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

111–120 of 135 posts

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#111

Post by asdff »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #92
grandmczeb wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the paper version of [1]. Worthy of further research? Sure. "Damning" and "urgent"? Probably not. [1] https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

It is absolutely not. They observed sub agricultural limit exposure in vivo and in vitro (see linked papers and their footnotes from the article). The identified pathways for observed effects. They then saw similar effects in human populations with higher than average glyphosate exposure. You argument is precisely the kind of one that would be deployed to argue against the health risks of tetraethyl lead, asbestos, o…

The health risks of lead, asbestos, or cfcs have a direct mammalian mechanism explaining their correlation. That part is important, because glyphosate targets a pathway that isn't present in animals at all.

From that samsel paper, figure 3 is the most damning to me as it's closer to my field so I know more about it. The reason why thyroid cancer incidence is rising is mostly that ultrasound is increasingly used for diagnosis which gives you power to detect smaller tumors that you'd otherwise miss and not diagnose as thyroid cancer.

The authors know that this paper is crap, that's why they published it in a predatory journal. There are lots of x that are rising at the same time as y and it's very easy to ignore context and make a correlation. Depression is rising while smoking is falling; you want a cigarette?

Read this damning critic on samsel and seneff: https://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/pmc/ar...

"Dr. Seneff has already predicted that by the year 2025, half of the children will be afflicted with autism from glyphosate poisoning." Half of all kids in 2025 will be autistic, right from the horse's mouth, does that seem reasonable to you?

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#112

Post by shawndrost »

zwerdlds wrote: post #68
tptacek wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I must be reading the situation wrong. Would you mind describing how situations detailed in this article jibe with your account? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/agricultural-giant-battles-smal...

Monsanto did not sue Dave Runyon. The article says they threatened to sue. Therefore it's not a counterexample to GP's specific point.

Maybe you think Monsanto's conduct re: Dave Runyon makes them evil, maybe not. I don't -- how would one would run a GM seed business without threatening to sue left and right? (Or using terminator genes, which seem more evil.) I'd be interested to hear from anyone that shares my priors and disagrees with my conclusions.

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#113

Post by Supermancho »

tptacek wrote: post #77
Supermancho wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only thing that got farmers sued by Monsanto That is factually incorrect. https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/06/01/dissecting-cla... The licensing cases were world news.

This is a link that directly repeats the claim I just made, in more detail. Both elements are present in these cases: the planting of licensed seed, and the subsequent application of glyphosate to that crop. If you spray non-GM soybean crops with Roundup, you kill the crop.

> This is a link that directly repeats the claim I just made, in more detail.

This is a mischaracterization. The suit is not about the USE of glyphosate. The suit is about the replanting of the plants that survive it. Making it, effectively, a licensing issue. This is why I initially characterized it as such.

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#114

Post by [deleted] »

grandmczeb wrote: post #108
throwaway5752 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is absolutely not. They observed sub agricultural limit exposure in vivo and in vitro (see linked papers and their footnotes from the article). The identified pathways for observed effects. They then saw similar effects in human populations with higher than average glyphosate exposure. You argument is precisely the kind of one that would be deployed to argue against the health risks of tetraethyl lead, asbestos, o…

They don't even have a clear hypothesis, just a spew of possible connections to every condition under the sun and population level correlations with no thought as to controls or study design (or as they call it "compelling correlation data".) This is not a serious attempt at science, this is a gish gallop designed to foster alarmism by known crackpots. > You argument is precisely the kind of one that would be deploye…

[deleted]

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#115

Post by throwaway5752 »

asdff wrote: post #111
throwaway5752 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is absolutely not. They observed sub agricultural limit exposure in vivo and in vitro (see linked papers and their footnotes from the article). The identified pathways for observed effects. They then saw similar effects in human populations with higher than average glyphosate exposure. You argument is precisely the kind of one that would be deployed to argue against the health risks of tetraethyl lead, asbestos, o…

The health risks of lead, asbestos, or cfcs have a direct mammalian mechanism explaining their correlation. That part is important, because glyphosate targets a pathway that isn't present in animals at all. From that samsel paper, figure 3 is the most damning to me as it's closer to my field so I know more about it. The reason why thyroid cancer incidence is rising is mostly that ultrasound is increasingly used for d…

Environmental Health is predatory? I am looking at https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-... (first link in 8th paragraph of Bloomberg oped)

It cites a number of studies. In particular, https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/tx1001749 ("Glyphosate-Based Herbicides Produce Teratogenic Effects on Vertebrates by Impairing Retinoic Acid Signaling") and https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300483X0... ("Glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and endocrine disruptors in human cell lines")

I don't even know what you're talking about with Samsel and Seneff. And I can't view your link.

From the Chemical Research in Toxicology article: "A reporter gene assay revealed that GBH treatment increased endogenous retinoic acid (RA) activity in Xenopus embryos and cotreatment with a RA antagonist rescued the teratogenic effects of the GBH. Therefore, we conclude that the phenotypes produced by GBH are mainly a consequence of the increase of endogenous retinoid activity. This is consistent with the decrease of Sonic hedgehog (Shh) signaling from the embryonic dorsal midline, with the inhibition of otx2 expression and with the disruption of cephalic neural crest development."

From the Toxicology article: "First, we observed a human cell endocrine disruption from 0.5 ppm on the androgen receptor in MDA-MB453-kb2 cells for the most active formulation (R400), then from 2 ppm the transcriptional activities on both estrogen receptors were also inhibited on HepG2. Aromatase transcription and activity were disrupted from 10 ppm. Cytotoxic effects started at 10 ppm with Alamar Blue assay (the most sensitive), and DNA damages at 5 ppm."

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#116

Post by [deleted] »

grandmczeb wrote: post #108
throwaway5752 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is absolutely not. They observed sub agricultural limit exposure in vivo and in vitro (see linked papers and their footnotes from the article). The identified pathways for observed effects. They then saw similar effects in human populations with higher than average glyphosate exposure. You argument is precisely the kind of one that would be deployed to argue against the health risks of tetraethyl lead, asbestos, o…

They don't even have a clear hypothesis, just a spew of possible connections to every condition under the sun and population level correlations with no thought as to controls or study design (or as they call it "compelling correlation data".) This is not a serious attempt at science, this is a gish gallop designed to foster alarmism by known crackpots. > You argument is precisely the kind of one that would be deploye…

[deleted]

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#117

Post by lordlimecat »

crdrost wrote: post #89
rootusrootus wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> McDonald’s French Fry Potato plant I'd love to see any info you have on that, because I'm not seeing anything at all. My Google Fu may be weak, but all I find is that McDonalds continues to deny using GMO potatoes. Also, anecdotally, McDonalds french fries are far from all identical.

Yeah, if you want to search more on it, the technique is called vegetative propagation, it is a procedure by which potatoes are cloned rather than bred. It happens to be really easy for potatoes. Searching for "mcdonalds genetically" is bound to be saturated with GMO articles. The lack of identicality of the fries themselves turns out to be a part of McDonald’s’ broader engineering, as a matter of fact. (You could ha…

>it is a procedure by which potatoes are cloned rather than bred.

I might be wrong, but this is how many edible crops are propagated. Apples for instance are generally clones, because the alternative is getting a new kind of apple every time.

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#118

Post by tptacek »

Supermancho wrote: post #113
tptacek wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a link that directly repeats the claim I just made, in more detail. Both elements are present in these cases: the planting of licensed seed, and the subsequent application of glyphosate to that crop. If you spray non-GM soybean crops with Roundup, you kill the crop.

> This is a link that directly repeats the claim I just made, in more detail. This is a mischaracterization. The suit is not about the USE of glyphosate. The suit is about the replanting of the plants that survive it. Making it, effectively, a licensing issue. This is why I initially characterized it as such.

I didn't, and obviously wouldn't, say that Roundup-Ready seeds aren't license-encumbered. What I said was that you don't get in legal trouble unless you plant them and then spray them with Roundup --- in other words, you can't "accidentally" use the product, because to use it, you have to do something that would kill an ordinary crop.

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#119

Post by Supermancho »

tptacek wrote: post #118
Supermancho wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is a link that directly repeats the claim I just made, in more detail. This is a mischaracterization. The suit is not about the USE of glyphosate. The suit is about the replanting of the plants that survive it. Making it, effectively, a licensing issue. This is why I initially characterized it as such.

I didn't, and obviously wouldn't, say that Roundup-Ready seeds aren't license-encumbered. What I said was that you don't get in legal trouble unless you plant them and then spray them with Roundup --- in other words, you can't "accidentally" use the product, because to use it, you have to do something that would kill an ordinary crop.

Again, spraying with roundup is not the issue at the heart of the suit mentioned (he was using roundup BEFORE the GMO seeds were purchased by a neighbor). The issue is about planting without a license. The spraying of roundup was a step in the process used to trigger the licensing issue, after replanting what survived. He was never sued for using Roundup. Since you've reverted to downvoting and repeating yourself, you're wrong and are not interested in acknowledging it. GL with whatever.

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#120

Post by rootusrootus »

lordlimecat wrote: post #117
crdrost wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, if you want to search more on it, the technique is called vegetative propagation, it is a procedure by which potatoes are cloned rather than bred. It happens to be really easy for potatoes. Searching for "mcdonalds genetically" is bound to be saturated with GMO articles. The lack of identicality of the fries themselves turns out to be a part of McDonald’s’ broader engineering, as a matter of fact. (You could ha…

>it is a procedure by which potatoes are cloned rather than bred. I might be wrong, but this is how many edible crops are propagated. Apples for instance are generally clones, because the alternative is getting a new kind of apple every time.

I agree, it seems common. Tomatoes (at least the good ones) and bananas also come to mind.
Post reply on HN