clown make-up, strip 'em naked and toss em one by one into oncoming roller-derby traffic for a few healthy rounds of clothes-hanging.

'No Country' and 'True Grit' of the last 7 films (did love the scenes with Richard Jenkins and J.K.Simmons though in Burn After Reading, otherwise that film was simply hard to watch) and of course Lebowski and O brother....but seriously....Inside Llewyn Davis? What more of a complete piece of shit can one imagine?

Imagine if you will, two Jewish men driving down the street laughing at people while throwing burning hundred-dollar bills out the window.

A series as a nod to Fargo screams rehash of pop-culture on the fucking skids and a reason to spend your cable money on learning to plasma-weld or something.....

Welcome back BTW @volumptuous. Still got yer Aunt Jemima Cookie Jar

Last time I tried to vote they turned me away at the polls in that rigged election-machine Gore/Bush election back in 2000....I was gonna write-in a made-up name. I realized that year that my mission was to decry all presidential elections as complete and utter farce and an insult to the collective consciousness.

The problem with that is that Gangbangers are generally Gangbangers because they have very few other choices in life. Their social, financial, educational and familial situations pretty much steer them in the direction of violence and thuggery.
So what you're saying is: Let's round up all the poor, uneducated violent people in the US and put them on a deserted island so they can kill each other off.
You've got to fix the broken system that generates these fools, because others will be bred to take their places if you only wipe out the ones that exist now.

Round up is one of the safest chemicals according every farmer anywhere. The only fear farmers have with round up is caution not to kill off any union tended plants. A very long list of other chemicals farmers are very cautious using knowing their effects range from giving you headaches, to making you sick, to outright killing you if you use them incorrectly. Round up comes with none of those fears.

If you have or know of a better solution than killing weeds with poison then there are billions of dollars waiting for you to claim them. In the mean time an extraordinarily large number of very smart people are all currently employed on finding better solutions. Round up ready crops are just one big step, there will no doubt be others. You also imply round up is 'new', it is in fact vet much older than most chemicals out there, just so you know.

Less people to feed seems reasonable enough, but the history of effort and success of such ventures hasn't really made it very desirable......

...according to Monsanto. I've never seen the CEO drink it or spray it on his kids though.


...except those grown 'organically' or with an effort towards minimal chemical use, and only until the round-up resistant 'weeds' and 'pests' outpace it's toxicity... again. It already takes more, higher concentrated round-up (if not a second formula already) to do the job, and that will only get worse every year. There must be a better solution than 'our poison is less dangerous than the old poisons' coupled with 'our proprietary freak crops are immune to our poisons'. (the best solution for me is simply fewer people, but that sentiment is in the minority it seems)

In the unlikely event you aren't just trolling, here goes. It would appear that you know nothing about Ag practices over the last 4-5 decades. Round-up is bar none one of the safest chemicals to humans and vertebrates that there is. One of the single biggest selling points of round-up ready GMO crops has been greatly reducing the need for other more expensive chemicals that are also more hazardous to humans.

Simply put, GMO crops will typically be exposed to lower quantities of less dangerous chemicals than non-GMO crops.

Round up is fucking poison and deleterious to all soil, all food crops, humans, puupy dogs, gophers, and kitty-cats. I and I commend Percy Schmeiser on some guerrilla ball-sack-action against the assholes that are, Babylon Monsanto.

Patent infringer MY ASS Monsanto, he's a fucking hero.

Slow down a moment. I wasn't asking for hours of background research to be presented to meet my approval or anything.

The claim has been repeatedly made that Monsanto has been, on a sweeping scale, been suing farmers with no desire to use it's seed when their crops are accidentally contaminated. All I requested was to be given one single example of that actually happening. Nobody has ever presented an example to me. This leads me to not only conclude, but to declare to all who will listen that this particular charge is a lie and a fabrication.

The closest I ever get to an example is Percy, and he sprayed his own seed crop with round up before harvesting the surviving few plants along the border of his neighbor's crop. I do not count carrying on to plant only those seeds as accidental, and Percy has readily admitted that is what he did.

...and still he had to be humiliated, dragged into the system after standing too close to their meat-grinder.... fines, fees, and missed work and then, that special list, a record of his past 'offenses' reserved for these evil cunt's justification for continued harassment and suspicion and inhumane treatment at some future date, when he and everyone on that list is rounded-up first, to be used as a shining example of what NOT to do, if you don't want to end-up like him.

Uniforms should be worn by party-goers, and politicians and police should wear clown costumes and mime make-up. Much easier that way to discern the thugs from humans.

My complaint is the over fishing of the waters, not just in their areas, but in International waters as well. Everyone else has agreed to slow or stop certain types of fishing but the Japanese just walk in and scoop everything up , with a "more for us attitude."

And fishing / killing animals that were bread for food stocks is much different than killing wild animals en mass, intelligent or otherwise. Remember the Buffalo? I would be just as put off if Canadians, rounded up hundreds of Caribou into herds and outright slaughtered them as well, humanly, inhumanly or otherwise.

I believe the Japanese have not solved the "feed it's population" problem, because it relies to much on the over fishing of the oceans. They are having to travel further and further out to catch enough fish to feed their population. So, it's unfortunate, but a slowly spiraling population is not all bad in an over populated area that cannot sustain that population.

I love that they use so much from the sea, I love Japanese food. I just wish they would have a better consideration for the environment. The oceans, although filled with food, is not a viable and sustainable source for food in the long run. They can't even begin to monitor the ecological damage they are doing.

I hate to say something 'pro' Monsanto but the example listed in Percy Schmeiser is NOT an example of a farmer that accidentally had his field cross contaminated by Monsanto's seeds. Percy collected seed from his own crops to plant the following year. One year that his crop bordered a neighbour's Monsanto crop, he intentionally harvested seeds only from along that border. Even more importantly, he sprayed the strip with round-up first. Deliberately destroying your own seed crop with round up isn't 'normal' procedure for any seed grower. Percy Schmeiser knowingly and deliberately did everything he could to plant Monsanto's round up ready seeds. He in many ways went to greater lengths and efforts to get the seed than farmers regularly using it.

His case is one of whether what he did should be legal, in my opinion it should be, and tough luck to Monsanto as long as he's not off re-selling it I think it should be ok. Turns out Canadian law went the other way and declared it copyright infringement. I can understand the argument that GMO research can't happen if there's no profit in it, but it's a hard line.

All that though is to simply point out that this doesn't seem to be only about those guys accidentally being contaminated. The specific example the speaker references went to great lengths to get Monsanto's seed into his fields.