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

151–160 of 197 posts

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

#151

Post by TimTheTinker »

sooheon wrote: post #97
TimTheTinker wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes, of course. But there's a difference between multiple short sequences being added/deleted/modified and entire new proteins that add new capabilities being inserted or swapped. These artificial edits introduce large step functions in the overall mutation rate.

Normally, parallel evolution of people and crops allows humans enough time to adapt to natural mutations. Note selective breeding doesn't increase the underlying mutation rate - that's the number that I'm concerned we've manipulated beyond acceptable bounds.

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

#152

Post by rib3ye »

gaganyaan wrote: post #80
rib3ye wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TFA mentions 102k signatures collected to petition to ban. Did you know the person with the clipboard gets paid per signature? All the incentives in these conversations are messed up.

This sounds like a variation of "both sides are terrible, so what can we do?". I'm not accusing you of anything, but that's often used by people doing terrible things to deflect criticism, so hopefully you understand why this doesn't come across as a useful comment. At any rate, I think it's good that people collecting signatures are being paid for their time. If there's something actually bad about the petition thou…

More like, "both sides are terrible, but America works, so let's keep going."

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

#153

Post by giantg2 »

JoshTko wrote: post #114
giantg2 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"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."

Perhaps you misconstrued my perspective. I'm just telling it how it is. There are plenty of issues that we should see action on, yet none is taken. The main reason is that there's only so much bandwidth in the system so things get prioritized. The high priority stuff is high priority because a lot of people give a shit about that thing.

This is not victim blaming. Even if people gave a shit, the system is overburdened and they'd have to deprioritze other stuff. This is simply reality. Not to mention, we'd need proof that all these indifferent people are actually victims.

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

#154

Post by gaganyaan »

rib3ye wrote: post #152
gaganyaan wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds like a variation of "both sides are terrible, so what can we do?". I'm not accusing you of anything, but that's often used by people doing terrible things to deflect criticism, so hopefully you understand why this doesn't come across as a useful comment. At any rate, I think it's good that people collecting signatures are being paid for their time. If there's something actually bad about the petition thou…

More like, "both sides are terrible, but America works, so let's keep going."

That's not really a good argument. It can be used to dismiss any possible way we can improve our lives.

I'm also still not sure why I should think both sides are terrible, given that you haven't stated any reason to think that the petition is terrible.

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

#155

Post by throwoutway »

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.

If you were forced to pick an herbicide to use at your house, which would you choose?

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

#156

Post by collegeburner »

zdragnar wrote: post #54
collegeburner wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

another hypothesis i heard was rural kids grew up with their immune systems exposed to more stuff and so better trained/less likely to overreact. personally, i always noticed kids with allergies tended to be weak and sickly much more often, so maybe that's related.

Allergies are a form of immune response to normally innocuous things. It makes sense that there is general coincidence between severe allergies and other immune disorders.

not just immune disorder, i mean that "allergy kids" always seemed to be the 110lb scrawny ones, never go outside, never play sports, and burst in to tears for things that made other kids say "ow". idk but makes it seem like maybe there's as much nurture as nature here, i bet

ngl i think this is just a epigenetic shift from people who have been "raised weak" for several generations. i can't prove it completely but there is some research showing that kids with milk allergies end up runty:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4362703/

https://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(19)31475-7/ful...

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

#157

Post by tuatoru »

dwaite wrote: post #111
sampo wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Similar thing in NZ with sodium fluoroacetate, big brand name 1080, "ten-eighty". Used to kill bird predators in NZ's forest parks.

"Nah, we don't use 1080. This is sodium fluoroacetate." "Oh."

Edit: NZ also permits use of glyphosate. It is starting to be discouraged because of the effects of long-term use on soil ecology, rather than health.

There are no good (non-labor-intensive) alternatives, though. To grow grass we have to use it, pretty much. At least until all-weather autonomous solar-powered weed-grubbing robots arrive.

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

#158

Post by diogenescynic »

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.

I wish we'd just call it what it is--corruption. We've got to start holding our country to a higher standard if we want things to improve, instead of just making up new words to normalize it.

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

#159

Post by collegeburner »

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…

then why are nut allergies the most common when there are no GMO nuts? or shellfish when we don't have GMO shellfish? why do whites have higher rates of childhood allergies (6.6%) but blacks are now rising the fastest?

none of this really seems to fit with a GMO hypothesis.

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

#160

Post by warble »

throwoutway wrote: post #155
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.

If you were forced to pick an herbicide to use at your house, which would you choose?

Roundup.
Post reply on HN