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

131–140 of 337 posts

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

#131

Post by philipkglass »

tptacek wrote: post #123
philipkglass wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

The evidence seems to suggest that glyphosate is basically inert in humans, doesn't it?

I've read enough literature about the carcinogenicity to assure myself that it is very probably not a carcinogen. And to my chemist's eye it looks fast to degrade, pretty benign overall. But biology is surprisingly complicated. That's why I think that the "it targets" argument means little. That's the only part I took issue with.

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

#133

Post by elago »

tptacek wrote: post #84
kaitai wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't agree; know too many hobbyist beekeepers who've had 20-40 years beekeeping who can't keep a hive alive through a winter now. When I was a kid peoples' hives survived a harsh Minnesota winter. Now they all die even though we don't have enough snow to ski.

We don't have to guess or extrapolate from anecdotes; the price of pollination services are tracked, and have grown low single-digit percentages over the last several years, just like prices in general.

Referring to "price of pollination services" means the natural ecosystem has failed.

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

#134

Post by Avshalom »

As a note: the throwing out of samples might not necessarily be sinister (on the FDA's end) so much as a result of the FDA's general hamstrungedness.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/02/bug-system

Key quote in there is that before the FDA is even allowed to ask for a recall they have to prove a DNA match between whatever caused food poisoning and the specific bag of whatever.

If the FDA has extremely rigid chain of custody rules for what samples/test they're allowed to talk about in public and you had a billion dollars riding in them only reporting the best samples it might not be that hard to fuck with that chain of custody and disqualify anything you knew about.

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

#135

Post by cyphar »

headsoup wrote: post #95
jjoonathan wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In college, I did a deep dive into GMO safety research for journal club back when the Seralini "GMOs cause cancer in mice" paper hit (2010 or thereabouts) and found quite a counterexample to your rule: bogus (obviously p-hacked) science from Seralini and an aggressive misinformation campaign from Greenpeace to convince people that Monsanto was using terminator genes (bio-DRM) against poor farmers when the truth had b…

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.

You're misrepresenting the chain of the conversation:

A: The jury is out on [topic].

B: Whenever a jury is out, with one side having massive funding you know what the outcome will be [implying the massively funded camp is wrong and trying to hide it].

C: Here is a counter-example where the side with funding was correct. So maybe your over-generalisation is wrong.

You: You're throwing out a to-quoque fallacy, blind opposition is bad.

GP was opposing blind opposition, and you're arguing that they are blindly opposing skepticism. I'm not sure you read the conversation completely before you replied.

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

#136

Post by mudil »

kaitai wrote: post #74
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.

Can't agree; know too many hobbyist beekeepers who've had 20-40 years beekeeping who can't keep a hive alive through a winter now. When I was a kid peoples' hives survived a harsh Minnesota winter. Now they all die even though we don't have enough snow to ski.

It could be varoa mites, for example, that's causing the die off. It could be the result of artificial insemination of queens by distributors, creating a cheap stock and poorly survivable colonies. Just a some alternative ideas to consider...

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

#137

Post by mannykannot »

dfxm12 wrote: post #5
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 remember watching a lecture from Vandana Shiva who claimed that glyphosate was harmful and making it in to our food. She cited some European studies that found glyphosate in a wide variety of products. She claimed that there were shady things going on in the US government that seemed to obscure these facts. While this might prove her true that the US government is trying to hide the glyphosate levels in food, does…

If the assumption has been that it is not getting into food, when in fact it has, it is reasonable to ask whether studies have been based on valid models of exposure. Furthermore, the article you link to is almost entirely preoccupied with the cancer risk, which is far from the only danger of environmental toxins. this seems to be a case where the burden of evidence belongs on those calling it harmless.

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

#138

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

jjoonathan wrote: post #71
random4369 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time the jury is out on a topic where one side has a vested interest and a billion dollar budget to protect it, you can be reasonably sure what the outcome will be. See: pesticides and bees, fossil fuels and climate change, food packaging plastics and cancer, pain treatment meds and addiction. The answer in all those cases is the harmful effects eventually became known, but the jury was out long enough for the…

In college, I did a deep dive into GMO safety research for journal club back when the Seralini "GMOs cause cancer in mice" paper hit (2010 or thereabouts) and found quite a counterexample to your rule: bogus (obviously p-hacked) science from Seralini and an aggressive misinformation campaign from Greenpeace to convince people that Monsanto was using terminator genes (bio-DRM) against poor farmers when the truth had b…

>> Blind opposition to industrial progress -- which is what you are suggesting -- carried by the rising tide of public opinion will cause a ton of damage in the century to come, and the damage will never be repaid.

What damage will be caused by people using their phones less for fear of getting cancer?

What about GMOs? What is the harm in not using them? The EU has mostly banned them and it doesn't look to be suffering any damage.

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

#139

Post by mudil »

mudil wrote: post #136
kaitai wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't agree; know too many hobbyist beekeepers who've had 20-40 years beekeeping who can't keep a hive alive through a winter now. When I was a kid peoples' hives survived a harsh Minnesota winter. Now they all die even though we don't have enough snow to ski.

It could be varoa mites, for example, that's causing the die off. It could be the result of artificial insemination of queens by distributors, creating a cheap stock and poorly survivable colonies. Just a some alternative ideas to consider...

Here's a link to WaPo article that bees are doing just fine https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/10/10/belie...

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

#140

Post by conception »

joenathanone wrote: post #89
swiley wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I helped get a device through part15 testing during an internship and was shocked to find that you don’t need the same firmware (like at all. You can run totally different oses and everything, they don’t have to share a single line of code.) As long as you say “this is pretty much the same as what we’re shipping to users” you’re fine. They don’t really have anyway to double check it and to be honest I wouldn’t be tot…

Random sample testing after the product ships with large fines for violators.

Jail time for CEOs and board members of violators.
Post reply on HN