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

141–150 of 261 posts

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

#141

Post by pbhjpbhj »

mikekchar wrote: post #62
baldfat wrote: post #11

The funny thing is we have less herbicides because of Roundup. The option is we starve the world, because we will not be able to product enough wheat etc. or we use stronger herbicides. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/organic-farming-y...

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…

And if mass media stats are right USA throws away one-third of the food it prepares.

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

#142

Post by eeZah7Ux »

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…

> whether I'm arguing with GMO-skeptics or climate-change-skeptics, I can't prove that this scientific consensus is worthy of your respect

What about GMO-skeptics that belong to the scientific community?

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

#143

Post by pbhjpbhj »

grogenaut wrote: post #97
pfarnsworth wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone mentioned above, that's where robots come in.

On gantrys? on wheels between the wheat rows? driving over the wheat on that even ground? combine sized? How much placement / spacing do they need?

A drone does a fly past mapping the field, then cockroach-sized robots crawl the field locating and cutting weed roots with mechanical jaws. A spike-footed walker then vacuums up the loose weeds and feeds turn to a digester that makes the fuel to run the robots ... simples!

It's all good until they get a taste for blood.

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

#144

Post by mmjaa »

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…

Nice deflection.

This story is as much about the info-war that kept glyphosate from being 'poisonous in the public mind' as it is about the fact that there are worse carcinogens in the world ..

Sure, depleted Uranium is a much worse pollutant for us to be worried about. But, that's no reason for us to continue paying millions into an industry that lied to us so that we would keep spreading it on our food sources now, is it?

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

#145

Post by agroot12 »

joatmon-snoo wrote: post #112
cies wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You mean we should fact check the unsealed emails?

Let me quote one of the more explicit parts of the article:

> Court records show that Monsanto was tipped off to the determination by a deputy division director at the E.P.A., Jess Rowland, months beforehand. That led the company to prepare a public relations assault on the finding well in advance of its publication. Monsanto executives, in their internal email traffic, also said Mr. Rowland had promised to beat back an effort by the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct its own review.

> Dan Jenkins, a Monsanto executive, said in an email in 2015 that Mr. Rowland, referring to the other agency’s potential review, had told him, “If I can kill this, I should get a medal.” The review never took place. In another email, Mr. Jenkins noted to a colleague that Mr. Rowland was planning to retire and said he “could be useful as we move forward with ongoing glyphosate defense.”

For me, this qualifies as 'big evil corporation' behavior. [edited: formatting]

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

#146

Post by joelthelion »

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…

> It doesn't do us any good calling everything in the world a carcinogen

I think it would help tremendously if we started expressing everything in terms of Disability-adjusted life years[1] lost. So instead of "Drinking hot tea causes cancer!", the headline would read "Drinking hot tea causes you to lose an average 20 minutes of disability-adjusted life expectancy". A lot less scary, and a lot easier to compare with other things.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disability-adjusted_life_year

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

#147

Post by TillE »

eeZah7Ux wrote: post #142
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…

> whether I'm arguing with GMO-skeptics or climate-change-skeptics, I can't prove that this scientific consensus is worthy of your respect What about GMO-skeptics that belong to the scientific community?

Americans literally, honestly, do not know that they exist. Which is a fantastic achievement by Monsanto, tbh.

People who care should really look into why GMOs are banned in the EU.

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

#148

Post by nodnyl »

mikekchar wrote: post #62
baldfat wrote: post #11

The funny thing is we have less herbicides because of Roundup. The option is we starve the world, because we will not be able to product enough wheat etc. or we use stronger herbicides. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/organic-farming-y...

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…

In dry parts of the world herbicide use can significantly increase yield. Where I live in Australia a lot of broad-acre farming is "no-till". A field is seeded directly into stubble of the previous crop without mechanical tilling or weeding. Avoiding turning the soil retains moisture and stops top-soil blowing away. We recently had a fire come through near where I live and farmers were remarking they "hadn't seen their soil in years", and were concerned about losing the soil and moisture advantage they had gained over the years. Herbicide use is certainly not just a labor saver, it does open up different ways of farming.

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

#149

Post by AstralStorm »

pjc50 wrote: post #140
shriphani wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It does, but not really to smoking. Tobacco is far safer chewed or insufflated than smoked, and cigarettes have a bunch of additional terrible chemicals in them.

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

#150

Post by luca_ing »

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…

> There are many conflicts of interest in the world - organic farming is an industry too.

Your point being?

> 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....

This particular debate is not about GMO though, is it?

> It doesn't do us any good calling everything in the world a carcinogen.

We're not calling everything a carcinogen. Some people are suspecting Glyphosate of being one.

> We have to rank-order risks in order to make reasonable choices in life, and glyphosate sits very low on that list compared to other industrial chemicals when you look at the evidence for mutagenicity or secondary carcinogenic mechanisms.

But I eat very few of these chemicals (I hope).

Post reply on HN