201–210 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 existed before weed killing. Weed killing has been integral to farming since it's inception.^1 Chemical herbicides were popularized in the 19th century, which necessarily coincided with the modern population explosion. ^1 https://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=1759... .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s no question it would be better if it were true but how sure can we be that it’s not just the same food with different labels?
Because the FDA exists?? Because that would be fraud to claim otherwise, and fruit/veg sources are easily traceable back to their source, particularly at quantity?
Further, if something isn’t 100% organic how do you know which part isn’t?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Winning or losing a lawsuit of this type is not necessarily proof of guilt, or proof that roundup causes cancer. what it proves is that a jury was convinced that it does.
Funny we execute people based on that standard, but yet it’s somehow lesser here…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Farming existed before weed killing. It's extremely useful but output doesn't drop to zero without it.
> Farming existed before weed killing. Weed killing has been integral to farming since it's inception.^1 Chemical herbicides were popularized in the 19th century, which necessarily coincided with the modern population explosion. ^1 https://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=1759... .
“The earliest known weed control technology in 8000 BCE was the plow and hand-weeding (which includes hand-pulling, cutting with a knife, hoes and mattocks).”
That's a very long gap till 8,000 BC.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't part of the benefit of GMO foods that you can make them tolerant to various pesticides? There are other ways to use GMO to make more productive crops, but my understanding was that one of the big reasons is that you can make crops that ignore pesticides that wipe out existing pests.
You're right, but I think what they are saying is that they would like to see new GMO crops developed for consumer benefit instead of herbicide resistance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a sense of here mister lobbyist this is a glass of perfectly safe glyphosate, drink it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWM_PgnoAtA
Mister organic farmer, here is a plate of cow manure, eat it.
It's been in global use for almost 50 years. I don't doubt that it may produce some negative effects, but it wouldn't concern me even a little bit to discover that some of it could be detected in my urine. If the impacts were that severe I expect that they would have shown up in force by now.
There are plenty of other (demonstrated and theoretical) reasons behind that, but it seems a little hasty to say we haven't seen severe health impacts. It might just be that we haven't figured out the link yet.
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…
People who have been exposed to the chemical got cancer. Internal Monsanto documents show the link and their concern. A man got a court to rule in his favour for 289 million dollars, after the jury saw this evidence: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/10/monsanto-tr...
Well their crap poison is on almost all the produce in every grocery store in the country so I guess they get the last laugh.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> Accusing others 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)_/¯
> Monsanto has had a huge astroturf campaign online for several years defending/promoting glyphosate (even on this website). ... I started noticing that there were the same users over and over with extremely well-researched defensive responses (the stuff that only someone with a PhD or JD could put together) and it's pretty obvious what's going on.
Seems pretty obviously an insinuation that HN is full of pro-Monsanto astroturfing and I don't think it is a stretch to say it is a commentary on the specific comments in this thread.
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