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

81–90 of 197 posts

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

#81

Post by epgui »

orwin wrote: post #23
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…

I know TFA talks about paraquat, but other competing compounds are extremely relevant, because realistically if you stop using a herbicide you're probably going to be looking for some alternative.

If one herbicide is not completely replaced by another (some may try going completely herbicide-free, which has its own very different set of risks), it will certainly be partially replaced by another.

I don't support the "ban glyphosate" movement (for imo it is one of the lesser evils), but I would more easily support a "ban all herbicides" movement... Though I would be somewhat skeptical of the feasibility of going completely herbicide-free.

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

#82

Post by deelowe »

epgui wrote: post #72
higgins wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They’re asking for a list of the more concerning ones.

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

#83

Post by Ekaros »

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.

If we had proper standards of course it would be bribery. Offering anything with economic value should be considered such. Dinner, cup of coffee, campaign donation, lucrative position after stay in office, drugs, money, gold. All should be treated exactly same and result in extremely lengthy sentences in prison.

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

#84

Post by Spooky23 »

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…

Because of changes in the law, during that dinner the lobbyist will causally mention their client sent $500k to the “Citizens for Some Bullshit the Congressman Cares About”

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

#85

Post by gaganyaan »

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.

Yes, dinner is very much bribery if the bribee doesn't pay for it. Even though I skip past those annoying HR trainings as much as possible, I still gathered that much from them.

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

#86

Post by epgui »

deelowe wrote: post #82
epgui wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They’re asking for a list of the more concerning ones.

I understand that. I responded with "essentially the list of all other herbicides". I don't know where you could find a complete list, but let me google that for you... this might be a place to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Herbicides

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

#87

Post by chemeng »

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?

Atrazine, cyanazine, trifluralin come to mind

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

#89

Post by Ekaros »

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.

They are literally stuff meant to kill other stuff. As such they will be deadly for some stuff and likely also others. So I agree that we have to evaluate which of them is least worse. Or presents acceptable risk levels in comparative scenarios.

And we cannot farm successfully on scale we need without them.

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

#90

Post by deelowe »

epgui wrote: post #86
deelowe wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re asking for a list of the more concerning ones.

I understand that. I responded with "essentially the list of all other herbicides". I don't know where you could find a complete list, but let me google that for you... this might be a place to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Herbicides

They said “short list” not all.
Post reply on HN