|
Iowa | I heard about this today. Here’s my issue: the way the current system is, a company designs a product, does all the testing and reporting on the product and the epa gives it it up/down, based off the data the originator chose to provide. I’m not advocating for an army of government scientists to be specialists in ag chemicals, let alone all the other products we use- so because of that there needs to be accountability on the manufactures part to keep them honest.
Do I think Monsanto ever thought roundup could cause cancer- no idea. Does it? I have no idea, I’d guess I’ve been in contact with more glyphosate than probably 90% of everybody on here (worked for large ag retailer).
Now current: did Bayer/ Monsanto know dicamba was a mess? Yep. Did they know it would move all over and cause economic/environmental harm. Yep - they did. Did they willingly try to cover up what they were doing? Yes. Did they use their economic clout to influence government to their benefit. Yep
If an ag chemical company (and I’m not just talking Bayer here) would be willing to promote a product that they knew would cause environmental problems, is it possible that they would be less than honest about the safety to others? I hate that this roundup issue may run Bayer broke, but if we’re allowing them to provide the data for registration, they should have responsibility if some of that information is less than the whole truth. I would also ask why we as farmers are so willing to rush to defend a group of people who by their own admission is hoping to gain 50% of the perceived value of their product- yes these products are nice (gmo and chemical) they make farming easier, but you’re also paying for it regardless of the value it provides.Milton Friedman argued that a company should be able to produce any product as long as the publish all the information, therefore the consumers can choose their own risk.
Edited by timis 4/4/2024 05:31
| |
|
Iowa's new proposed Bayer law
