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

71–80 of 197 posts

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

#71

Post by pjc50 »

Nanana909 wrote: post #7
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.

> 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.

The phrase that should have been used is "campaign contributions" and "PAC contributions". All corporate PACs are purchasers of influence. It's especially obvious when the same company funds both sides.

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

#72

Post by epgui »

higgins wrote: post #67
epgui wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Risk is not all-or-nothing, and I am not saying glyphosate should be used without worrying about the risks. I am saying people have their relative risk assessment all wrong. There are different degrees of risk, and believe it or not, the known risks of glyphosate are dwarfed by the known risks of other alternatives. Show me someone who can come up with a better herbicide, and I will show you a wealthy person.

Shortlist of those other herbicides?

I personally don't know of any that we know is better than glyphosate, so literally any herbicide.

I admit that there very well could be better options that I don't know about (especially if there are new ones that emerged in the last 10-20 years), but I think it's no exaggeration to say that almost anything else is worse.

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

#73

Post by giantg2 »

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.

Sure, lobbying rules need to change (companies shouldnt lobby and gifts of any kind need to be reined in; but citizen funded, with cap, interest groups are probably ok).

It seems like the other democratic thing, which is likely more impactful, is that most people don't give a shit about most issues like this. People have much bigger issues in their lives (and on the reps schedule), so there's no real pressure for regulators to changeover this issue vs others. For even more evidence of people not giving a shit, just look at voter turn out.

Edit: why disagree?

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

#74

Post by klyrs »

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…

A representative talking to a constituent is an okay form of 'lobbying.' Notably, the representative isn't getting a tangible benefit. Lobbying is broad spectrum and on one end is politicians doing the right thing, and on the other end is corporations making huge donations to political campaigns which is effectively bribery. Lobbying, as it's practiced in US politics, is overwhelmed by the cash that corporations can splash around that individual constituents can never compete with. Your stalwart defense of the practice as a whole is missing the forest for a dead tree.

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

#75

Post by rascul »

deepsquirrelnet wrote: post #57
rascul wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think lobbying implies bribery. If you go and speak to your representative for a few minutes to try and convince them to support your position, isn't that lobbying? Even if no money changed hands, just words?

> If you go and speak to your representative for a few minutes to try and convince them to support your position Give it a try. Let me know how it goes. If you don’t have a campaign donation lined up, you’re not getting in the door.

I think it depends. I have little hope of speaking to one of my national representatives. At the state level, I can get to some of my representatives easily enough.

Edit: Without money, I mean.

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

#76

Post by sampo »

ErikCorry wrote: post #36
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).

> Roundup (glyphosate)

You can buy glyphosate from different manufacturers, under different brand names. Roundup is just one of many.

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

#77

Post by seanf »

mistrial9 wrote: post #17
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…

Cancer Inc. is your example of harmless influence ?!? you embarrass yourself here, perhaps unwittingly. Source: US citizen

Can you provide a better source? I know about the waste in large nonprofits, but am also personally benefiting from grant-supported research that if it otherwise didn't happen would leave me and a lot of others dead.

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

#78

Post by nearbuy »

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…

People are conflating lobbying with political donations.

Lobbying is talking to politicians to attempt to convince them of something. Lobbyists aren't allowed to give money or gifts to a politician beyond some small limit (exact rules vary by state). For example, in California, a lobbyist can pay up to $10 of the politician's meal and the politician has to pay the rest.

A company can both make political donations and hire lobbyists. But when you see that X company spent $2 million on lobbying, that's not money going to a politician or their campaign. You need to look at the political donations.

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

#79

Post by giantg2 »

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…

Generally agree. However, you're only describing the way it should work. The other, more problematic, part is when these groups give large contributions to candidates campaign, or even their "charity".

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

#80

Post by gaganyaan »

rib3ye wrote: post #64
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.

TFA mentions 102k signatures collected to petition to ban. Did you know the person with the clipboard gets paid per signature? All the incentives in these conversations are messed up.

This sounds like a variation of "both sides are terrible, so what can we do?". I'm not accusing you of anything, but that's often used by people doing terrible things to deflect criticism, so hopefully you understand why this doesn't come across as a useful comment.

At any rate, I think it's good that people collecting signatures are being paid for their time. If there's something actually bad about the petition though, it'd be good to hear about it.

Post reply on HN