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

Emails Show FDA Chemists Have Been Finding Glyphosate in Food

modernfarmer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 337 posts

Re: Emails Show FDA Chemists Have Been Finding Glyphosate in Food

#111

Post by headsoup »

tptacek wrote: post #98
headsoup wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're just throwing out the tu quoque fallacy for I'm not sure what reason. Hey the 'other side' does it too so let's not make a big deal here! Black and white opposition to everything with cherry-picked arguments is becoming more and more prevalent, and it doesn't help us solve (or even rationally discuss) any problems or even understand them better.

That's in fact not an instance of the tu quoque fallacy.

It is. You're implying that the other commenter's post is invalid as 'blind opposition' because 'their side' of the argument behaves the same.

* Edit on below: On re-reading you're correct, you were categorising their comment. My apologies!

Re: Emails Show FDA Chemists Have Been Finding Glyphosate in Food

#112

Post by ggm »

kaycebasques wrote: post #96
ggm wrote: post #93

I'd like somebody in the space to explain why the FDA samples are more representative of the overall food supply than the random samples from food stores. There may be a good reason. There may be reasons why in some locations, food has higher traces than the FDA sees. How about (for instance) if its imported? Not that its good, but it would help explain I rather think that even though the FDA samples test ok, There i…

I think the article is implying that the “official” samples were probably supplied by people who are colluding with Monsanto. Well, it’s not fair of me to say that the article is implying that... it’s not. But that’s the conclusion I drew.

Sure. It's the conclusion I'm tempted to draw too. But I'm trying to avoid walking into the grand conspiracy, too soon. I think the influence of Monsanto and others on the actions of the FDA are way out of whack, but there are many moments of innocent misunderstanding in this kind of report. I think it's most likely the classic incompetence/malice thing, or a misunderstanding of some kind. Like, FDA testing US farm produce, the shops selling unlabelled, imported, 'US origin' but actually sourced from somewhere else, and re-bagged...

Re: Emails Show FDA Chemists Have Been Finding Glyphosate in Food

#113

Post by cabaalis »

EpicEng wrote: post #73
cabaalis wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A person's credentialing does not make facts any less true.

I believe the debate is around whether or not they are facts to begin with.

Yes, which is why I said "facts" and not "the facts." There is the point of this situation, and the point of ignoring a person's informed opinion. I was discussing the latter.

Re: Emails Show FDA Chemists Have Been Finding Glyphosate in Food

#115

Post by adrr »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #2

>Shortly thereafter, a string of studies and reviews indicated that glyphosate should probably be further studied, and in March of 2015, the cancer research arm of the World Health Organization declared glyphosate a “probable carcinogen.” That is outdated. In 2016, the Joint WHO/FAO "Meeting concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet." http://www.who.int…

Also the probable carcinogen lists contains hot beverages(Tea and Coffee), red meat, shift work, and frying food as probable carcinogens to give some context of what is on the list.

Re: Emails Show FDA Chemists Have Been Finding Glyphosate in Food

#116

Post by Florin_Andrei »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #3

From the article: “All of the official samples passed the test and were within the legal limits of glyphosate residue. But those off-the-record, unofficial samples, though done with the same equipment and tested by the same chemists, showed glyphosate. That’s right. The chemists found glyphosate residue on just about everything: crackers, granola, cornmeal, honey, oatmeal, baby food, and even corn. Their surreptitiou…

> I’d really like to know what’s in our food.

Why? Don't you trust the free market?

/s

Re: Emails Show FDA Chemists Have Been Finding Glyphosate in Food

#117

Post by tptacek »

headsoup wrote: post #111
tptacek wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's in fact not an instance of the tu quoque fallacy.

It is. You're implying that the other commenter's post is invalid as 'blind opposition' because 'their side' of the argument behaves the same. * Edit on below: On re-reading you're correct, you were categorising their comment. My apologies!

No. Tu quoque is an appeal to hypocrisy. Pointing out that other concerns with big industry have been misleading, as with Seralini's apparently fraudulent glyphosate study, is an appeal to credibility.

Re: Emails Show FDA Chemists Have Been Finding Glyphosate in Food

#118

Post by philipkglass »

tptacek wrote: post #11
fncypants wrote: post #6

I've noticed that Monsanto appears to be on an astroturfing campaign. Half of the ads appearing in my Reddit front page are promoted posts that are pro-glyphosate. They point to legitimate news articles, for example, that report on a study finding that glyphosate is not a carginogen. Of course, these studies contradict other studies that glyphosate is a carcinogen or otherwise a concern. In truth, I was ready to beli…

There are no credible studies indicating that glyphosate is a carcinogen, and it would be a little bit surprising it if was, since it targets a metabolic pathway not present in animals. Meanwhile, many of the herbicides that glyphosate displace, plenty of which remain in use, are known human carcinogens. The most widely reported declaration of glyphosate's carcinogenicity, by IARC, was disavowed by the WHO, IARC's pa…

Yes, I agree that evidence to date does not show glyphosate is a carcinogen. But this:

There are no credible studies indicating that glyphosate is a carcinogen, and it would be a little bit surprising it if was, since it targets a metabolic pathway not present in animals.

is not a very strong argument. Harmful "off-target effects" are a very common cause of drug development program failures. Most chemicals that are probable human carcinogens weren't developed with the intention to target metabolic pathways in any living thing.

Re: Emails Show FDA Chemists Have Been Finding Glyphosate in Food

#119

Post by tptacek »

headsoup wrote: post #100
tptacek wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think if we were serious about native wildlife we'd address habitat loss instead of fixating on comic book opponents like "the pesticide industry". Either way: reports of the impending bee-pocalypse are extraordinarily overrated.

Another fallacy: relative privation. Let's not worry about the bees and pesticides because of bigger problems. I think the problem here is that over-emphasis, bluster and hyperbole are so normalised and frequent now that the use of emphasis to try and draw attention to an issue is now practically useless (maybe it was never useful...). Perhaps we shouldn't worry about any of these 'small problems' because we're worki…

No, once again, the glossary of logical fallacies you're working from isn't serving you well. I would be arguing relative privation if I was saying "things are so bad elsewhere it doesn't matter if the bees were dying", or "the bees are dying and that's all that really matters".

In fact, what I'm saying is that the bees are pretty much fine, and not an issue at all.

Re: Emails Show FDA Chemists Have Been Finding Glyphosate in Food

#120

Post by tptacek »

headsoup wrote: post #102
tptacek wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are commercial pollination services perhaps using robotic bees? Because pollination services went up by something like 1% since that article was published.

Are the bee sources still the same? Bees are often imported from other regions to meet supply.

I have no idea. Why does that matter?
Post reply on HN