> You'll never guess what people who sold lead and asbestos used to say about lead and asbestos. Also see the denials of PFAS dangers. And fracking. And lobotomies, thalidomide, tobacco, mercury, etc etc.
It's not about who said it was safe. It's about who proved it wasn't.
It fucks up ecosystems. It lingers on our food. It bonds with abundant minerals like calcium and magnesium and does unexpected shit. It comes in Roundup with a cocktail of chemicals that increase bioavailability and toxicity. It has links to chronic kidney disease and cancer.
That's scientists saying all this; not just me, and not just "greedy lawyers" as you claimed elsewhere.
If this fits your definition of safe, you have a very unusual one imo.
You're the one who claims to have seen the evidence. If you've seen it, but won't show it to anyone, I'm not going to be convinced of anything other than being suspicious it doesn't exist.
You made several assertions a post ago and I'm skeptical about all but one of them and the one I'm not skeptical about has an implication I am skeptical about.
> It fucks up ecosystems.
In what way?
> It lingers on our food.
Agree but I've not seen this shown to be an issue.
> It bonds with abundant minerals like calcium and magnesium and does unexpected shit.
For example?
> It comes in Roundup with a cocktail of chemicals that increase bioavailability and toxicity.
So glyphosate is not harmful without this cocktail? I don't understand the implication here. It sounds like _Roundup_ is the issue, not glyphosate.
> It has links to chronic kidney disease and cancer.
Cookies have links to chocolate chips. It doesn't mean cookies cause chocolate chips.
"Links" are just that, links. What you want to prove are _Causal Links_. Links require further research and don't prove anything.
It's not about who said it was safe. It's about who proved it wasn't.
Who proved glyphosate wasn't safe?