California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing • Hacker News Board

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#151

Post by tptacek » Tue, Jun 27, 2017, 5:42 PM UTC

pera wrote: post #149

tptacek wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm wrong, it was the EPA, and Cornell just cited them (thanks for calling me on this!): https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-05-01/pdf/2013-10316.p... The WHO ultimately walked back IARC's glyphosate assessment: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-who-glyphosate-idUS...

Thanks for the links. It seems to me that the animal studies made by the EPA returned different results than the one done by the IARC. Citing the article from Reuters: > "IARC reviews published studies to identify potential cancer hazards," the WHO said. "It does not estimate the level of risk to the population associated with exposure to the hazard." I honestly don't know what conclusion, if any, should I have from…

You keep referring to animal studies conducted by IARC. What studies are you talking about? The one that got all the press, published in The Lancet, was a meta-study, covering many herbicides, and the conclusion it true about glyphosate's human cancer risk was based on other studies that also covered many herbicides and showed comparatively weak correlations for glyphosate.

The lymphoma study the IARC report actually footnotes covers something like 30 different chemicals, and equivocates on glyphosate.

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#152

Post by notadoc » Tue, Jun 27, 2017, 5:44 PM UTC

hcurtiss wrote: post #137

notadoc wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(nevermind)

Commonly? 2,4-D is a selective herbicide, and glyphosate is not. In most circumstances, adding 2,4-D to glyphosate would be burning money. And if you're going to target broadleafs, you would not, of course, add glyphosate. They're rarely used together. And even if they were commonly mixed, is your argument really that the carcinogenicity of one should be attributed to the other?

I'm always amazed at the level of specific knowledge people have on random topics on hackernews, it's why this is one of the best discussion communities online.

(nevermind)

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#153

Post by notadoc » Tue, Jun 27, 2017, 5:45 PM UTC

hcurtiss wrote: post #133

jly wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, research is showing it has sub-lethal effects on many species of animals, particularly pollinators like bees where field-realistic doses can significantly reduce colony performance. Second, glyphosate persists and drifts easily from 'controlled' plants to nearby wild habitat, destroying and eroding critical forage. Glyphosate is hugely responsible for the conversion of massive amounts of land into corn and soy…

Uhm, glyphosate doesn't affect pollinators.[1] It's an herbicide. And drift that reduces "critical forage"? That's not even part of the glyphosate controversy. Glyphosate either works on a plant or it doesn't. Where you're killing your neighbor's plants by drift, you're going to get a citation or sued or both. [1] https://goo.gl/lGpC1k

Many people confuse herbicides with pesticides as you have probably noticed.

Both can be harmful or beneficial, depending on usage obviously.

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#154

Post by notadoc » Tue, Jun 27, 2017, 5:47 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #150

notadoc wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be ironic and sounds interesting, do you have a source that demonstrates organic food increases herbicide exposure?

Please respond to what my comment actually said, not what you wish it said.

> Ironically, by avoiding "GMO foods", your friends are probably increasing their exposure to herbicides that have a much clearer connection to human health risks.

I am responding to that comment from you. I'd love to read about how avoiding "GMO foods" increases exposure to herbicides, do you have any information on that?

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#155

Post by notadoc » Tue, Jun 27, 2017, 5:51 PM UTC

bazzert wrote: post #148

notadoc wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am sharing why the people I know who eat organic food do so.

understood, I was responding to your "astroturfing" comment. The shill card gets played pretty frequently in these discussions.

The astroturfing comment is broad about nearly any controversial information online, it's why people must be skeptical, critical, and discerning.

It's just an annoying reality of the internet, I suppose.

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#156

Post by notadoc » Tue, Jun 27, 2017, 5:52 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #135

notadoc wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(nevermind)

No, I just know how to read an abstract.

Well there are several hundred abstracts referenced in those links, some of which may surprise you.

There's a lot of interesting information out there.

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#157

Post by fpgaminer » Tue, Jun 27, 2017, 5:54 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #118

rudedogg wrote: post #26

I switched from using RoundUp to a vinegar/salt/dish soap solution this summer and can't believe how well it works. It seems to be just as effective as RoundUp.

> I switched from using RoundUp to a vinegar/salt/dish soap solution this summer and can't believe how well it works. Yeah, salting the Earth is rather well established as a herbicidal practice known for millenia; increasing soil and runoff salinity has rather negative long-term environmental consequences, though (though, I guess, desertification can be a rather dramatic solution to the “plants I don't like grow here…

How long does salt last in soil?

In the formulas I've read, there's very little salt. It's about a gallon of vinegar, a single squirt of dish soap, and a pour or two of salt.

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#158

Post by jly » Tue, Jun 27, 2017, 5:56 PM UTC

hcurtiss wrote: post #133

jly wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, research is showing it has sub-lethal effects on many species of animals, particularly pollinators like bees where field-realistic doses can significantly reduce colony performance. Second, glyphosate persists and drifts easily from 'controlled' plants to nearby wild habitat, destroying and eroding critical forage. Glyphosate is hugely responsible for the conversion of massive amounts of land into corn and soy…

Uhm, glyphosate doesn't affect pollinators.[1] It's an herbicide. And drift that reduces "critical forage"? That's not even part of the glyphosate controversy. Glyphosate either works on a plant or it doesn't. Where you're killing your neighbor's plants by drift, you're going to get a citation or sued or both. [1] https://goo.gl/lGpC1k

> Uhm, glyphosate doesn't affect pollinators.

It does affect pollinators, show in some examples of recent research [1][2], and effects on other non-insect animal species like frogs [3] and fish [4][5]. We may not know why it does yet, but there is plenty of evidence. This is just a tiny sampling.

> And drift that reduces "critical forage"? That's not even part of the glyphosate controversy.

This is very much part of the controversy. As one example, glyphosate has been linked to decline of milkweed habitat, significantly impacting monarch butterflies. The NRDC petitioned the EPA in 2015 to restrict the use because of this [6]. Just because of the widespread application in agricultural and urban areas, drift and runoff contaminate large areas of habitat, impacting countless non-target species of both plant and animal.

One could also draw the conclusion that glyphosate-tolerant corn and soy have been particularly responsible for the conversion of over 150 million acres of land (almost the size of Texas) into food or biofuel development in the last ~25 years. This land is no longer animal/pollinator friendly and is leading to a rapid decline in plant/pollinator relationships.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25063858 [2] http://jeb.biologists.org/content/jexbio/218/17/2799.full.pd... [3] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/11-0189.1/abstrac... [4] http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es404258h [5] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17933590 [6] https://www.nrdc.org/media/2015/150624

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#159

Post by jly » Tue, Jun 27, 2017, 5:59 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #138

jly wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with your argument that we should push back on policy intervention for glyphosate, because it might be non-carcinogenic to humans or it compares more favorably against another chemical in our food. My comments were other reasons why it may be dangerous. Considering it's one of the most-used common chemicals in the US, the standard for this usage must be very high.

Fair enough. I mean to say: we should push back on policy interventions based on marginal hypothetical cancer risks.

I would definitely agree with that.

Re: California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

#160

Post by fpgaminer » Tue, Jun 27, 2017, 6:01 PM UTC

notadoc wrote: post #93

Avoiding the various herbicides and pesticides is the reason everyone I know who eats organic and non-GMO food does so. As always you should do your own research, draw your own conclusions. Be aware there is a shocking amount of astroturfing on this topic.

Do they know that organic food uses pesticides? Worse ones, too...