Dunning put out another piece of propaganda, saying essentially the same thing, and employing the same rhetorical approaches, inside an article with more emphatic
nulla infantis phrasing and intimidating sounding fabutistics. Most of this article is equivocation/amphibology and casuistry spun from 30% truth. This article only passes muster with a layman or media type.
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4676
Malf, if you want to see how a professional market, infrastructure or technology Risk Strategy is developed in industry ... you can access the link below. When your stakeholders ask you to show diligence that your product is not harming environment, economy, markets, food suppy, microflora nor human cognition/health - a completed Risk Strategy, executed before technology deployment, is what you hand them - NOT a couple inductive studies and a social media intimidation campaign from the Brian Dunnings of the world. Once a company hires celebrity skeptics to speak for them, in lieu of competent prior diligence, that is a key warning sign that they have no idea what the hell they are doing.
This is not, 'just asking questions'. This is standing up and being an ethical company, playing by big-boy rules. If Monsanto had used my firm to develop a Risk Strategy ($1.2 - 1.6 million plus expenses) before they rolled out this 5-3-PS growth accelerant pesticide class market strategy so fast, then they could have avoided $billions in reactive/defensive expenditure thus far...
Epistemological Domain and Objective Risk Strategy
In response to your "In what known action of this product do you see the 'risks' " - well, in my work I have observed the following in the industry data, just off the top of my head and without looking into the notes for third world infrastructure and markets strategies I have been involved in.
This was not a 'product' - it was a wholesale change of a global industry, simply for the advantage of creating a cartel & monopoly. The diligence required for such an action demands much more than the rigor which was given. Oh... and most of these are no longer 'risks' - rather they are now 'knowns'...
1. Depletion of the 5 critical microphyla classes from soil
2. Chelation of key macro and micro nutrients from the soil
3. 1 & 2 Combining to reduce the suspended fulvic content in plant phloem
4. 1 & 2 Combining to reduce the synthesis of key vitamins and uptake of macro nutrients into plant biomatter
5. 5-3-PS acceleration of caloric biomass without a corresponding increase in human nutrient - nutrient dilution well documented - promoting endocrine malnutrition and obesity - epidemic in the US and any country which consumes US grains.
6. Lengthening of the field turn intervals and reduction in permaculture health of industrial farm soil
7. Establishment of constrained seed & monoculture practices - threatens biodiversity & economic resilience
8. Establishment of pesticide monoculture practices - promotes resistance
9. Demoveogenic displacements in human gut - promotes autoimmune, behavioral and endocrine disruption
10. Monoculture practices displacing supply chains for competing technologies upon which food supply vulnerable countries depend.
11. Accelerating yield in the field which only perishes post harvest - and creates 'acreage waste' - agriculture is a system, not a vending machine model.
12. Displaces diversity of market dynamics and competition
13. Established cartel-like behavior in speculator, wholesaler and logistics provider entities
14. Forces mixed bin supply chains and cross contaminates grain grade classes
15. Eliminates the farmer from the margin share equation inside a market - intermediaries control the margin flow - farmers make no margin
16. Puts less 'efficient' farms offering varietals out of business - absolutely decimates indigenous farming economies.
17. Is predatory as a business practice - the same as is predatory pricing in retail
18. Places technology companies in control of a production market (called an inversion)
19. Creates a conflict of interest inside academia, who are funded by the profits pulled from production (farmers)
20. Creates a seed monopoly and monogenetic base.
21. Creates a horizontal monopoly which skirts by the Sherman Anti-Trust Act by technicalities (as Walmart did in the 90's)
22. Makes the cost of competing technologies or affiliated agricultural products rise through dis-leveraging
23. Prohibits the establishment of a free market - with practice to price discovery - which exists in every other industry except AG
24. Creates a conflict of interest in intermediary players to support the cartel or be non-competitive.
25. Beagle experiments did not place a limit on the observed kidney, liver and skin observed effects.
26. Has precipitated an 18 year technology-caused, not market caused, recession and depression of pricing, killing small to medium farms
27. Has caused hardship and suffering for tens of thousands of non-industrial farming families.
28. Bears unknown/undefined negative effects on ecosphere, arthropodia, persists in soil.
29. Has caused a recent > 50% of the world rejection of US Farm products globally
30. Forces constrained set of buyers - monopsony - especially in regions where population is vulnerable to food security risk.
31. Results in a longer distance average panamax and handymax consolidated bin shipping transit - more carbon in atmosphere
32. Causes a faster methane or injected natural gas leach from soil - more methane in atmosphere
33. Causes a greater degree of methane bleedoff from wasted biomass - more methane in atmosphere
34. Forces longe distance and added shipments of natural gas and pig manure supply chains to be injected into nutrient depleted soils - more carbon, methane and natural gas bled in atmosphere.
35. Forces added 'yield' into alread subsidized and oversupplied classes (Maze), forcing legislation to dump the excess at market-destroying pricing, or into un-needed ethanol manufacturing - which increases VOC's in atmosphere
36. Maybe (some groups say 'probably') causes cancer...