I think I'm finally getting it.
We are presented with a scenario of wrongdoing or negligence. One side calls out malicious actions in a somewhat fear mongering manner, while the other side cries foul about nervous nellies or conspiracy theorists. This distracting polarization is strongly worded to play to our emotions, and we end up picking a side that represents our feelings. What we don't do is analyze what causes the problem, and how to fix it. James Corbett has pointed this tactic out multiple times in his podcast, and maybe I'm starting to catch on, at least a little. I think the following information is a decent example of how our thinking is manipulated in this way.
Glyphosate is a hot button at the moment, especially after Monsanto has been ordered to pay millions in damages to cancer stricken Dewayne Johnson after heavy exposure. California has listed glyphosate as a chemical known to cause cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a WHO based research group, has found glyphosate to probably cause cancer. Other organizations, such as the EPA, have stated there are no adverse effects from much higher levels of ingestion. (Side note,one of the scientists involved in the IARC study, Dr. Christopher Portier, testified on the plaintiff's side at the recent Monsanto trial on days 3-6; link. His testimony was sound and unwavering in my opinion, and his credibility has been smeared by some news outlets.)
On August 15th, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) presented its findings about levels of glyphosate found in popular breakfast products, mainly oat based. These studies are based on California's standard of glyphosate in food, which is 60 times lower than what the EPA has established as safe. The math involved as well as the findings can be found here if interested. The article presents a well conducted study with methods and data listed.
Here are some articles that present the findings as potentially something of concern:
And here are articles that present the findings as manufactured fear mongering:
This is an interesting one. This 501(c) organization says the findings are being used by the organic food industry trying to capitalize on fear. They are funded by the Koch brothers, Phillip Morris,Exxon, and listed as a director emeritae is Lynne Cheney (Mrs. Dick Cheney and a former member of the Trilateral Commision).
But, I'm totally off topic in relating these findings in this post, interesting and important as they are. Why? Because the issue shouldn't be how many parts per billion are present in oats and cereal, it should be that a poison is present in our food. Here's the American Heritage definition of poison: A substance that causes injury, illness, or death, especially by chemical means. Something destructive or fatal.
Glyphosate disrupts the function of a plant enough to cause damage and death. Call it pesticide and you will be corrected that's in an herbicide. But both are poisons. Glyphosate is poison.
Here's a scenario: Say you go outside and do some gardening first thing in the morning. You have a bottle of weed killer that you spray here and there. You bring the bottle inside, set it on the kitchen counter, and then make breakfast for the kids. One of the kids is goofing around and sprays the weed killer, only one spray, and the mist lands ever so lightly on the prepared food. Are you going to feed it to your kids? You just used it to kill stuff. Are you thinking, well that bottle was diluted, only 10 parts per billion could have possibly landed on the food? Or do you throw it out and start over because breakfast got lightly sprayed with poison? Or this: are you going to let the dog walk around outside in the areas you sprayed?
There shouldn't be poison in our food supply. Why isn't that the issue? We have way too many government agencies using our tax dollars to ensure our safety. We buy these products trusting the manufacturers have ensured our safety as well. They are not doing their job. Call it roundup, glyphosate, herbicide, pesticide, good agriculture to feed the masses, scientific progress, safe in low amounts, safe in the amounts present, whatever. I don't want to feed it to my children, and nobody is calling that out. Nobody is screaming that any poison in our food is unwanted. Nobody is saying that we need to find a way to ensure poison isn't in our oatmeal. What they are talking about is parts per billion and safe ingestion levels and flawed studies and special interests. And while they bicker about what level is safe to eat, no one is saying it shouldn't be there in the first place.