People routinely question my libertarian leanings regarding government oversight and regulatory protection.  The current Bayer vs. cancer sufferers is Exhibit A in why the government is not the repository of safety.

             If you've been following the multi-year court battles between Monsanto/Bayer and people allegedly suffering non-Hodgkins lymphoma, you know that so far three juries have awarded millions of dollars in damages, finding that Roundup's ingredient glyphosate does, indeed, cause cancer.

             Interestingly, this product is still on the shelves and being sold.  Bayer plans to change the name soon, though, to re-brand it as something different.  It'll be the same recipe but under a different name.

             Of course, Bayer appealed these rulings and they are slowly winding through that process; they will end up at the U.S. Supreme Court probably within the next year.  Bayer set aside several billion dollars to placate the thousands of plaintiffs who have come forward alleging cancer from the product.  Bayer just announced another $4 billion set aside for its war chest in this effort.

             The crux of their case is this:  how can a corporation be liable for a product the government says is safe?   Bayer's position is that if government regulators stamp "Approved:  Safe" on a product, then the producer is no longer liable.  If government watchdogs give their okay to a product, does it remove culpability from the maker?  How far does such approval go?

             Isn't it interesting that this case is not actually revolving around the merits of glyphosate or the dangers of glyphosate; rather, it's revolving around the ethical technicality of "you said I could, so I have no responsibility when I do."   This is the great lie of government protection and why big businesses love big government.  In this cozy relationship corporate executives fraternize with regulators and it's one big joyful party . . . until someone gets cancer.

             The same collusion happens in every industry and every economic sector.  The big players in the private sector get tapped as secretaries to the regulatory agencies.  Why don't they tap a functional medicine doctor or a homeopath to head the FDA?  Why don't they tap an ecological farmer to head the USDA?  Why don't they tap a home schooler to head the Dept. of Education? 

             This incestuous fraternity dominates all regulatory bodies, including the Centers for Disease Control with their brothers and sisters in the pharmaceutical industry.  In debate, we call it intellectual schizophrenia when folks practice opposing lines of thinking on a similar subject.

             Plenty of people snort and hiss and boo at the obvious collusion between the EPA and Bayer on glyphosate, but somehow suddenly think Dr. Fauci, Bill Gates and Moderna's coziness guarantees protection for us all.  Such thinking is foolish nonsense and the sooner we begin practicing some intellectual consistency, the better we'll all be.

             When the government puts its stamp on something, whether it's meat or eggs or herbicides, it simply means that enough corporate political clout came to bear at some time to buy regulatory approval.  That's all it means.  And big business can whistle with their sales and profits to the bank, feeling secure and smug in their "Approved" status. 

             On a scale of  1-10, 1 being none and 10 being completely, how much do you trust any government sanctioned label?