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

121–130 of 197 posts

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

#121

Post by colechristensen »

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…

Genetic modification isn’t a bull in a china shop. The glyphosphate resistance gene replaces the shape for one enzyme. You don’t have a whitelist for every substance in every lifeform you eat, the number of things out there is mindbogglingly enormous. It would be very simple to test the human reaction to this new enzyme, i bet it’s been done but i don’t want to search for it.

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

#122

Post by ransom1538 »

bastawhiz wrote: post #27

Herbicides aside, I worry a lot about the chemicals that we consider "normal". I signed up for a pest service after purchasing my home because we were getting ants and water bugs in the house. They have a package they they sell that includes a "full property" treatment, which I don't think I need. They list off a couple down "pests" that they kill, and go through a long script about how safe the chemicals are. But li…

"I signed up for a pest service after purchasing my home because we were getting ants and water bugs in the house."

Lol. My neighbor got pest treatment for the first time recently. Guess what happens? The pests move next door. So now we need pest control.

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

#123

Post by coryrc »

bastawhiz wrote: post #27

Herbicides aside, I worry a lot about the chemicals that we consider "normal". I signed up for a pest service after purchasing my home because we were getting ants and water bugs in the house. They have a package they they sell that includes a "full property" treatment, which I don't think I need. They list off a couple down "pests" that they kill, and go through a long script about how safe the chemicals are. But li…

We wrap food in PFAs. You know, that thing people are making a big deal about showing up in tiny concentrations in well water near military air bases. They're also on every waterproof jacket you can buy.

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

#124

Post by epgui »

elfchief wrote: post #88

I think the answer to literally every question that starts with "Why does the US..." is going to always be: profits Profits are the only yardstick by which anything in the US is measured. Everything else is secondary.

That is, short-term, first-order profits!

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

#125

Post by epakai »

kibwen wrote: post #118
epakai wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not worth it. Interest groups can have very long timelines. Think Federalist Society. Besides I wouldn't even expect a group as small as the senate to be able to record votes this way and keep it secret. Better to control who votes, but keep how they vote anonymous.

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

#126

Post by 93po »

kibwen wrote: post #118
epakai wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If the votes are visible at any time at all then it still defeats the purpose. There is so much revolving door and if you promise the person bribing, I mean lobbying you that you'll vote one way and it's revealed you didn't, then they lose their future lucrative private sector "jobs"

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

#127

Post by candiddevmike »

Test0129 wrote: post #48
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 you are trying to make a point where none needs to be made. Lobbying has, for a very long time, been another term for bribery. Even as recently as the COVID crisis. Why do you think Pfizer got all that juicy government money? Go look at open secrets and see who they paid. If you want a real shocker, look at their top donors and then look at their voting record. Look at all the politicians that end up at Pfize…

It's not even X millions, lots of Congress critters have been bought for much less. Still, most citizens can't donate 20k to 50 Congress critters on the same committee to get their agenda pushed through.

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

#128

Post by tluyben2 »

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…

If the dinner bill is split it is ok, otherwise it can be considered bribery.

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

#129

Post by candiddevmike »

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.

A lot of companies forbid employees from having vendor-paid for lunches, among many other restrictive anti-bribery policies. I'd go so far as to say private companies are more ruthless about this than the government.

Ironically enough, I'm pretty sure these companies do a lot of lobbying.

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

#130

Post by theGnuMe »

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.

It’s even worse, you have epa officials who use to work for pesticide companies. It’s collusion.
Post reply on HN