Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 135 posts

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#51

Post by bluGill »

chicob wrote: post #41
manifestsilence wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, I agree the organic standard is far from perfect and has many loopholes, but it's a starting point. If there were a standard out there that instead embraced a systems-thinking view on safe practices - both chemical use and general land management, emphasizing safety for the long term health of the ecosystem, the farm economy, and the humans consuming the product - I would embrace that standard instead. Even if…

Your second paragraph pretty much resumes what Integrated Farming is. That is exactly what I do. And everything you do in Organic Farming can be done in Integrated Farming - you only resort to chemical solutions if there are no other options left. And even then, only if you've gone beyond a certain point beyond which the damage will out-cost the benefits of the spraying.

Not that the other is not the case. Organic farming is not allowed to use chemical solutions even they are better for the environment.

edit: as others have pointed out, some chemicals are allowed. However the points remains, environmentally friendly means to control weeds is often not allowed in organic.

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#52

Post by chicob »

manifestsilence wrote: post #35
chicob wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many herbicides are harmful in some way, but most are safe if used properly (i.e. respecting the correct dosage for each target, respecting the safety interval, etc). Buying organic is not safer, though, because one can still use herbicides in organic farming, as long as they aren't synthetic. Sometimes the safer organic option won't be as safe as the synthetic one. Some herbicides are dangerous, and if safer solutio…

The problem with the glyphosate-resistant varieties is that they allow for liberal and injudicious use of the chemical. I'm sure it makes economic sense to be able to carpet spray your crop instead of having to spot spray or use careful timing, but over-spray blowing onto trees causes damage in many areas, as well as putting large quantities of glyphosate into water systems.

I understand that worry, but it doesn't make much economic sense.

It is possible that some farmers would abuse it, but that would be expensive and unnecessary, since the target weed would die with a regular dosage.

Abuse of glyphosate spraying is also counter-productive. Low volume sprayings are generally more effective.

And by the way, glyphosate-resistant does not mean glyphosate-impervious. Non-targets can still be harmed.

The risk of over-usage of glyphosate is re-enforcing naturally occurring resistance in target weeds. Glyphosate should always be used at intervals, with different herbicides filling in the gaps.

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#53

Post by bluGill »

ocschwar wrote: post #15
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

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

There are a number of plants that have evolved to handle it though. Roundup resistance weeds are a big problem in some areas.

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#54

Post by tptacek »

monsanto wrote: post #47
jMyles wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bayer has a long history of doing the wrong thing on purpose and coming out the other side with riches to show for it. It appears that people have wisened up to this style of business practice faster than Bayer realized.

It appears that people have wisened up to this style of business... More to the point, I think there was a profound amount of attention scrutinizing Monsanto, more than any other company I can think of. The concept of Monsanto's business model has been probably the most chilling example of vendor lock-in ever imagined, and certainly throughout the 1980's and onward, raised more than a few eyebrows anywhere it was exp…

The only thing that got farmers sued by Monsanto was the planting of "Roundup-Ready" seeds and subsequent application of glyphosate to the crop, which would kill a non-Roundup-Ready crop. You could plant Monsanto's GM seeds all you wanted without legal risk, so long as you treated them like any other crop and didn't try to exploit their GM properties.

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#55

Post by xipho »

bluGill wrote: post #51
chicob wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your second paragraph pretty much resumes what Integrated Farming is. That is exactly what I do. And everything you do in Organic Farming can be done in Integrated Farming - you only resort to chemical solutions if there are no other options left. And even then, only if you've gone beyond a certain point beyond which the damage will out-cost the benefits of the spraying.

Not that the other is not the case. Organic farming is not allowed to use chemical solutions even they are better for the environment. edit: as others have pointed out, some chemicals are allowed. However the points remains, environmentally friendly means to control weeds is often not allowed in organic.

This is a common falacy. Organic forming can only use organic chemical solutions, some of which are far more toxic than their synthetic alternatives. Explore this idea by checking out strawberry production.

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#56

Post by will_brown »

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…

Glad to see this comment as #1 because you cite a study referencing Leaky Gut. Diet, health and nutrition are controversial topics...but last time I brought up the potential for Leaky Gut to be a legitimate health issue I was more or less attacked for referring to a pseudoscience. It’s true it’s not a recognized medical condition, but there are many studies and medical professionals who are beginning to recognize leaky gut as a real condition.

Extra points for also bringing up gut bacteria which also typically generates controversy, last HN article on the microbiome commenters were calling it peak gut bacteria. Whereas it’s also a science in its infancy.

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#57

Post by chicob »

bluGill wrote: post #51
chicob wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your second paragraph pretty much resumes what Integrated Farming is. That is exactly what I do. And everything you do in Organic Farming can be done in Integrated Farming - you only resort to chemical solutions if there are no other options left. And even then, only if you've gone beyond a certain point beyond which the damage will out-cost the benefits of the spraying.

Not that the other is not the case. Organic farming is not allowed to use chemical solutions even they are better for the environment. edit: as others have pointed out, some chemicals are allowed. However the points remains, environmentally friendly means to control weeds is often not allowed in organic.

One can use chemical solutions in Organic Farming, if these are organic, e.g. rotenone, insect-killing viruses, bacteria and fungi.

In some rare cases, synthetic mineral solutions are allowed, like copper sulfate.

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#58

Post by [deleted] »

jMyles wrote: post #33
chicob wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many herbicides are harmful in some way, but most are safe if used properly (i.e. respecting the correct dosage for each target, respecting the safety interval, etc). Buying organic is not safer, though, because one can still use herbicides in organic farming, as long as they aren't synthetic. Sometimes the safer organic option won't be as safe as the synthetic one. Some herbicides are dangerous, and if safer solutio…

> Buying organic is not safer, though, because one can still use herbicides in organic farming, as long as they aren't synthetic. Sometimes the safer organic option won't be as safe as the synthetic one. I don't have problems per se with "synthetic" materials, but I do respect that compounds introduced within the past few decades are more likely to have zany side effects than those which plants have evolved alongside…

[deleted]

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#59

Post by grandmczeb »

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…

“The linking of this effective herbicide to the alphabet soup list of conditions enumerated by the authors seems to be “shotgun science” — namely, multiple associations based on population‐based statistics, disconnected correlations, and manipulation of numbers and conditions that create an epidemiological recipe for errors and nonvalid associations. The authors link every kind of disorder imaginable to a widely used chemical that has not been specifically linked clinically to any of those disorders.”

Quoting from criticism of that paper in [1]. Seems to a rather apt description.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4538578/

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#60

Post by jbattle »

zip1234 wrote: post #45
beat wrote: post #12

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 s…

Perhaps little automated dirt guns like mobile SAM sites that can shoot down pests as well? They can just pick up a few grains of dirt and shoot them at any pests that come near the plants.

https://www.bugasalt.com/
Post reply on HN