Omitted here is mention that the EPA designation is under review: “the Agency is currently updating its evaluation of the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate to better explain its findings and include the current relevant scientific information”. Their February 2020 registration review decision was withdrawn and their new interim registration has not been completed.
—https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/glyp...
I’m not claiming you needed to mention this in your original post about the lawsuit. This fact would be relevant in the sub thread here with nekusar about what we can or cannot draw from the designation.
The logical flaw in their argument also doesn't depend on the EPA's actions! In fact, the additional color you added works against the claim, in their logic.
Strictly speaking, you're right: they're more than prepared to disregard the position of the EPA (all of us seem willing to). But said designation being currently under review is pertinent to the possibility they raise, namely that consensus has changed in the past, and sometimes the more skeptical or conservative heading taken preemptively has been borne out wise.
Like the tobacco industry before them, a Monsanto employee proposed producing a scientific paper with outside scientists: “by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to speak” — see https://retractionwatch.com/2025/12/04/glyphosate-safety-art...
I didn’t claim there was only one study. The concern is the corporate culture introducing biases into studies. In the tobacco industry, this was a pattern.
Indeed. It's rare in environmental medicine to see an effect as strong as that from smoking. The straw the tobacco industry clung to for a while (it was debunked) was that people who had cancer smoked to sooth their lungs (or, that cancer caused smoking, not vice versa.)
My doctor has (with case by case exceptions as needed) a general rule to encourage a conservative approach: if at all possible, attempt to leave with everything you arrived with
Flickr has been mentioned in interviews by the founders of both Vimeo and YouTube as having been a direct inspiration on the creation of both of those sites. It got a lot of the design right the first time. Flickr and the projects that emerged out of the context it pioneered changed the world.
>A few weeks ago, two patches landed in Gecko and WebKit… aligning [them] with Blink in supporting a relatively recent addition to the HTML specification: support for an auto value in sizes attributes.
>[T]he central issue with srcset/sizes was one of timing: a browser makes decisions about image requests long before it has any information about the page's layout… That assumption is… still the default behavior: if there’s an img in your markup, the request it triggers will be fired off long before any information about the layout can be known
>[T]hat is, unless that image uses the loading="lazy" attribute… [which] changes that entire equation — now those images are requested at the point of user interaction, long after the browser has all the information it needs about the sizes of the rendered image.
The mdn page is https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/HTMLImageEl... but what the mdn examples don't include is that the auto attribute can be used in addition to a specified sizes fallback. The Piccalilli article discusses this and includes example markup.
reply