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

31–40 of 197 posts

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

#31

Post by serf »

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…

>Lets say a lobbyist for a nonprofit cancer research group has dinner with a representative and lobbies him to vote for increased cancer research at this dinner. Is this bribery?

most people would tend to agree that if it required something it was at the very least an exchange, perhaps a bribe.

one could ask why the request for support couldn't be done over the phone; the answer is "because of the dinner." -- well, then, isn't the dinner being exchanged for the support?

what is the value of the dinner? Does the value represent a monetary amount that would throw red flags up regarding the dinner being an exchange of value rather than a living expense? Does this exchange of value represent a bribe?

It's not as cut and dry as "A is lobbying and B is bribing.", that's why most political corruption scandals are generally handled by committees of people that try to go through the events to extract meaning from them.

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

#32

Post by kortex »

CharlesW wrote: post #8
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.

Glyphosate isn't mentioned in TFA. Thoughts on paraquat?

Not GP but (former) chemist, and I share the same sentiment. Paraquat scares me. Note its direct chemical similarity to MPP+ [0], both sporting that methylpyridinium moeity (the CH3N+ in the ring). In fact the only real difference is paraquat is a two-for-one on neurotoxic functional group.

Glyphosate gets a bad rap in large part due to similarity to organophosphates (P-O-C), which are usually quite toxic, but it is in fact a phosphonate, with a direct P-C bond. I forget the exact mechanism, but it makes a difference.

Also glyphosate readily hydrolyzes, while paraquat is a "brick" that resists breakdown and is prone to bioaccumulation.

The mechanism of action is identical: methylpyridinium promotes the production of reactive oxygen species which wreak havoc on cellular machinery. In fact MPP is a "quat" and was briefly used as an herbicide. The chloride of MPP+ was sold under the trade name Cyperquat.

> As an herbicide, paraquat acts by inhibiting photosynthesis. In light-exposed plants, it accepts electrons from photosystem I (more specifically ferredoxin, which is presented with electrons from PS I) and transfers them to molecular oxygen. In this manner, destructive reactive oxygen species (ROS) are produced.

> MPP+ exhibits its toxicity mainly by promoting the formation of reactive free radicals in the mitochondria of dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra.[9][10] MPP+ can siphon electrons from the mitochondrial electron transport chain at complex I and be reduced, in the process forming radical reactive oxygen species which go on to cause further, generalized cellular damage.

[0] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPP%2B

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

#33

Post by gruez »

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.

>Campaign Contributions, or as what is known in all other Countries as Bribes.

Other countries have limits on campaign contributions, but claiming that they're known as "bribes" is a massive hyperbole.

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

#35

Post by Nanana909 »

groffee wrote: post #15
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…

Of course it's still bribery. The definition doesn't change just because you happen to agree with what they're getting bribed for.

Okay, if you think having dinner while talking about cancer research is bribery, let me find you an even more bare bones example.

Your representative has a town hall and afterwards you get a few minutes to speak with him. You argue that the number of stop signs in your neighborhood isn’t enough and causes danger. In other words, you lobby him to pursue increased stop signs in your area. He hears you out, you guys shake hands, and leave.

As you have now engaged in lobbying, have you engaged in bribery? Clearly not. The two words are not synonyms.

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

#36

Post by ErikCorry »

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.

For those of us who are not biochemists, he's talking about Roundup (glyphosate).

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

#37

Post by serf »

jwarden wrote: post #28
bastawhiz wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Dinner is bribery?

it very well could be.

I know plenty of people that could be persuaded to do things by the mere chance to meet someone that they adore.

'Dinner' is often just code for "let me introduce you to X business associate", which has definite real-world persuasive power for people that need to make those connections.

It would be unsurprising for an oil-tycoon to try to purchase a plate at a dinner with lots of oil-state-politicians. This isn't for the sake of good company, it's to further business interests.

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

#38

Post by CoastalCoder »

darth_avocado wrote: post #22
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…

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.

That training is given to general employees, not to the lobbying firms that the company hires.

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

#39

Post by kornhole »

bastawhiz wrote: post #27

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 li…

Your skepticism is warranted. Of course the negative affects of these chemicals is down played by those who sell them. Many leech into ecosystems, our homes, and our bodies causing obvious and latent issues. I personally love insects and plants considered weeds as they are critical to our biosphere. I have learned to live with and around them managing a balance both in my house and in my garden. Chemical warfare should be a last resort.

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

#40

Post by gruez »

CharlesW wrote: post #6
boomskats wrote: post #3

SPOILER ALERT: the answer is 'lobbying'. That is, the free, democratic, and fully legal, bribery of government legislators and elected officials by profit-driven corporate bodies. I, for one, was not surprised.

Is $1-2M/year all it takes? If so, that's a pretty great ROI. https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary...

I doubt it. Sam Bankman-Fried sank 11 million into getting a biosecurity expert elected in a Democratic Primary, and got less than 20% of the votes.
Post reply on HN