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

Why does the US allow a controversial weedkiller banned across the world?

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 197 posts

Re: Why does the US allow a controversial weedkiller banned across the world?

#21

Post by MobiusHorizons »

Nanana909 wrote: post #11
sonofhans wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it’s bribery. Everyone involved knows it’s bribery. The money is given with expectation of reward. If the bribing entity didn’t expect a direct reward, they wouldn’t give the money. Now, everyone tries to hide behind levels of abstraction — “It’s just lobbying!” — but those are just fig leaves and reasonable people should see through them. E.g., “Exxon gave the money to my campaign committee, and I’m not in…

> The money is given with expectation of reward. If the bribing entity didn’t expect a direct reward, they wouldn’t give the money. Let’s say a lobbyist for a nonprofit cancer research group has dinner with a representative and discusses reasons for (lobbies) him to vote for increased cancer research at this dinner. Is this bribery? Because it is lobbying. But under your definition of lobbying and bribing being equiv…

Bribery is a very strong word, but I think we can all agree that lobbying gives undue influence. Using money to increase one’s influence corrupts the representative in a representative democracy. I can certainly see why people would chose to call that bribery.

Re: Why does the US allow a controversial weedkiller banned across the world?

#22

Post by darth_avocado »

Nanana909 wrote: post #11
sonofhans wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it’s bribery. Everyone involved knows it’s bribery. The money is given with expectation of reward. If the bribing entity didn’t expect a direct reward, they wouldn’t give the money. Now, everyone tries to hide behind levels of abstraction — “It’s just lobbying!” — but those are just fig leaves and reasonable people should see through them. E.g., “Exxon gave the money to my campaign committee, and I’m not in…

> The money is given with expectation of reward. If the bribing entity didn’t expect a direct reward, they wouldn’t give the money. Let’s say a lobbyist for a nonprofit cancer research group has dinner with a representative and discusses reasons for (lobbies) him to vote for increased cancer research at this dinner. Is this bribery? Because it is lobbying. But under your definition of lobbying and bribing being equiv…

In my basic corporate training, we are told spending any more money than non trivial swag on people in the government is strictly prohibited because it can be considered bribery. So, I’m pretty sure the definition of bribery is very flexible.

Re: Why does the US allow a controversial weedkiller banned across the world?

#23

Post by orwin »

epgui wrote: post #5

I’m a biochemist, and it drives me nuts how much the public worries about glyphosate but not really any other herbicides. Glyphosate may not be perfect but I’d worry more about almost any other type of herbicide, most of which are absolutely nasty.

Yeah, we know, paraquat is 30 times more toxic than glyphosate, and have actual peer-reviewed studies with significant enough numbers to link it to an increase on Parkinson disease. I think there was a preliminary study on its effect on other neurodegenerative sickness, but i can't find it, so i guess it was scrapped.

Glyphosate at most could maybe increase by 30% the risks of a quite rare cancer for farmers who use it in high dosage (so glyphosate in conservation agriculture is likely to be harmless).

[edit] TFA talk about paraquat anyway :P

Re: Why does the US allow a controversial weedkiller banned across the world?

#24

Post by Scarblac »

jmclnx wrote: post #2

Really ? Every person in the US knows why. Reason, Campaign Contributions, or as what is known in all other Countries as Bribes.

And they're allowed because contributing to a campaign is considered speech, I think? The US has the right to free bribing.

Re: Why does the US allow a controversial weedkiller banned across the world?

#25

Post by orwin »

TimTheTinker wrote: post #9

I'm more worried about the GMO "roundup ready" seeds they sell, and the crops that result. Those contain alterations that (I hypothesize) are partially responsible for increased allergies in the US population.

Exposure to leaded gasoline and diesel is way more likely to have caused this increase tbh.

In France, the increased allergies isn't as noticeable in rural area as in cities. If it was caused by chemical we use on plant, the reverse would be true.

Re: Why does the US allow a controversial weedkiller banned across the world?

#26

Post by collegeburner »

TimTheTinker wrote: post #9

I'm more worried about the GMO "roundup ready" seeds they sell, and the crops that result. Those contain alterations that (I hypothesize) are partially responsible for increased allergies in the US population.

where can i read more on this? tbh it doesn't make intuitive sense, like we don't have glyphosate peanuts so why are peanut allergies all of a sudden a thing but not corn?

Re: Why does the US allow a controversial weedkiller banned across the world?

#27

Post by bastawhiz »

Herbicides aside, I worry a lot about the chemicals that we consider "normal". I signed up for a pest service after purchasing my home because we were getting ants and water bugs in the house. They have a package they they sell that includes a "full property" treatment, which I don't think I need. They list off a couple down "pests" that they kill, and go through a long script about how safe the chemicals are.

But like, how safe are they really? If they're spraying a cocktail that kills dozens of kinds of insects of all sizes, how does that have no effect on humans? Even at small doses it would seem that the effect would still be measurable. Surely whatever biological process that kills all those bugs also does something to people?

I don't let them apply chemicals inside the house, that's where I draw the line. And I'm probably not going to renew the extensive service. If nothing else, it's more chemicals around me that I can live without. But almost every one of my neighbors pays for something similar. How much are we inundating ourselves in this stuff? And what is it doing to the environment and ecosystem? This is one of those things that I feel like we'll look back on with deep regret in a few decades.

Re: Why does the US allow a controversial weedkiller banned across the world?

#28

Post by jwarden »

bastawhiz wrote: post #18
Nanana909 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The money is given with expectation of reward. If the bribing entity didn’t expect a direct reward, they wouldn’t give the money. Let’s say a lobbyist for a nonprofit cancer research group has dinner with a representative and discusses reasons for (lobbies) him to vote for increased cancer research at this dinner. Is this bribery? Because it is lobbying. But under your definition of lobbying and bribing being equiv…

It is still bribery. We don't really see it, though, because it's politically popular enough to direct support to cancer research so that lobbying is hardly necessary.

Dinner is bribery? I can see how it would be bribery if the cancer researcher made a campaign donation after dinner, or left a suitcase of cash under the table, or even paid for dinner, but simply having dinner is not bribery.

I agree that conflating these terms leads to less productive conversations.

Re: Why does the US allow a controversial weedkiller banned across the world?

#29

Post by collegeburner »

orwin wrote: post #25
TimTheTinker wrote: post #9

I'm more worried about the GMO "roundup ready" seeds they sell, and the crops that result. Those contain alterations that (I hypothesize) are partially responsible for increased allergies in the US population.

Exposure to leaded gasoline and diesel is way more likely to have caused this increase tbh. In France, the increased allergies isn't as noticeable in rural area as in cities. If it was caused by chemical we use on plant, the reverse would be true.

another hypothesis i heard was rural kids grew up with their immune systems exposed to more stuff and so better trained/less likely to overreact. personally, i always noticed kids with allergies tended to be weak and sickly much more often, so maybe that's related.
Post reply on HN