61–70 of 379 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Farming existed before weed killing. It's extremely useful but output doesn't drop to zero without it.
Farming without pesticides existed before we needed to feed 9 billion people.
Additionally, billions face food uncertainty. Not because the food is not enough.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're not responding to the parent's point. They're not saying that it causes or doesn't cause cancer. They're saying Monsanto and other multi billion dollar industrial players have permanent PR campaigns running that include posting on social media. I think that's obviously right and a big problem in terms of public discourse, at the very least, because it drowns out legitimate questions and concerns.
I am responding. Accusing others of astroturfing is a violation of HN guidelines. FWIW, people seem to vastly overestimate the amount of astroturfing that they are experiencing, perhaps because they find it difficult to believe many people have different views than they do.
They are pointing out that Monsanto does it, not accusing anyone here of being a shill.
I thought it was a good reminder that views can be, and are influenced by industry (it's the foundation of modern PR?). I believe it's helpful to make others aware of this.
At least that's how I read it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
How far off are we from having drones that mechanically remove weeds at a reasonable cost? It's ridiculous that we put up with spraying sketchy chemicals on our food. We can build loyal wingman drones to kill enemy aircraft but we can't kill weeds?? Edit: I'm talking about farming, not lawns. RTFA
Not knowing anything about glyphosate, I went to the article before reading the comments. I’ll just put this here because it was clear the researchers wanted to be sure people see it. From the first paragraph of the article—> > In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer determined that glyphosate is a “probable human carcinogen” (IARC, 2015). However, the European Food Safety Authority and the Joint Foo…
Monsanto settled a batch of civil cases regarding Roundup for $10bn. No one settle’s for that sum unless they’re guilty. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/24/business/roundup-settleme...
That’s just one damning factor, but there are more. For example, in multiple cases juries agreed that Monsanto has manipulated writing and data from studies of their products. Essentially Ghost writing studies to suit their needs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
that's ridiculous it also messes up digestive systems, gluten intolerance. the chemical is BAD and does cause cancer.
Let me express my utter lack of confidence in your statement's connection to reality. The "gluten intolerance" should be a strong warning sign of Woo.
I don’t know WHY it happened or what caused it, but it’s absolutely a real thing. It’s also absolutely miserable; trying to navigate all of this without the woo and without others telling you that you are crazy or peddling woo is a hell of a needle to thread.
Not knowing anything about glyphosate, I went to the article before reading the comments. I’ll just put this here because it was clear the researchers wanted to be sure people see it. From the first paragraph of the article—> > In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer determined that glyphosate is a “probable human carcinogen” (IARC, 2015). However, the European Food Safety Authority and the Joint Foo…
Monsanto settled a batch of civil cases regarding Roundup for $10bn. No one settle’s for that sum unless they’re guilty. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/24/business/roundup-settleme...
Yet another reason to avoid grains, soy, and processed foods. I would love to see some meat tested to see if it’s still detected in the meat after the animals eat the tainted corn.
EDIT: spare the stupid downvotes. Here: https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/can...
Not knowing anything about glyphosate, I went to the article before reading the comments. I’ll just put this here because it was clear the researchers wanted to be sure people see it. From the first paragraph of the article—> > In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer determined that glyphosate is a “probable human carcinogen” (IARC, 2015). However, the European Food Safety Authority and the Joint Foo…
Another user here pointed out a while back that the better regulatory model, when it comes to health, is to put the onus on the supplier. We must scientifically prove the thing is safe to use, not have to prove it is unsafe to be removed.
How far off are we from having drones that mechanically remove weeds at a reasonable cost? It's ridiculous that we put up with spraying sketchy chemicals on our food. We can build loyal wingman drones to kill enemy aircraft but we can't kill weeds?? Edit: I'm talking about farming, not lawns. RTFA
Bees won't survive until it (if ever) happens. We are likely too. It is like relying on aliens to bring peace on Earth. Outlawing glyphosate would fix it (people did agriculture before 1974 (without drones)). Though it is almost as unlikely as aliens.
We've added about 3.8 billion people to the planet since then.
I'm not saying that we can't feed the world without glyphosate, but "Let's just do it like we did in '74!" doesn't account for the fact that we need a lot more food today.