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

211–220 of 261 posts

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

#211

Post by tynpeddler »

acd wrote: post #152

Pesticide is killing gut bacteria in Bees which has led to Bee death. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.... Pesticide also increases the risk of getting Diabetics. Here is a meta study "After reviewing 21 previous studies, researchers found exposure to any type of pesticide was associated with a 61 percent increased risk for any type of diabetes. The increased risk for type 2 diabetes -- the…

The article you linked isn't very descriptive. Can you find the actual publication?

The article also seems a little contradictory. It opens with the line, "After reviewing 21 previous studies, researchers found exposure to any type of pesticide was associated with a 61 percent increased risk for any type of diabetes", then later states, "The following chemicals were linked to an increased risk of diabetes, according to the researchers: chlordane, oxychlordane, trans-nonachlor, DDT, DDE, dieldrin, heptachlor and HCB." There are lots of pesticides not in that list, including glyphosate. In addition, HCB and DDT are already banned in most places, and the others are considered toxic. The original research might shed some light on this.

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

#212

Post by shabda »

adsfqwop wrote: post #137
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…

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? Gly…

> Do you have an example of anything that accounts for the possibility of unknown unknowns? My guess is if you do, then all it will take to debunk it is someone with a bigger imagination.

You can't enunmerate unknown unknown, but you can plan for them. Simple things like let things fail and no single point of failure have built in protections against unknown unknowns. Its hard to argue this without using Taleb's ideas, which GMO advocates don't like.

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

#213

Post by andrewla »

luca_ing wrote: post #150
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…

> 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…

> This particular debate is not about GMO

Indirectly it is; Monsanto promotes Roundup as a weed killer and simultaneously promotes Roundup Ready crops that are genetically modified to be resistant to Roundup, thus letting farmers safely apply Roundup without endangering the crops themselves.

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

#214

Post by abandonliberty »

blacksmith_tb wrote: post #49
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'.…

Without claiming RoundUp is good for you, I would point to this with regards to your point #4: http://www.snopes.com/food/tainted/roundupwheat.asp

Yeah, no.

Here's a guide from roundup on pre-harvest application:

http://www.roundup.ca/_uploads/documents/MON-Preharvest%20St...

A page from 2014:

http://fieldcropnews.com/2014/08/direct-harvest-do-you-need-...

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=pre-harvest+burndown

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

#215

Post by cholantesh »

Notably, it doesn't seem like anyone in this thread has bothered looking up the court documents or the emails in question. Here they are, along with lots of background reading: http://skeptiforum.org/t/monsanto-and-the-case-of-unsealed-d...

The 'ghostwriting' refers to a position paper that Monsanto had a choice to either outsource to a number of outside experts at significant cost, or to write themselves, acknowledging the contributions of academics who wrote source material and/or would edit and review the document. And they only intended to do this for sections of the paper that were considered uncontroversial in the scientific community, with direct authorship in sections dealing with matters of contention.

It generally seems to be the case that most all stories of this nature are overreaching considerably by taking juicy sounding quotes out of context. It's remarkably analogous to the Climategate 'scandal' on close examination.

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

#216

Post by abandonliberty »

hammock wrote: post #199
joelthelion wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Hot tea causes cancer?

http://www.livescience.com/55130-how-hot-beverages-increase-...

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

#217

Post by Karunamon »

agroot12 wrote: post #145
joatmon-snoo wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 traff…

That doesn't make them automatically guilty of every evil thing people tend to pin on them.

By all means, let's hold them accountable for the evil they've provably done, but the oft-repeated "they sued a guy who had seeds wind up on his field" is throughly debunked.

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

#218

Post by cholantesh »

finid wrote: post #23

“We would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to speak,” Mr. Heydens wrote, citing a previous instance in which he said the company had done this. Science for sale. Shouldn't that Mr. Rowland guy be in jail?

When approached by a company to provide time and expertise dealing with a business problem, do you provide it for free?

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

#219

Post by tgb29 »

More advancements in computational biology and genetics will allow us to more precisely determine the effects of glyphosate on public health. Until we have better tools, there isn't enough evidence to make a judgment against Monsanto. However, the moment we are able to make the connection between poor agricultural practices and damages to health, a multi-billion dollar industry will be created for lawyers, and they will hold these companies acccountable.

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

#220

Post by [deleted] »

escape_goat wrote: post #208
adsfqwop wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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? Gly…

> You fail to account for the possibility of unknown unknowns, and again you're displaying biased cognitive dissonance. I will discuss unknown unknowns later on. Firstly, in terms of cognitive dissonance, I believe that the charge is premature. You seem to have missed the fact that he was referring to himself as one of those researchers, and he most certainly did not mention LD50 profiles. A quick check of his profil…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN