Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 261 posts

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

#131

Post by adsfqwop »

alevskaya wrote: post #61
abandonliberty wrote: post #32

I've been researching this. 1. Glyphosate (roundup) use is two orders of magnitude higher than originally approved. 2. Due to the emergence of glyphosate-resistant weeds, the dosage has been increased substantially. 3. It is now also usually combined with other compounds to increase effectiveness, which affects how it breaks down and affects both the food and environment. 4. It is now also used for 'green burndown'.…

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…

Did you read the article?

The court documents included Monsanto’s internal emails and email traffic between the company and federal regulators. The records suggested that Monsanto had ghostwritten research that was later attributed to academics and indicated that a senior official at the Environmental Protection Agency had worked to quash a review of Roundup’s main ingredient, glyphosate, that was to have been conducted by the United States Department of Health and Human Services.

Yet the first thing you think about is accusing organic farming of conflicts of interest?

You are a perfect example of extreme cognitive dissonance. What's even more scary is you're working in the field of biotechnology. It only reinforces my view that many of you are living in your own dogmatic information bubble.

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

#132

Post by cmdrfred »

arthurfm wrote: post #109
mikekchar wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is actually another option -- especially with respect to herbicides: manual labour. Herbicides don't increase yield. They decrease cost. Wheat is currently $4.35 a bushel. A bushel of wheat is about 60 lbs. So, we're paying just over 7 cents a pound for wheat. Fix the distribution side, not the production side. There's a lot more fat there. And in the mean time, research ways of reducing labour on physical meth…

> There is actually another option -- especially with respect to herbicides: manual labour. Wouldn't organic herbicides containing Nonanoic (Pelargonic) acid [1], vinegar [2] or salt [3] also be options? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonanoic_acid [2] http://weedicide.co.uk/does-vinegar-kill-weeds/ [3] http://weedicide.co.uk/salt-kill-weeds-herbicide/

If you engineer a crop that is resistant to salt sure.

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

#133

Post by x0x0 »

bkkssnn wrote: post #89
sametmax wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Don't forget when Lead was claimed to be "safe" enough to put into gasoline - . -

BTW, lead gas additive was known to be pretty dangerous at the time

see eg https://www.wired.com/2013/01/looney-gas-and-lead-poisoning-...

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

#134

Post by alevskaya »

sametmax wrote: post #127
alevskaya wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 abnormaliti…

I'm not arguing against the science, I'm arguing against the people. E.G: I think GMO have a fantastic potential. It's a powerful technology. And like any powerful technology, it has a huge potential of destruction as well. And I don't trust the people making money with it to take the necessary precautions to avoid a catastrophy. There are so many past and present events where money won over the benefit of the human…

You don't need to convince me of the potential malfeasance of US corporate interests - I grew up in West Virginia, a state that's more or less been run by the coal industry for a century. :)

We should always remain vigilant of unappreciated risks, both health and ecological, from existing practices and chemicals. However, scientific studies are not cheap. In a world with an endless supply of serious problems, we have to prioritize research spending on science and engineering that's likely to actually improve life for the most people. Redoing the same experiments we've been doing to death for decades probably isn't the best use of limited science funding from a purely utilitarian standpoint. Industrial agriculture has quite a few more serious public health issues than glyphosate. (e.g. antibiotic abuse in animals)

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

#135

Post by Broken_Hippo »

arthurfm wrote: post #109
mikekchar wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is actually another option -- especially with respect to herbicides: manual labour. Herbicides don't increase yield. They decrease cost. Wheat is currently $4.35 a bushel. A bushel of wheat is about 60 lbs. So, we're paying just over 7 cents a pound for wheat. Fix the distribution side, not the production side. There's a lot more fat there. And in the mean time, research ways of reducing labour on physical meth…

> There is actually another option -- especially with respect to herbicides: manual labour. Wouldn't organic herbicides containing Nonanoic (Pelargonic) acid [1], vinegar [2] or salt [3] also be options? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonanoic_acid [2] http://weedicide.co.uk/does-vinegar-kill-weeds/ [3] http://weedicide.co.uk/salt-kill-weeds-herbicide/

I've personally looked into some of these things, and have read quite a few warnings about both salt and vinegar. Improperly used, they can ruin the soil and render it barren. I'm not sure of the truth of this, but it was enough to make me just use manual labor at home (in other words, my garden was half weeds since I rarely did it). The larger the scale of application, however, the worse they seem to perform. [1] Salt, interestingly enough, still requires some protection so you aren't inahling it nor getting it in your eyes. [2]

Just because things are natural or traditional doesn't make them necessarily better than the chemicals we are dealing with now, even with their present downsides.

[1]http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2014/06/salt-vinegar-and-glypho... [2] http://weedicide.co.uk/salt-kill-weeds-herbicide/

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

#136

Post by cmdrfred »

shriphani wrote: post #82
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…

As Nicholas Taleb put it - stuff that is natural is time-tested. Food we've grown + consumed has a multi-millennium history of being safe to consume. The burden of proof is on the synthetic. And health issues can materialize with a time gap of a decade or so - essentially you can ruin a couple of generations with a mistake you didn't catch in time. It doesn't help when those who have to prove their validity have to r…

>Food we've grown + consumed has a multi-millennium history of being safe to consume.

Its not so simple. When you consider the significantly lower yields of organic farming[0], combined with a growing world population 71% of which lives on less than $10 a day[1] that will not be able to afford these increased food costs you are left with a question. Do you prefer to add perhaps a few years to the end of your life or do you prefer to allow a great many others to live?

Personally even if GMO and others took a decade from me (I have seen no evidence this is the case. Humans are living longer lives than ever before.) if it allows more children to eat I support it.

[0]https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/20... [1]http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/08/news/economy/global-low-inco...

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

#137

Post by adsfqwop »

alevskaya wrote: post #118
sametmax wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 abnormaliti…

You fail to account for the possibility of unknown unknowns, and again you're displaying biased cognitive dissonance.

You can't determine generational toxicity from LD50 profiles. You are simplifying everything way too much.

Glyphosate is an analog to glycine. You know, the building blocks for proteins. DuPont did a study in 2007 that shows glyphosate is integrating in protein structures. Does that not worry you?

Glyphosate is also a chelating agent. Glyphosate impacts the shikimate pathway, and is said to be non-toxic because humans do not possess the shikimate pathway. Yet the shikimate pathway is present in bacteria, archaea, and eukarya, and all of them are harmed by Glyphosate. Do we have bacteria in our guts utilizing the shikimate pathway? Yes we do.

You are running with the base assumption that Monsanto is benevolent and honest. This is where your cognitive dissonance stems from.

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

#138

Post by pjc50 »

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.

> "working the fields" cannot be made a good job for humans

Manual farm labour is extremely hard work, "stoop" labour causes back conditions, and man+machine agricultural labour has a history of accidents.

People already have left the countryside in the West; farming is a few % of the population, plus seasonal immigrant/guest workers.

I'm quite happy to be on this side of the agricultural revolution and increase the automation in farming. If we want meaningful jobs, we have to address the question of "meaning" directly, in the context of the society we wish to have.

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

#139

Post by reitanqild »

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…

I know you are serious and I have actually heard this for years and was of the understanding that recommendations was now changing towards "milk and dairy more healty than previously though".

Full disclosure: grew up on a dairy farm. Like milk. Might be biased.

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

#140

Post by pjc50 »

shriphani wrote: post #82
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…

As Nicholas Taleb put it - stuff that is natural is time-tested. Food we've grown + consumed has a multi-millennium history of being safe to consume. The burden of proof is on the synthetic. And health issues can materialize with a time gap of a decade or so - essentially you can ruin a couple of generations with a mistake you didn't catch in time. It doesn't help when those who have to prove their validity have to r…

> stuff that is natural is time-tested

This also applies to tobacco.

Post reply on HN