Skepticism doesn't imply trust-by-default. This article is an example of the shoddy work that is often performed by bad science "journalists" and used by the Chemophobic to push bullshit such as essential oils, naturopathic medicines, and MLM crapware. If you can't recognize that this is bad journalism that's not my fault. Its not that I "trust" the herbicide/pesticide companies that produce and manufacture these chemicals. Its that there exists a body of evidence that shows "most" of these chemicals to be safe. When the evidence changes to show that the chemical is not safe, what the mechanism is that causes the safety issue and presents data to back that up, I will change my mind. Because that is how falsifiablity works. It is not trust by default. It is rather that, to the best of our ability, with the science and techniques that are currently available, we cannot find an issue with this substance. When the science changes and new things are learned about our biology and how chemicals interact with our body and we re-evaluate those criteria based on those findings then we change the science. This article... is not that.
Stillbourne, you seem to have a lot of trust in science funded by chemical companies. Remember how tobacco companies lied about the health impact of cigarettes?
I know right, it almost like there are no studies conducted by the NIH, the EPA, the FDA, all major Universities including Yale, Harvard, Stanford or any other independent group such as NIEHS. NOPE, ALL pesticide and herbicide research on toxicological properties of chemicals is only ever conducted by BIGAG. You know, just like all of those vaccine studies that show efficacy and safety are only ever conducted by BIGPHARMA. Nope, if you support science, skeptical inquiry and chemicals other than those that occur in nature you must be a shill.
