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

211–220 of 337 posts

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

#211

Post by pdonis »

alexandercrohde wrote: post #72
PantaloonFlames wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this suggests ... Not quite. It suggests that it’s possible that regular food has glyphosate residue. But samples “brought from home” may have been contaminated elsewhere. This is why we depend on rigorous controlled tests. It’s also possible that the “official tests” were rigged, and suspiscions about that led the testers to go rogue, and that glyphosate really IS in our food in larger concentrations than we are l…

> 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 doesn't matter to the consumer where in the supply chain the food got glyphosate on it.

It does if the food got it, not from anywhere in the food supply chain, but from the home's own supply of Roundup, which has found its way in small quantities into all kinds of places.

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

#212

Post by kurthr »

cyphar wrote: post #195
aetherson wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I completely disagree. Quite a lot of the work done during the Green Revolution was breeding plants that were more hardy and resilient to the environment. For instance, Norman Borlaug worked on strains of wheat that were resistant to stem rust (something that had caused starvation in Mexico several years earlier). Pesticides, herbicides, nor fertilisers help with stem rust. GMOs also allow the breeding of plants that…

Breeding (even hybridizing) plants is not considered GMO or all carrots, corn, and avocados would be considered the same. I'm a supporter of GMO, but directly modifying (or inserting) genes is different from selective breeding and even cloning. I don't particularly like breeding plants that are (more) tolerant of high doses of proprietary pesticides (insect=animal killers) or even herbicides, because like overusing anti-biotech at low doses for feed lot weight gain it is a recipe for eventual disaster.

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

#213

Post by tomhoward »

aldoushuxley001 wrote: post #154
tomhoward wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The more successful forums where members delight in having their discussions degenerate into paranoid conspiracy mongering are eagerly awaiting your arrival.

Oh it's conspiracy mongering to question the science behind a popular weedkiller? Wow, didn't realize! My apologies. I know HN is anti science sometimes but this is taking it to another level.

Nobody expressed any objection to you discussing the science. Backing arguments with sound scientific evidence is what we like here.

It was only the allegation of astroturfing that was objected to, which is specifically against the guidelines in large part because it takes discussions in a decidedly unscientific direction.

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

#214

Post by aetherson »

colah3 wrote: post #164
aetherson wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's legit. I think that with further reading, the nuanced view is that it's both the high-yield strains of staple foods that Borlaug developed and the high-input farming style, in combination.

But my point is actually that modern GMO plants, the Monsanto ones that people are currently freaking out about, don't revolutionize yields. They improve them on the margin, but it's not another green revolution, at least so far.

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

#215

Post by buvanshak »

vincnetas wrote: post #193
buvanshak wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Why so pessimistic? Aren't there any independent labs where you can send your samples for testing and then see results for your self? Send to multiple labs for more control.

This is not always possible. For example, take the claim that a certain thing X in some eatables is harmful/not harmful for human beings. Such a thing might not be possible without long term study. Or the claim that smoking will kill you, but what if you want to know if smoking moderately is as bad as exposing to automobile pollution every day? Or living in an area with polluted air. Mainstream narrative today emphasizes on the dangers of smoking, but it does not really does the same with automobile pollution? What if you want to know the truth about this? Can this be so easily done by a common man?

Even in cases where this is possible, like pesticide residue in vegetables, You might have to run the experiments for a large number of samples for some amount of time to get a real picture. Which might be feasible, but way out of the comfort zone of a concerned person, who has a normal life and the associated hassles to deal with...

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

#216

Post by anigbrowl »

vincnetas wrote: post #193
buvanshak wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Why so pessimistic? Aren't there any independent labs where you can send your samples for testing and then see results for your self? Send to multiple labs for more control.

Oh yeah, that's a really efficient approach. Like the average person knows how to buy that service, what it should cost, or what to do with the results.

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

#217

Post by JumpCrisscross »

random4369 wrote: post #14
dfxm12 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

Anti-GMO is a multibillion industry. There are rich, vested interests on both sides of this debate.

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

#218

Post by cyphar »

kurthr wrote: post #212
cyphar wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely disagree. Quite a lot of the work done during the Green Revolution was breeding plants that were more hardy and resilient to the environment. For instance, Norman Borlaug worked on strains of wheat that were resistant to stem rust (something that had caused starvation in Mexico several years earlier). Pesticides, herbicides, nor fertilisers help with stem rust. GMOs also allow the breeding of plants that…

Breeding (even hybridizing) plants is not considered GMO or all carrots, corn, and avocados would be considered the same. I'm a supporter of GMO, but directly modifying (or inserting) genes is different from selective breeding and even cloning. I don't particularly like breeding plants that are (more) tolerant of high doses of proprietary pesticides (insect=animal killers) or even herbicides, because like overusing a…

> Breeding (even hybridizing) plants is not considered GMO or all carrots, corn, and avocados would be considered the same.

It is a different technique, but the purpose is the same. [1] gives a good overview over why discriminating between the "more natural" genetic modification techniques and the "less natural" ones is not a reasonable middle-ground. Healthy skepticism around particular GMOs (meaning particular plants) is completely fine (and should be encouraged -- like all skepticism), but skepticism around all plants produced by a given group of techniques doesn't make much sense imo.

Regarding proprietary pesticides, there is a legitimate issue there (as there is with the patenting of biotech -- or patents in general) but it has been hijacked by anti-GMO protests making claims that farmers were sued because of cross-contamination from other farms and similarly false statements.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcbTVEr3_X4

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

#219

Post by toofy »

azernik wrote: post #209
petre wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure Monsanto and the GMO lobby's objective was saving lives in developing countries, not profits. When they pushed GMOs bundled with pesticides and herbicides they did so aided by the corruption in these countries, where the farmers were doing quite fine replanting seeds. Now they're abusing a BASF product to ripen tomatoes overnight.

Who gives a shit about motivation? Do you care if your take-out food was made in the expectation of a financial return, or does it need to be made out of the restaurant owner's sincere love of feeding strangers?

Considering what motivates someone can often be useful.

People can behave and make drastically different choices based solely on motivation. People will often pick and choose what information they choose to share or choose to hide based largely on the motivations that are driving their project.

Motivation can drastically alter the way an idea is presented to the audience in which it is being presented.

Obviously we would prefer to have one hundred percent accurate information to base all of our decisions on but sadly, we don’t —- considering the motives of those who are selling us whatever they’re selling is wise.

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

#220

Post by Deestan »

hamparawa wrote: post #109

Although not scientifically proven(?), it is believed that the chronic kidney disease (CKD) is caused by Glyphosate. CKD is largely present in North Central, North Western, Uva and Eastern Provinces in Sri Lanka. https://www.news.lk/news/political-current-affairs/item/8198...

It is also believed that the world is flat, and that magic crystals will protect your computer from viruses.
Post reply on HN