I own shares of Monsanto. Having worked in the ag-biotech field, and the pharmaceutical industry, I understand a thing or two about ag chemicals, GMO plants, human health, and carcinogenesis. Also, i am familiar with epidemiology and biostatistics, and the ways that data, or, the lack thereof, can be used to advance or refute a particular ideological position.
Thus, when I saw an article this afternoon in the Wall Street Journal Online, entitled "Health Agency Determines Widely Used Herbicide Likely Carcinogenic," I was ready to pounce. The article reports on findings published by the International Agency for Research on Cancer in a U.K. medical journal. As a long-time reader of scientific and medical publications, I have come to recognize the particular brand of progressive liberal nuttiness that passes for editorial oversight in the U.K. Just look at what Nature Publications has done to the once respectable Scientific American. Sci-Am used to publish hardcore scientific articles written by real scientists, clinicians, and engineers. Now, Sci-Am is replete with articles and news items written by hired hacks about climate change, gender inequality, and first-world exploitation of the the poor, usually by evil corporations.
Here is a comment I just posted in the WSJ Online's comment section:
This follows the same progressive liberal narrative as fossil fuels and climate change.
Any technology that, over the long-term, has proven to advance the human condition, provide energy, food, a pathway out of poverty, and better standards of living, is bad, and must be banned, if not destroyed.
Guess why much of the world does not starve? Agricultural science, brought to you by "evil" global corporations, such as Monsanto, and Bayer, and Dow.