> If you are going to be implying glyphosate causes autism, for some "extra fun" as you say, then you should perhaps reconsider this.
No. The burden of proof is on those defending a chemical. Even if there's a 1/1000 chance that glyphosate explains 5% of autism cases, then it should be banned.
The world doesn't need more food, America throws away half its food. The world needs better health -- the sperm count in America has dropped 50% in the last 30 years, autism is at about 1/52
No. The burden of proof is on those defending a chemical. Even if there's a 1/1000 chance that glyphosate explains 5% of autism cases, then it should be banned.
The world doesn't need more food, America throws away half its food. The world needs better health -- the sperm count in America has dropped 50% in the last 30 years, autism is at about 1/52