Monsanto Weed Killer Roundup Faces New Doubts on Safety in Unsealed Documents • Hacker News Board

Re: Monsanto Weed Killer Roundup Faces New Doubts on Safety in Unsealed Documents

#111

Post by dnautics » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 7:50 AM UTC

sametmax wrote: post #84

alevskaya wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many conflicts of interest in the world - organic farming is an industry too. e.g. at least one of those 14 experts is an active member of the organic industry and has long had a beef with the GMO industry: https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/charles-ben... As to the science: the original highly-questionable IARC determination has since been contested by both the European Chemical Agency and th…

Ockham's razor reasoning is that a gigantic profit driven structure with a huge lobbying activity, and high financial stakes should probably not be trusted with making the right choice between their business and our health. History tells it didn't work very well for us when the big guys said tobacco, asbestos, the Chernobyl cloud and PCBs were all safe and good. Given Monsanto's pretty poor moral track record (improp…

pardon, but how is this ockham's razor reasoning?

Re: Monsanto Weed Killer Roundup Faces New Doubts on Safety in Unsealed Documents

#112

Post by joatmon-snoo » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 7:57 AM UTC

cies wrote: post #101

bootload wrote: post #92

As a youngster I used to work PT while I was at Uni back in the 80's, taking care of a semi-rural parkland spread over 200 square miles. Every Spring, our workload would increase, slashing, clearing of weeds and blackberries. So Round-up was used. I told the boss no and refused to use it. The pesticide would be measured then added to the spray packs and the blokes would hand spray what ever needed to be knocked down.…

I honestly do not understand that a company with such a track record is widely considered to be an legit business. They're a public enemy!

Maybe because most of their track record is just really bad PR and most people just fall for the big evil corporation line without ever fact checking claims?

Re: Monsanto Weed Killer Roundup Faces New Doubts on Safety in Unsealed Documents

#113

Post by brutos » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 7:58 AM UTC

djsumdog wrote: post #27

It's difficult to judge long term toxicity in humans. You don't immediately keel over and die when you smoke a cigarette, and the correlation between lung cancer and cigarettes needs a fully understandable cause. That's how the industry slipped by for years. Likewise, most European countries do not fluoridate their water and the correlation doesn't seem to show any significant difference in dental health. The anti-fl…

> Likewise, most European countries do not fluoridate their water and the correlation doesn't seem to show any significant difference in dental health.

Just to expand on this point a book: In Germany you buy fluoridated salt (you can also buy non fluoridated salt, you have the choice, no idea why you would do that though). Children and people with dental problems also can get fluoridated toothpaste.

I think this fluoridation thing is a non-issue in Germany, never heard anyone talk about it at least . Also I think the salt solution is a lot more elegant than the tap water one in the US.

Re: Monsanto Weed Killer Roundup Faces New Doubts on Safety in Unsealed Documents

#114

Post by 2skep » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 7:58 AM UTC

sametmax wrote: post #84

alevskaya wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many conflicts of interest in the world - organic farming is an industry too. e.g. at least one of those 14 experts is an active member of the organic industry and has long had a beef with the GMO industry: https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/charles-ben... As to the science: the original highly-questionable IARC determination has since been contested by both the European Chemical Agency and th…

Ockham's razor reasoning is that a gigantic profit driven structure with a huge lobbying activity, and high financial stakes should probably not be trusted with making the right choice between their business and our health. History tells it didn't work very well for us when the big guys said tobacco, asbestos, the Chernobyl cloud and PCBs were all safe and good. Given Monsanto's pretty poor moral track record (improp…

I don't recognise that as Ockham's (Sic) razor reasoning. In fact it may be the exact opposite of that

Re: Monsanto Weed Killer Roundup Faces New Doubts on Safety in Unsealed Documents

#115

Post by slazaro » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 7:58 AM UTC

cies wrote: post #103

gumby wrote: post #44

One important reasons for robotics is to reduce/eliminate the use of pesticides. After all we use weed killed because it's cheaper than weeding by hand. Regardless of whether Glyphosate is toxic to humans or not, it kills the rhizome (fungi and other ecology around the roots), drying the soil and making it less productive. Robots will not only avoid this problem but support the planting of complementary crops.

While I'm not against robots per se, I do wonder why "working the fields" cannot be made a good job for humans? Without this job I foresee several potential problems: large unemployment, people leaving the countryside, many low paying jobs that feel meaningless to the workers.

This is why there's been lots of talk about basic income in relation to fears about unemployment because of automation.

Re: Monsanto Weed Killer Roundup Faces New Doubts on Safety in Unsealed Documents

#116

Post by joatmon-snoo » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 8:02 AM UTC

bootload wrote: post #92

As a youngster I used to work PT while I was at Uni back in the 80's, taking care of a semi-rural parkland spread over 200 square miles. Every Spring, our workload would increase, slashing, clearing of weeds and blackberries. So Round-up was used. I told the boss no and refused to use it. The pesticide would be measured then added to the spray packs and the blokes would hand spray what ever needed to be knocked down.…

"accidentally contaminated"

"He actually admitted to knowingly planting, producing, saving, cleaning and selling Roundup Ready soybeans illegally. All of this information is available in court documents."

No part of that is accidental.

All Monsanto's behavior amounts to is glaring flaws in our patent system. Every single time I see claims of "big corporate bully" it's always the little guy who's in the wrong, at least according to the law.

Re: Monsanto Weed Killer Roundup Faces New Doubts on Safety in Unsealed Documents

#117

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 8:03 AM UTC

cies wrote: post #98

sametmax wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In France we had this wonderful scandal about donated blood that was provided by aids infected patients... but declared safe. It's been used to make transfusion to other people that were already plagued with hemophilia, so that they could really enjoy the benefit of having both diseases at the same time. I'm wondering what will be the next stuff like that. Will we learn in 30 years that milk is actually unhealthy and…

> Will we learn in 30 years that milk is actually unhealthy I do not know if you are joking, but we know for some time now that regular consumption of dairy as an adult human increases risk for many health complications. (similarly evidence builds up against meat and eggs for some time now) http://nutritionstudies.org/12-frightening-facts-milk/ http://www.peta.org/living/food/reasons-stop-drinking-milk/ http://www.pc…

[deleted]

Re: Monsanto Weed Killer Roundup Faces New Doubts on Safety in Unsealed Documents

#118

Post by alevskaya » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 8:04 AM UTC

sametmax wrote: post #84

alevskaya wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many conflicts of interest in the world - organic farming is an industry too. e.g. at least one of those 14 experts is an active member of the organic industry and has long had a beef with the GMO industry: https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/charles-ben... As to the science: the original highly-questionable IARC determination has since been contested by both the European Chemical Agency and th…

Ockham's razor reasoning is that a gigantic profit driven structure with a huge lobbying activity, and high financial stakes should probably not be trusted with making the right choice between their business and our health. History tells it didn't work very well for us when the big guys said tobacco, asbestos, the Chernobyl cloud and PCBs were all safe and good. Given Monsanto's pretty poor moral track record (improp…

I'm not asking you to believe anything from Monsanto. There is a vast field of researchers that care deeply about what causes cancer and what can be done to prevent and treat it. Most of us aren't for sale.

There are sensitive, objective and simple tests for determining whether or not a compound causes genetic mutations in cells (Ames test). There are tests for whether or not a compound induces chromosome abnormalities in mammalian cells. There are lifetime feeding tests for determining whether or not any cancers can be induced with wildly unrealistic dosing regimes. Lastly, there are epidemiological studies that monitor whether workers using glyphosate demonstrate increased occurrences of particular cancers.

For glyphosate, there is no evidence of mutagenicity or genotoxicity, there is no evidence of teratogenic potential in mammals. There are no statistically significant epidemiological correlations with exposure. Glyphosate is poorly absorbed by human guts, poorly absorbed by human skin, and does not accumulate in tissues.

This is the scientific consensus: there is no good evidence that N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine is a carcinogen, there is a mountain of evidence that it is not.

But at the end of the day, whether I'm arguing with GMO-skeptics or climate-change-skeptics, I can't prove that this scientific consensus is worthy of your respect. You can always retreat into a more hardline epistemological skepticism, you can always cast aspersions at the entire enterprise.

Re: Monsanto Weed Killer Roundup Faces New Doubts on Safety in Unsealed Documents

#119

Post by malandrew » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 8:06 AM UTC

sametmax wrote: post #88

macandcheese wrote: post #72

It's not legal for sale in New York, mostly because of false advertising the company previously did touting it's biodegradability, even going so far as to say that it's "practically non-toxic". In fact, they continue to be the subject of a class action lawsuit in NY: https://www.law360.com/articles/849367/monsanto-trims-but-ca... Unfortunately all that may come of that lawsuit is a small label change... It pains me t…

It's a recent trend in many niche (but maybe somehow influential ?) social networks like HN or some subreddits. Controversial big players are having more and more supportive comments, despite previously being famous for dubious proven activities. It wasn't like that at the beginning. I tend to put my tinfoil hat on when I think about what could have caused it.

I chalk it up to the fact that Silicon Valley companies have now reached the scale where they have reached the same level of public scrutiny and manufactured disdain by the media. I worked at a tech company in the valley that has gotten a lot of negative attention. Some criticism was deserved but a lot of stuff was blown completely out of proportion to the point where people believed outright falsehoods and these people would fuel the fire of negative criticism of the company I worked for. Being on the inside, I could see how much was well deserved criticism and how much were lies.

With that in mind, I think Monsanto deserves criticism, but I also maintain as healthy a skepticism of the of the critics claim of danger as monsantos claim of safety.

Because of this I've often found myself trying to explore the contrarian side if I feel one side has become excessively hyperbolic.

With all that said, I'm sure I'm not alone in having this experience and that others explore this contrarian angle for the same reason.

I would also add that in this thread, I find seeing strong arguments on both sides refreshing. It provides a broad range of aspects to consider for and against its usage and challenges me to do my own research to determine the veracity of the claims on both sides.

Re: Monsanto Weed Killer Roundup Faces New Doubts on Safety in Unsealed Documents

#120

Post by slazaro » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 8:06 AM UTC

0xcde4c3db wrote: post #51

emmelaich wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great website! Thanks.

You might also be interested in Science-Based Medicine [1], another blog where Steven Novella posts. [1] https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ (in case you're wondering about the name: in a nutshell, "science-based medicine" is the position that "evidence-based medicine" is an insufficient rejection of quackery because it leads to a lot of effort being misspent on finding "evidence" to support scientifically implausible…

> (in case you're wondering about the name: in a nutshell, "science-based medicine" is the position that "evidence-based medicine" is an insufficient rejection of quackery because it leads to a lot of effort being misspent on finding "evidence" to support scientifically implausible and already-debunked treatments and theories)

Sorry if this is a common objection, but my first reaction to this is, there's lots of people that reject the word "science" (today's anti-intellectualism), but they're okay with the word "evidence". So even if "science-based" is better, on the surface a lot of people will instantly have a negative reaction to the name.