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

41–50 of 197 posts

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

#41

Post by epgui »

propogandist wrote: post #19
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.

Given you are a specialist in your field, what are you doing to drive awareness of the problem to the rest of us? I have limited knowledge about glyphosate, and don’t know much about herbicides in general. Help me (us) understand what makes them nasty.

> what are you doing to drive awareness of the problem to the rest of us?

I'm not specifically a specialist of herbicides (I know much more about biomedical stuff), but my experience during the pandemic has completely put me off trying to educate others. I've become extremely cynical and de-energized: the people who need help don't want it.

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

#42

Post by partyboob »

Nanana909 wrote: post #35
groffee wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sha…

I think the problem is that the behaviour that is called "lobbying" is better described as "bribery" when you look at the mechanics of what is actually happening. The words of course mean different things, but what is happening in the US is actually bribery.

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

#43

Post by jmclnx »

Scarblac wrote: post #24
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.

Correct, and any Companies, including Large Companies can "contribute" any amount they want because they are considered "people".

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

#44

Post by HPsquared »

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.

I can't think of a mechanism for GM crops causing allergies. How would this work?

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

#45

Post by lostmsu »

kornhole wrote: post #39
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 shou…

How do you deal with ant infestations inside your house?

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

#46

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#47

Post by johnchristopher »

Nanana909 wrote: post #35
groffee wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sha…

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

Who's footing the bill ?

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

#48

Post by Test0129 »

Nanana909 wrote: post #35
groffee wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sha…

I think you are trying to make a point where none needs to be made.

Lobbying has, for a very long time, been another term for bribery. Even as recently as the COVID crisis. Why do you think Pfizer got all that juicy government money? Go look at open secrets and see who they paid. If you want a real shocker, look at their top donors and then look at their voting record. Look at all the politicians that end up at Pfizer, Exxon, Northrop, Google, etc. Look at all the executives for those companies that, as if by some miracle, end up running MAJOR parts of our government.

You are correct in the literal sense lobbying was supposed to be about the everyman talking to their representative and convincing them to do right by them. However, now, the everyman has no voice. If you don't donate $X millions you won't even the time of day from most congressmen. It's corruption at it's core and an affront to democracy. It's disguised as "lobbying" because Citizens United allowed it to be. That's all.

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

#49

Post by userabchn »

sonofhans wrote: post #10
Nanana909 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> lobbying'. That is, the free, democratic, and fully legal, bribery of government legislators and elected officials by profit-driven corporate bodies. That’s not really the definition of lobbying though. We should try to avoid hyperboles. Additionally, bribery is not legal and that’s not even remotely the form that the vast majority of lobbying takes today.

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…

They are supporting the election campaigns of those whose viewpoints they like because they want to increase the chance that they will be elected. It's the same as regular people making campaign donations to the candidates they like.

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

#50

Post by kortex »

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…

> 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?

Short answer: it's complicated, and there are in fact very targeted pesticides that are far less harmful to humans. In the same breath, we've had so many fuckups of the flavor of "use this wonder chemical! It's safe!" that it's easy to be wary.

Humans, having evolved as omnivores, are actually very good digesters of xenobiotics (foreign chemicals). The true masters of eating poison are rats (which, frankly it's cruel and* not very effective to use poison to kill rats), and they are only about 6x better than us at metabolizing weird chemicals.

Insects have very different biology, so usually they can be orders of magnitude more selective than typical poisons. Most are nerve agents, basically Sarin for bugs. Note: they can still be very hazardous to poor metabolizers, e.g. cats.

There is little in the way of selectivity against arthropods (some are better at insects than arachnids, or vice versa). Anything effective against ants, wasps, or even beetles will likely harm bees.

Personally I use borax/sugar for ants (has to be eaten), and gamma cyhalothrin as a barrier only on the edges of my foundation, avoiding any zones which I think could spread out into the environment. I probably shouldn't even use that stuff really, but my partner insists.

Post reply on HN