What is your definition of "Safe"? Because, to a farmer, a huge piece of machinery that will shred you to pieces at a moments notice is much less safe than a chemical that might give you cancer in a few years.
When you're well informed about the risks you can take precautions or change your behaviour.
Monsanto has taken California to court to prevent such warnings on Roundup.
Source for this?
Aside: I get the sneaking suspicion that some high amount of "source?" requests are a more polite way of calling BS.
...especially when it would have taken roughly the same amount of effort to compose the comment as to type "monsanto sues california" into Google.
>...especially when it would have taken roughly the same amount of effort to compose the comment as to type "monsanto sues california" into Google.
Oh, no, I have done that, and the only thing that has appeared is that Monsanto has sued California because they don't want Roundup being classified as carcinogenic.
It is a totally different thing.
So, I ask for the source, because I don't find anything.
So, I repeat, source?
?
FTA: A listing would also require Monsanto and others offering products containing glyphosate to provide a "clear and reasonable warning" to consumers that the chemical is known to cause cancer, damaging Monsanto's reputation and violating its First Amendment rights, the company said.
This seems pretty simple. Monsanto sued California because of bad testing results on Roundup's active ingredient, glyphosate. If the chemical gets added to the CA registry, then Monsanto would have to put the ubiquitous 'known to the state of California to cancer' notice on anything that contains it.
Therefore, they sued to stop this from happening.
Am I missing something?
Surely Roundup and other pesticides have instructions and safety warnings and procedures, isn't?