Live data from Hacker News

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

theguardian.com

111–120 of 197 posts

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

#111
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I love when someone is applying in a commercial space, has a concerned person angrily demand to know whether it is Roundup, and says 'its not Roundup, it's glyphosate'.

With the concerned person perfectly happy with that explanation.

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

#112
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Shutting nuance out of a discussion will mislead us.

Frequently, lobbying is used for corruption. The insinuation that nuanced perception can somehow alter this dynamic, is not compelling.

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

#113

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 is fine. The problem with the US is you can literally buy votes in the legislature. That's because the legislator's individual votes were made public via sunshine laws. As long as you keep those votes visible they can be bought no matter how much indirection has to be introduced.

The alternative is a secret vote. Now only passed/unpassed legislation can be bought. This is a lot more expensive and requires a conspiracy, but it's a lot harder to hold the people in this conspiracy directly accountable since they can always plausibly deny how their vote was cast. I've yet to see another better solution for getting rid of the money to vote pipeline.

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

#114
post #73

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 reg…

Your perspective is perverse. the onus should not be on citizens to be informed about every possible toxin and regularly take action. This is victim blaming 101.

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

#115
post #73

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 reg…

The wisdom of the founding fathers of the U.S. impresses me. They didn't all agree on solutions and they didn't all agree on what was a problem. But together they chewed through a lot of tangly weeds.

Many people think the foundations of the U.S. are outdated and ill-informed of modern society. Most of those people are poor students of history. The U.S. founders were not poor students.

Regarding lobbyists and special interests in politics, the founders were not the least bit ignorant. In the end they settled on a clever mechanism to control them. The answer to special interests is special interests.

It might be argued that some special interests have escaped containment. Big oil is too big? But Biden just sent massive funding into solar and batteries and electric vehicles. Big chemical is too big? Trump gutted EPA? What about Big Pharma? Well, any system is going to have pendulums, and none of them will be perfect. But can they self heal? History suggests the current system is pretty good at that even if any given moment seems a bit off-kilter.

I'm not opposed to exploring other options. But to improve requires a recognition of the weanesses and the strengths of alternatives. Don't be too quick to dismiss the strengths of the current alternative.

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

#116

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.

Anything done by genetic modification can be accomplish through breeding given enough time. There’s nothing special about genetic modification and it’s manipulating the genetic code which happens randomly in nature.

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

#117

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.

Do they not have lobbying in say Germany?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_Germany

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

#118
post #113

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 is fine. The problem with the US is you can literally buy votes in the legislature. That's because the legislator's individual votes were made public via sunshine laws. As long as you keep those votes visible they can be bought no matter how much indirection has to be introduced. The alternative is a secret vote. Now only passed/unpassed legislation can be bought. This is a lot more expensive and requires a…

You can even have a middle ground. Make all votes secret, up until two months before someone's seat comes up election, then reveal all their past votes. Give voters information while reducing the window that lobbyists can use to buy votes.

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

#119

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.

Citizen United destroyed politics in the country, by putting money above people.

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

#120

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.

I give you money and legislation. You push that legislation through. When you retire, we hire you with a fat salary for doing little.

Yeah, it's bribery.

Post reply on HN