Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer • Hacker News Board

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#11

Post by jMyles » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 2:57 PM UTC

cannonedhamster wrote: post #9

jMyles wrote: post #3

> ...10,000 further cases are pending, worrying Bayer investors as well as farmers who rely on the product as a cheap, effective herbicide. > Cancer may only be part of the story. Studies over the past decade suggest that glyphosate — the active ingredient in Roundup — pollutes water sources, hangs around in soil far longer than previously suspected, and routinely taints human food supplies. I mean... yeah. I'm not f…

Glyphosate has been used for over 60 years. It works in a part of the plant that controls photosynthesis. No one is even sure how it would impact humans. Here's a podcast with some more information. They will update if better information comes in it disproves the previous assumptions. https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4676

> No one is even sure how it would impact humans.

But is that relevant? Isn't it more sane to let our first assumption be that plant killers aren't good for us? Until we have some compelling reason to believe otherwise?

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#12

Post by beat » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 2:58 PM UTC

I am really looking forward to the day we can replace chemical herbicides with weed-hunting robots. It seems such a huge market opportunity... little, inexpensive bots that can roam a field, picking out weeds the moment they appear as seedlings, never touching the crop itself, not putting anything in the soil.

When I was a kid growing up in central Illinois in the 1970s, before Roundup, "walking beans" was a common summer job for kids. You'd go out into soybean fields with some tools and rip out everything that wasn't a soybean plant. Of course, spraying chemicals is cheaper than hiring a busload of kids, so that's just a memory now.

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#13

Post by throwaway5752 » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 2:58 PM UTC

beat wrote: post #8

This topic is so aggravating. On one hand, you have the "Don't eat science words, they give you the autism cancer!" reactionaries, and on the other side, you have the "Everything is completely benign, because science!" reactionaries.

If you ignore both of those constituencies and focus, then you have this editorial, that talks about the risks in terms of science and how it is interpreted by various regulator bodies.

I count at least 6 links to prominent journals and 2 links to publications by the WHO and the EPA/EFSA. The author is a physicist and former editor of Nature.

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#14

Post by manifestsilence » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 2:58 PM UTC

cannonedhamster wrote: post #9

jMyles wrote: post #3

> ...10,000 further cases are pending, worrying Bayer investors as well as farmers who rely on the product as a cheap, effective herbicide. > Cancer may only be part of the story. Studies over the past decade suggest that glyphosate — the active ingredient in Roundup — pollutes water sources, hangs around in soil far longer than previously suspected, and routinely taints human food supplies. I mean... yeah. I'm not f…

Glyphosate has been used for over 60 years. It works in a part of the plant that controls photosynthesis. No one is even sure how it would impact humans. Here's a podcast with some more information. They will update if better information comes in it disproves the previous assumptions. https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4676

I will try to listen to this later, but until then I don't know if they address this:

One concern I've read is that safety testing is done in isolation, and glyphosate is actually used with a surfactant, designed to make it able to penetrate cell walls.

The whole is different than the sum of its parts.

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#15

Post by ocschwar » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 2:58 PM UTC

cannonedhamster wrote: post #9

jMyles wrote: post #3

> ...10,000 further cases are pending, worrying Bayer investors as well as farmers who rely on the product as a cheap, effective herbicide. > Cancer may only be part of the story. Studies over the past decade suggest that glyphosate — the active ingredient in Roundup — pollutes water sources, hangs around in soil far longer than previously suspected, and routinely taints human food supplies. I mean... yeah. I'm not f…

Glyphosate has been used for over 60 years. It works in a part of the plant that controls photosynthesis. No one is even sure how it would impact humans. Here's a podcast with some more information. They will update if better information comes in it disproves the previous assumptions. https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4676

It's a molecule that did not exist 70 years ago. Nothing on earth evolved to handle it, so its side effects could be N

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#16

Post by loganfrederick » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 2:58 PM UTC

The book "Whitewash: The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer, and the Corruption of Science" by Carey Gillam is a very thorough take-down of Monstano, Roundup, glyphosphate, and the government agencies that have historically looked away from the evidence. She has done incredible work bringing these issues to light.

https://www.amazon.com/Whitewash-Killer-Cancer-Corruption-Sc...

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#17

Post by beat » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 2:59 PM UTC

manifestsilence wrote: post #10

beat wrote: post #8

This topic is so aggravating. On one hand, you have the "Don't eat science words, they give you the autism cancer!" reactionaries, and on the other side, you have the "Everything is completely benign, because science!" reactionaries.

Yup, I hear you. I try to put my faith on the in-between folks, who say, "we can't prove in a court of law that this is harmful, but in this case there is a plausible mechanism and the risks don't seem justified. In this other case, there's no plausible mechanism for harm or the benefits outweigh the risks." The people who show some kind of doubt are, as always, the ones to actually listen to.

Such a world we live in, where the fools are absolutely certain and the wise are full of doubt.

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#18

Post by throwaway5752 » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 3:00 PM UTC

manifestsilence wrote: post #10

beat wrote: post #8

This topic is so aggravating. On one hand, you have the "Don't eat science words, they give you the autism cancer!" reactionaries, and on the other side, you have the "Everything is completely benign, because science!" reactionaries.

Yup, I hear you. I try to put my faith on the in-between folks, who say, "we can't prove in a court of law that this is harmful, but in this case there is a plausible mechanism and the risks don't seem justified. In this other case, there's no plausible mechanism for harm or the benefits outweigh the risks." The people who show some kind of doubt are, as always, the ones to actually listen to.

That sort of reaction is exactly why the Overton window works. If Alice says that 2 + 2 = 4 and Bob says that 2 + 2 = 8, then Bob is wrong and the answer is not 6.

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#19

Post by beat » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 3:01 PM UTC

jMyles wrote: post #11

cannonedhamster wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Glyphosate has been used for over 60 years. It works in a part of the plant that controls photosynthesis. No one is even sure how it would impact humans. Here's a podcast with some more information. They will update if better information comes in it disproves the previous assumptions. https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4676

> No one is even sure how it would impact humans. But is that relevant? Isn't it more sane to let our first assumption be that plant killers aren't good for us? Until we have some compelling reason to believe otherwise?

Billions of dollars for giant corporations isn't a compelling reason?

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#20

Post by faitswulff » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 3:07 PM UTC

manifestsilence wrote: post #6

Here is the paper that made me start to take organic food seriously a few years ago: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945755/ I don't have the skills to evaluate it in depth but it seems to indicate a plausible connection between glyphosate and leaky gut, which could explain why a lot of people who don't actually have celiac's have troubles with wheat. This is conjecture on my part, but it's possible tha…

Note that the USDA organic label isn't exactly foolproof either - "organic" compounds are chosen by committee:

> This week, in a process that is largely invisible to consumers but that has become a semi-annual ritual of controversy within the world of organic politics, a committee called the National Organic Standards Board is selecting those synthetic substances that organic farmers and processors may use.

> ...For while many would prefer to exclude the use of any synthetic chemicals, there are some substances - including herbicides, fungicides, emulsifiers and other additives - that some organic farmers say they cannot do without.

- https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/28/sure-...