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

101–110 of 197 posts

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

#101

Post by dekhn »

HPsquared wrote: post #44
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?

THere's a classic paper where somebody cloned brazil nut genes into soybeans. Unfortunately, the genes they cloned were the ones that code for protein allergens... making the resulting soybeans cause brazil nut like allergic response. I don't think this work was ever followed up, or repeated, but it's an entirely plausible mechanism by which genetic modification could cause allergies.

(are you a biologist? this stuff is pretty obvious to biologists)

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

#103

Post by colechristensen »

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…

Sri Lanka tried wholesale banning of everything and it was a disaster.

>small agriculture and local permaculture … feeding the world

Requires a major restructuring of civilization and economic upheavals involving an enormous number of people returning to food production. It might be a yuppie ideal to go start up a hobby farm but a few rich people having fun is a lot different than changing world economies.

It’s not so hard to do for the Whole Foods and farmers market crowds willing to pay high prices. It’s quite hard to feed the poor by throwing out industrialization and replacing it with lots of labor. This makes food much more expensive.

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/future-perfect/2022/7/15/23...

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

#104

Post by lob_it »

I just read this article recently that said something similar with asbestos:

https://www.propublica.org/article/asbestos-poisoning-chemic...

Its 2022. If you have inert ingredients and unpronounceable ingredients in your diet (untested junk science), known harmful chems external from that are just par for the course.

Dead soil from herbicides and pesticides just mean that junk science is "busy as bees" :p

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

#105

Post by celtain »

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've talked to one of my senators, three of my congressman, and my mom's congresswoman. I'm not that rich and I certainly don't make political donations large enough for them to notice. Your cynicism might be warranted in certain states/districts, but my representatives have been reasonably responsive to this fairly average constituent.

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

#106

Post by epgui »

dekhn wrote: post #99
imglorp wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

1. Agreed on risks to human health (which is closer to my expertise), but;

2. I do believe there are serious environmental concerns (which unfortunately is not really my expertise-- I rely on my colleagues and on what I see in journals for this judgment).

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

#107

Post by deelowe »

appletrotter wrote: post #100
deelowe wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So your claim is that there are much worse things people should focus on but you refuse to point out which these are?

This whole discussion seems extremely hyperbolic…

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

#108

Post by scotty79 »

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…

If he's buying dinner it's bribery. In other coutries giving money (or things that cost money) to politicians is just called corruption.

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

#109

Post by epgui »

deelowe wrote: post #107
appletrotter wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They now have instructions that would allow them to assemble their short list. Just pick a couple that look interesting from the larger one.

So your claim is that there are much worse things people should focus on but you refuse to point out which these are? This whole discussion seems extremely hyperbolic…

It sounds to me like you just don't want to believe it could be true that nearly any other thing could be worst.

Other commenters have provided good short lists. Do you want me to repeat them?

Post reply on HN