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

161–170 of 337 posts

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

#161

Post by emodendroket »

tptacek wrote: post #159
emodendroket wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If all the bees keep dying perhaps you'll eventually run out of bees to import.

The argument here being that there is a reserve supply of latent bees not used for commercial pollination, backfilling the commercial supply? I think robot bees are a more plausible explanation.

According to the article you yourself linked to support the claim that there's no problem, that's exactly what they do -- purchase extra bees. That and split colonies (which creates weaker colonies which are more susceptible to death). And this same article admits a substantial price increase in products requiring bees for production.

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

#162

Post by buvanshak »

mannykannot wrote: post #127
tptacek wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't really even understand what this comment is trying to say. Vaccines aren't harmful. But doctors don't make vaccines, pharma companies do. And pharma companies would gladly hurt you. Conclusion: ???.

I think what is meant (from the post in question, not necessarily your summary): cui bono arguments are particularly ineffective for those claiming vaccines are harmful, because doctors, who generally consider vaccines to be very effective and mostly harmless, are not particularly financially vested in the continued use of vaccines (unlike the manufacturers, presumably.) If the use of vaccines was curtailed, doctors…

>because doctors, who generally consider vaccines to be very effective and mostly harmless, are not particularly financially vested...

Interested does not always have to be financial. It is hard for a community to go back on its beliefs. So in all probability, it is possible that a doctor can ignore the negative effects of a vaccine they are seeing due to this and huge perceived peer pressure in talking against the current medical consensus (Which is, as stupid as it sounds, All vaccines are completely safe)

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

#163

Post by buvanshak »

perl4ever wrote: post #99
alexandercrohde wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not quite. It suggests that it’s possible that regular food has glyphosate residue. But samples “brought from home” may have been contaminated elsewhere It doesn't matter to the consumer where in the supply chain the food got glyphosate on it. If it has residue by the time I get home, I don't want to eat it.

It matters when you want to discuss blame and solutions.

Yes. but the first step is to acknowledge it. That is the point the parent is talking about..

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

#164

Post by colah3 »

aetherson wrote: post #160
colah3 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With regards to GMOs, the green revolution (as I understand it[1], partly using GMOs to increase food production, especially in developing countries) is often described as saving a billion lives. On a brief glance, I can't find a detailed estimate of the Humanitarian effects, but Borlaug received a Nobel peace prize for it and that scale of impact does seem plausible. [1] See discussion below about relative importanc…

That's not what the green revolution was. It was pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. While GMOs are not harmful and banning them is overall bad, they don't have nearly the same magnitude of impact on agricultural productivity as herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers.

Thanks for the feedback - I've updated my comment to express uncertainty.

As I understand it, a big part of the green revolution, especially initially, was Borlaug developing a strand of wheat that was resistant to many common diseases and had higher yields. This seems born out by a quick skim of his [wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug), although I'm sure nitrogen fertilizer, etc, also played large roles.

I don't have the time to do a deep dive right now, so I've just updated my previous comment to be uncertain.

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

#165

Post by rockinghigh »

gowld wrote: post #91
hetman wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how it works. Weeds don't somehow get into grains when they're collected. What they do is reduce yields of the crops we're actually interested in collecting. Lower yields for the same farming effort means higher prices. So what ultimately happens when the consumer sees two identical loaves of bread on the supermarket shelf and one is $2.50 while the other is $3.50?

The cost of grain input is essentially 0 (as a fraction of finished product sticker price). The cost is in baking and transportation. Corn is the cheapest product in USA.

If productivity goes down you need more land to produce the same output.

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

#166

Post by usaname »

GW150914 wrote: post #108
a_bonobo wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most forms of organic farming still use pesticies, just different ones, with similar or worse health risks. >In head-to-head comparisons, natural pesticides don't fare any better than synthetic ones. When I compared the organic chemicals copper sulfate and pyrethrum to the top synthetics, chlorpyrifos and chlorothalonil, I found that not only were the organic ones more acutely toxic, studies have found that they are…

Glyphosate is an herbicide, not a pesticide.

No herbicides, fungicides and insecticides are all pesticides.

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

#167

Post by buvanshak »

hawkice wrote: post #157
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…

Not all ignorance is deliberate. Almost none of it is -- ignorance is the default. Some things we don't know yet. Others have effect sizes so small distinguishing them from zero is a true and deep challenge, even with tremendous study done. Some things actually do have effect sizes of zero, and no amount of evidence will stop people from demanding more study.

And also, Any amount of study does not say much if all of them uses flawed methodologies ("but that is the best we have" does not make it any better), which has been a serious issue lately..

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

#168

Post by usaname »

GW150914 wrote: post #110
adrr wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Organic pesticides are nasty stuff as well. "In 2010, a study was published detailing the progression of Parkinson's-like symptoms in mice following chronic intragastric ingestion of low doses of rotenone. The concentrations in the central nervous system were below detectable limits, yet still induced PD pathology.[31] In 2011, a US National Institutes of Health study showed a link between rotenone use and Parkinson'…

I hate to repeat myself, but it bears repeating: glyphosate is an herbicide and not a pesticide. It’s significant, because pesticides organic or otherwise are something designed to kill animals, not plants. We’re animals, not plants, so herbicides are generally far less toxic than pesticides to us. While we’re quite different in many ways to insects, we share a lot of metabolic machinery; the same is not true of us a…

Google pesticide please.

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

#169

Post by buvanshak »

topmonk wrote: post #149
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…

Don't forget leaded gasoline: https://www.thenation.com/article/secret-history-lead/

I think that the common people have no way of knowing the real truth about something. And all our decisions should be based on this simple fact of modern life...

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

#170

Post by r00fus »

zasz wrote: post #53
komali2 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the same universe where there exists a non-trivial number of highly successful subject matter experts that are college dropouts, why do you believe this?

There's limited time and a lot of bullshit to wade through, and I'm busy enough staying abreast of my chosen fields. Credentialism is often abused, but it remains a useful heuristic. It's definitely not useful for people who are expert enough to evaluate claims in and of themselves, but that's not most people. I'm not an expert in medicine, biochemistry, or whatever, so I'm not qualified to sift out the genuine autod…

By your own measure of credentials I find her reasoned, data backed opinion more valid than your skepticism.

What are your credentials?

Post reply on HN