SUSTAINABLE?

By now you know that Monsanto (Bayer Corp.) has been denied its appeal in the multi-billion dollar Roundup (glyphosate) damages case.  It has set aside a massive war chest to pay out settlements all while keeping the product on the shelves.

            Most of us reading this blog get our news about these kinds of things from media friendly to the plaintiffs (the folks making allegations of health damages).  I get a couple of conventional agriculture publications—yes, they still send them to me—and find it helpful to read the unfiltered language of the other side.

            Longtime followers know that I’m not a litigations adherent.  In general, I think we’re much more responsible for the decisions we make, including what we buy, breathe, and eat, than most folks in our now victim-oriented culture.  In this case, freedom of choice as to whether to use Roundup or not has never been argued.  In other words, the man who contratced non-Hodgkins lymphoma supposedly from Roundup never argued that he was coerced into using it.  

            If I were in his shoes, I would not have used it.  That’s choice.  If I fail to see a speed limit sign and get stopped for speeding (yes, it happened to me last year) the fact that I didn’t see the sign is not a defense.  In fact, anyone with an ounce of legal knowledge knows that “ignorance of the law” is not an excuse.  By the same token, ignorance of product use doesn’t absolve consequences.  Could we even suggest that ignorance of chemical harm does not absolve us of responsibility in our choice?

            I don’t eat at McDonald’s because I know what their food contains.  If you want to eat there, that’s fine, but don’t sue them for harming you.

            Of course, the conventional ag community is disappointed—angry?—that the Supreme Court would not hear the appeal.  Here is a list of the groups who collaborated on an official statement regarding the rejection:

            American Farm Bureau Federation    

            American Soybean Association

            National Corn Growers Association

            National Association of Wheat Growers

            National Cotton Council

            Plus an additional 49 ag groups

            Interestingly, the case, Monsanto v Hardeman, was not even recognized as a health damages suit by the conventional magazine (Country Folks Mid-Atlantic).  The article said the case “pertains to state glyphosate health warnings.”  Notice the wording?  Not about health consequences.  The conventional industry views this as a labeling debate.

            Here is the statement:

            We are disappointed the Supreme Court has decided not to hear this case, which has significant implications for our global food supply and science-based  regulation.  With the conflict in Ukraine threatening food security around the world and the persistent dangers posed by climate change, too much is on the line to allow the emergence of an unscientific patchwork of state pesticide labels that would threaten grower access to tools needed for  productive, sustainable farming.  We will be discussing the implications of the Court’s announcement and will determine what reforms may be needed to ensure a patchwork of state labels does not jeopardize grower access to these vital tools or science-based pesticide regulation.

            Notice this brief statement uses the words “science-based” three times.  That’s the new idol in our culture and smart people know it.  Invoking science supposedly censors all opposition, and brands opponents as witches.  But of course, thinking people know science is unsettled on a number of matters.  And did you catch them invoking the word “sustainable?”  And “food security?”  This statement has fear and paranoia all over it.

            I’ve never seen a weed that existed because the world is glyphosate deficient.

            What are some “scientifically unsettled” things?