Impossible Foods Responds to Glyphosate Allegation • Hacker News Board

Re: Impossible Foods Responds to Glyphosate Allegation

#31

Post by bscphil » Tue, May 28, 2019, 7:48 PM UTC

bad_user wrote: post #18

hannob wrote: post #9

This isn't helpful. I don't like use of pesticides and I think there's a reasonable controversy to be had about the dangers of Glyphosate. But the environmental impact of meat production is so enormous desastrous, we should welcome every possible alternative. Whatever the Glyphosate (and GMO) concerns are, they are tiny in comparison.

>> " the environmental impact of meat production is so enormous desastrous " Reference, please. In case you haven't seen what industrial plants agriculture looks like nowadays: https://www.ecowatch.com/europes-dirty-little-secret-morocca... The anti-meat propaganda is getting obnoxious. The most sustainable agriculture is one in which the soil is fertilised with manure and rotated livestock, because grazing animals k…

Kind of funny you have zero citations of your own other than a single story (not a study) about how some plants are grown somewhere.

>And from ecological, to health and ethical considerations, most pro-vegan arguments (not all) are bullshit.

As an expert in one of these three fields, I can say with certainty that you're just making up these claims from whole cloth to fit your narrative.

Edit: I want to edit this to make clear I'm not just making a claim to authority and saying everyone should believe me. This response was mainly out of frustration at outright nonsense like "meat keeps us healthy" that no health organization in the world is going to subscribe to. I hope people in general are aware enough of some of these issues to detect the problems in the post I replied to and look into some of these questions for themselves.

Re: Impossible Foods Responds to Glyphosate Allegation

#32

Post by zymhan » Tue, May 28, 2019, 7:49 PM UTC

minimaxir wrote: post #3

Direct link to response: https://assets.ctfassets.net/hhv516v5f7sj/77NQsg1qDb6d9Hi4PB...

At the end of dismantling the original claims:

> MAA calls itself as a non-profit, but make no mistake: This outfit is a supplement-pushing e-commerce company that collects and sells consumer data. By MAA’s own admission, it gets a commission on sales of supplements from other affiliates -- and none of the bogus products it pushes have been evaluated or approved by the US Food and Drug Administration or any other governmental authority.

Re: Impossible Foods Responds to Glyphosate Allegation

#33

Post by zymhan » Tue, May 28, 2019, 7:50 PM UTC

pacala wrote: post #30

intopieces wrote: post #10

If I recall correctly, the Glyphosate cancer allegations come from farmers who inhaled it day in and day out for years - a totally different ingestion model from eating it in small amounts.

Not so different than eating it in small amounts day in and day out for years.

It is entirely different. The residual amount on your food is orders of magnitude smaller than what you'd encounter working with a concentrated solution containing glyphosate.

Re: Impossible Foods Responds to Glyphosate Allegation

#34

Post by zymhan » Tue, May 28, 2019, 7:51 PM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #19

searine wrote: post #4

"Mom's Across America" is a well known science denying hotbed who stoke fear of GMOs, chemicals, and vaccines. They don't care whether or not glyphosate is safe or not. They care that impossible foods is getting headlines, and they want to get a piece of it by introducing FUD. Impossible is 100% right to do a hard reply to this. These people aren't interested in honest debate or product safety and the world needs to…

I'm still completely baffled by people like this. Why do they even exist? What do they have to gain by spreading misinformation about something like an alternative-meat burger? Are they just incredibly stupid? Do they value getting headlines over the health and wellbeing of people? What is it? I'm completely lost here.

At the end of their takedown of the claims, they point out that "MAA" sells BS supplements and "health products" that likely do nothing at all.

Essentially they want you to buy in to the idea that no one else can be trusted besides them.

Re: Impossible Foods Responds to Glyphosate Allegation

#35

Post by happytoexplain » Tue, May 28, 2019, 7:51 PM UTC

goda90 wrote: post #11

hannob wrote: post #9

This isn't helpful. I don't like use of pesticides and I think there's a reasonable controversy to be had about the dangers of Glyphosate. But the environmental impact of meat production is so enormous desastrous, we should welcome every possible alternative. Whatever the Glyphosate (and GMO) concerns are, they are tiny in comparison.

Kind of like the conspiracy theory that some conspiracy theories are made up by governments to make theorists look ridiculous, sometimes I wonder if science-blind anti-GMO sentiment was manufactured by these big agriculture companies to draw legitimate attention away from truly studying the pesticides we're using.

This comment really struck me. I've personally always found the anti-GMO crowd to be nonexistent by every metric I have available to me, but I've always assumed I'm just not seeing it wherever it is. The most extreme opinions I ever encounter on the subject are the occasional individual merely wondering out loud if GMOs are bad for you.

Re: Impossible Foods Responds to Glyphosate Allegation

#36

Post by jdc » Tue, May 28, 2019, 7:52 PM UTC

bad_user wrote: post #18

hannob wrote: post #9

This isn't helpful. I don't like use of pesticides and I think there's a reasonable controversy to be had about the dangers of Glyphosate. But the environmental impact of meat production is so enormous desastrous, we should welcome every possible alternative. Whatever the Glyphosate (and GMO) concerns are, they are tiny in comparison.

>> " the environmental impact of meat production is so enormous desastrous " Reference, please. In case you haven't seen what industrial plants agriculture looks like nowadays: https://www.ecowatch.com/europes-dirty-little-secret-morocca... The anti-meat propaganda is getting obnoxious. The most sustainable agriculture is one in which the soil is fertilised with manure and rotated livestock, because grazing animals k…

Here's your reference: http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode

Re: Impossible Foods Responds to Glyphosate Allegation

#37

Post by ha99ja » Tue, May 28, 2019, 7:54 PM UTC

SmellyGeekBoy wrote: post #29

bad_user wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> " the environmental impact of meat production is so enormous desastrous " Reference, please. In case you haven't seen what industrial plants agriculture looks like nowadays: https://www.ecowatch.com/europes-dirty-little-secret-morocca... The anti-meat propaganda is getting obnoxious. The most sustainable agriculture is one in which the soil is fertilised with manure and rotated livestock, because grazing animals k…

I'm just glad I got to read this comment before r/vegan showed up and downvoted it into oblivion. Such is the current state of discourse around this subject on HN. We need to eat less meat, we need to look after animals better and we need to do it in a much more eco-friendly and sustainable manner. We don't all need to go vegan. Going from one extreme to another is never the answer.

If anything it is the exact opposite. Any mention of the negatives of eating meat will bring a hoard of anti-vegan pro-meat comments. Usually all pushing the same talking points. Most likely employed by the Center for Organizational Research and Education [1] which also astroturfs for pro-tobacco causes.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Organizational_Rese...

Re: Impossible Foods Responds to Glyphosate Allegation

#38

Post by sauwan » Tue, May 28, 2019, 7:54 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #25

sauwan wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>has not been established Then why are lawsuits that claim those links have been established winning regularly in courts now?

Beats me. I think Impossible is right when they say: “Proven to be carcinogenic” is a ridiculous claim, refuted by multiple government agencies, including EFSA, Germany, Canada, and the World Health Organization (WHO), who determined that glyphosate exposure in the human diet is unlikely a carcinogenic risk. No regulatory authority in the world considers glyphosate to be carcinogenic to humans at current exposure lev…

Well, I'm certainly not an expert on this, but my understanding was that WHO had identified it as probably a carcinogen.

https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/MonographVolu...

Other studies show the link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S138357421...

Now, admittedly, I don't have a strong background to stand on here, so I'm open to being convinced otherwise. And I would agree with the overall thrust of Impossible's claims here that this is likely far too low a level to be worried about.

But I'm not sure I buy it that there are no connections, particularly for high levels that are breathed in during farming.

Re: Impossible Foods Responds to Glyphosate Allegation

#39

Post by valec » Tue, May 28, 2019, 7:55 PM UTC

bad_user wrote: post #18

hannob wrote: post #9

This isn't helpful. I don't like use of pesticides and I think there's a reasonable controversy to be had about the dangers of Glyphosate. But the environmental impact of meat production is so enormous desastrous, we should welcome every possible alternative. Whatever the Glyphosate (and GMO) concerns are, they are tiny in comparison.

>> " the environmental impact of meat production is so enormous desastrous " Reference, please. In case you haven't seen what industrial plants agriculture looks like nowadays: https://www.ecowatch.com/europes-dirty-little-secret-morocca... The anti-meat propaganda is getting obnoxious. The most sustainable agriculture is one in which the soil is fertilised with manure and rotated livestock, because grazing animals k…

your link doesn’t mention meat once.

>ethical

right. because growing billions of animals in inhuman conditions and slaughtering them is humane

>health

don’t feel like linking a source right now but higher red meat and sausage consumption are linked to colon cancer. this is a bit of a weaker point than the others

>ecological

wrong again. 7% of total emissions come just from gasses released by livestock. and about 60% of total ice free land is used to house the livestock and grow feed. [1] meat is just inefficient. 80% of arable land is used on meat and feeding that meat for only 20% of the worlds calories. [2] that just isn’t sustainable if the population keeps growing.

eating meat is fine (arguably) but don’t try and justify it with bullshit. just say you like meat.

[1] http://www.fao.org/3/ar591e/ar591e.pdf

[2] https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets

Re: Impossible Foods Responds to Glyphosate Allegation

#40

Post by lkbm » Tue, May 28, 2019, 7:55 PM UTC

SmellyGeekBoy wrote: post #29

bad_user wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> " the environmental impact of meat production is so enormous desastrous " Reference, please. In case you haven't seen what industrial plants agriculture looks like nowadays: https://www.ecowatch.com/europes-dirty-little-secret-morocca... The anti-meat propaganda is getting obnoxious. The most sustainable agriculture is one in which the soil is fertilised with manure and rotated livestock, because grazing animals k…

I'm just glad I got to read this comment before r/vegan showed up and downvoted it into oblivion. Such is the current state of discourse around this subject on HN. We need to eat less meat, we need to look after animals better and we need to do it in a much more eco-friendly and sustainable manner. We don't all need to go vegan. Going from one extreme to another is never the answer.

> Going from one extreme to another is never the answer.

Why not?