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

121–130 of 135 posts

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#121

Post by tptacek »

Supermancho wrote: post #119
tptacek wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, yo…

1. I haven't downvoted you. In fact: I don't think I even can; you can't downvote responses to your own comments on HN.

2. The guidelines ask you not to complain about downvoting.

3. Your argument boils down to "that thing you said is true".

It's fine to just agree! We don't have to pretend to disagree just for the sake of appearances.

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#122

Post by beat »

JamesBarney wrote: post #105
beat wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a "science folk" myself, I care deeply about people just shouting "BUT SCIENCE!" to pretend their emotionally charged opinions are, somehow, facts. Which is absolutely what happens when discussing this issue.

But the science really does only supports one side of this issue.

Does it? It seems to me that there's a lot to it that simply hasn't been researched adequately yet.

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#123

Post by JamesBarney »

beat wrote: post #122
JamesBarney wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the science really does only supports one side of this issue.

Does it? It seems to me that there's a lot to it that simply hasn't been researched adequately yet.

Glysophate is one of the most researched chemicals in the world. 99.9% of substances in food are less researched than glysophate and many exist in concentrations at least as high.

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#124

Post by tracker1 »

grandmczeb wrote: post #59
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…

Pretty status quo for most Food Science publications it would seem. Eggs bad! Eggs good! Eggs bad!

Of course GMO Wheat, Soy, Corn and the increased intake in Fructose in general along with refined seed oils are probably all at least in part to blame about the general state of health in the world.

Now that we've generally solved the issues of famine, we need to work on healthier foods... of course corporations aren't aligned with such concerns.

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#125

Post by tracker1 »

chicob wrote: post #26
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…

I wouldn't decide for organic because of that. Like I said in another comment in this thread, organic farming still uses pesticides, just not the synthetic ones. In my opinion as a farmer, the foundational principle of Organic Farming is not a path towards better farming practices, but one that divides what is supposedly natural and organic, and what is artificial and synthetic. This has more to do with a romantic id…

Personally, I'd love to see "what they're fed" labels for eggs and dairy products. There are definitely different characteristics and nutritional value in the products from naturally fed animals and those feed product they would never eat in the wild.

I mostly notice wrt soy fed chicken eggs and dairy myself, but can definitely tell the difference. Butter, and meat not as much beyond flavor.

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#126

Post by tracker1 »

xipho wrote: post #55
bluGill wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Berries iirc are particularly sensitive to various pesticides, more so than a lot of other produce. It's one of the few products I will seek out Organic over not, when I have them.

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#127

Post by dls2016 »

feld wrote: post #86
dls2016 wrote: post #24

My wife used to administer Medical services in Santa Barbara country: coordinating translators and a program providing insurance to undocumented children. Many of the recipients worked the fields and I was always astonished to hear the frequency of occurrence of certain birth defects in these populations. It's entirely possible the occurrence wasn't elevated relative to populations she didn't work with or I didn't he…

They were probably exposed to 2,4D, not glyphosate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic_acid If they're using undocumented workers do you think they're going to prevent them from being exposed to a key ingredient in Agent Orange?

> They were probably exposed to 2,4D, not glyphosate

Ok, and...? I'm not well-versed in these things, but a quick google suggests the situation with 2,4-D is the same: anecdotal evidence of birth defects and cancers, lack of research into these topics and, miraculously, an EPA declaration that they're safe.

> If they're using undocumented workers do you think they're going to prevent them from being exposed to a key ingredient in Agent Orange?

No, of course I don't think the employers or regulators are protecting the workers. That's my entire point.

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#128

Post by dls2016 »

sdinsn wrote: post #93
feld wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were probably exposed to 2,4D, not glyphosate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic_acid If they're using undocumented workers do you think they're going to prevent them from being exposed to a key ingredient in Agent Orange?

It's also worth noting that 2,4-D, in addition, to being dangerous, is organic. A prime example of why "organic" food is dangerous. We developed artificial herbicides and pesticides to be safer than organic counterparts. I'm not exactly sure how people are convinced that "organic" food = higher quality and safer

> I'm not exactly sure how people are convinced that "organic" food = higher quality and safer

Well the obvious answer to "how are people convinced" is "advertising".

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#129

Post by whenchamenia »

stickfigure wrote: post #75
snarfy wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are alternatives. Vinegar works pretty well.

From https://www.post-gazette.com/life/garden/2009/06/13/Carefull... [Vinegar] works as a contact or burn-down herbicide, which means that it only kills the portion of the plant it contacts. The thistle will re-grow from the roots, and you will have to make repeated applications until you exhaust the carbohydrate reserves in the roots. There is probably a lot of seed present in the soil, and new thistle plants will s…

Its not that bad for anything under 5-10 acres. Just mix in a dash of soap and a lil salt, and fill a backpack sprayer. Soak the plant, specifically the leaves, and you have a very selective, very benign herbicide. Full grown plants take more than 1 treatment many times, but with thistles, you can just carefully remove the heads.

Re: Roundup’s Risks Could Go Well Beyond Cancer

#130

Post by lordlimecat »

reizorc wrote: post #99
sjg007 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those authors are not credible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephanie_Seneff

And Wikipedia is?

Wikipedia cites its sources, and some of them are juicy indeed....

>In 2011, Seneff began publishing articles on topics related to biology and medicine, an area in which she has no relevant qualifications or expertise, in low-impact, open access journals,

>Seneff's claim that glyphosate is a major cause of autism and that, "At today's rates, by 2025, half the kids born will be diagnosed with autism," has also been criticized...contrary to Seneff's claims, many scientific reviews have found that the rise in autism rates over the past 20 years is due to changes in diagnostic practices

>Clinical neurologist and skeptic Steven Novella criticized Seneff's Entropy publication for making "correlation is causation" assumptions using broad statistical extrapolations from limited data,

>In 2014–2016 Seneff was proposed as an expert witness for litigators seeking damages from Pfizer associated with their cholesterol drug Lipitor,[15] but the court dismissed the claim largely because Seneff lacked expert status

I love the last one; she's actually a court-certified quack.

Post reply on HN