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

91–100 of 197 posts

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

#91

Post by sooheon »

epgui wrote: post #81
orwin wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "…

> I would more easily support a "ban all herbicides" movement... Though I would be somewhat skeptical of the feasibility of going completely herbicide-free.

This is my view as well.

If your skepticism of a herbicide free system stems from the meme that we need industrialized agriculture to feed the world, you can rest assured that small agriculture and local permaculture is more than capable of feeding the world: https://grain.org/article/entries/4929-hungry-for-land-small...

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

#92

Post by epgui »

Ekaros wrote: post #89
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.

Everything you said is technically correct, but I would add something:

> They are literally stuff meant to kill other stuff, with varying degrees of specificity and effectiveness.

The effectiveness bit is obvious, but I think the public thinks much less about specificity, especially in cases where there is a component of fear.

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

#93

Post by publicola1990 »

klyrs wrote: post #74
Nanana909 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Even in this case representative is getting a tangible benefit that he is possible getting an opportunity to do something which they can in turn take credit for. A lobbyist getting an audience with someone in power therefore may lead to something that is mutually beneficial to the lobbyist and the person in power, without need for materialized bribes. Shutting nuance out of a discussion will mislead us.

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

#94

Post by hulitu »

partyboob wrote: post #42
Nanana909 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not only in the US.

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

#95

Post by colechristensen »

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

* 2,4-D

* Dicamba

* Trifluralin

* Pendimethylin

Go find a herbicide that doesn’t have a list of health concerns and environmental effects… which anybody uses.

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

#96

Post by seiferteric »

rb229 wrote: post #60
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.

I do not really buy this reasoning. Glyphosate has been proven to be harmful [ source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate ]. Other things might be worse, sure, but that does not mean we can allow Glyohosate to be used without thinking about the risks.

Your own link disagrees with you. I think you are proving OPs point. Paraquat is an entirely different beast and is known to bad but people lump glyphosate in with really nasty stuff for no real reason.

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

#97

Post by sooheon »

TimTheTinker wrote: post #59
HPsquared wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Genetic modification often produces altered proteins. These protein signatures do not match human T-cell allowlists, causing immune response. Even if the modification is a simple addition between adjacent start and stop codons, that kind of modification could alter meta encodings that control other aspects of cell regulation, including (potentially) gene expression -- which would cause proteins that are coded for but…

You know genetic modifications occur literally all of the time in everything we eat, right?

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

#98

Post by epgui »

sooheon wrote: post #91
epgui wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "…

> I would more easily support a "ban all herbicides" movement... Though I would be somewhat skeptical of the feasibility of going completely herbicide-free. This is my view as well. If your skepticism of a herbicide free system stems from the meme that we need industrialized agriculture to feed the world, you can rest assured that small agriculture and local permaculture is more than capable of feeding the world: htt…

I don't think it would be technically impossible, but I do think it's a very very non-trivial problem that would require a lot of changes, some of which would be expensive and inflationary. It's a hard problem, and a lot of very smart academics (some of which I know personally and admire) are very interested in it.

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

#99

Post by dekhn »

imglorp wrote: post #66
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.

Roundup is also available at your home center in a big flashy display. This seems like criminal deception and disregard for public safety.

It would be if there was unambiguous proof that roundup was unsafe and that the manufacturer knew it. The health risks of glyphosate are ... not well determined and nobody has made a conclusive case. There was a lot of noise in the past done by scientists operating not in good faith.

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

#100

Post by appletrotter »

deelowe wrote: post #90
epgui wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They now have instructions that would allow them to assemble their short list.

Just pick a couple that look interesting from the larger one.

Post reply on HN