Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you were forced to pick an herbicide to use at your house, which would you choose?
Roundup.
Yep. Not because I think it's great, just because I think it's probably the least-bad.
Why does the US allow a controversial weedkiller banned across the world?
161–170 of 197 posts
Re: Why does the US allow a controversial weedkiller banned across the world?
#162I'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?
1. Plants defend themselves from predators (i.e. animals, humans, insects) via chemical warfare. These chemicals can and do disrupt the gut of the predator to dissuade them from consuming the plant. At least in humans, 70-80% of immune cells are contained in the gut. Many genetically modified plants are engineered to produce more of these gut disrupting chemical defense compounds to be more resistant to predators.
2. A study by the CDC estimates that 80% of Americans have glyphosate in their urine. Glyphosate is an antibiotic proven to be disrupting to gut bacteria. Crops are being genetically engineered to allow for more and more glyphosate exposure because the weeds are growing increasingly resistant to it, requiring even more glyphosate - which in turn runs off into our water supply. It's a positive feedback loop as nature abhors monoculture (less diversity = less evolutionary resiliency), and seeks to restore balance and diversity with pests, weeds, viruses, etc. Monocrop agriculture is fundamentally unsustainable
Re: Why does the US allow a controversial weedkiller banned across the world?
#163Re: Why does the US allow a controversial weedkiller banned across the world?
#164SPOILER 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.
What’s wild in my opinion is the unreasonable effectiveness of lobbying. Like $40k of lobbying can become $40 million is tax savings. I don’t understand why elected officials are so cheap to buy off.
Re: Why does the US allow a controversial weedkiller banned across the world?
#165Re: Why does the US allow a controversial weedkiller banned across the world?
#166SPOILER 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.
What’s wild in my opinion is the unreasonable effectiveness of lobbying. Like $40k of lobbying can become $40 million is tax savings. I don’t understand why elected officials are so cheap to buy off.
because it's a job that anybody can do
Re: Why does the US allow a controversial weedkiller banned across the world?
#167SPOILER 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…
If votes are secret then voters have nothing to base their vote on except campaigning.
The solution is simply to ban lobbying.
Re: Why does the US allow a controversial weedkiller banned across the world?
#168Earlier 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…
If votes are secret then voters have nothing to base their vote on except campaigning. The solution is simply to ban lobbying.
You will not be able to successfully ban “trying to convince a legislator if something.” Writing my congressperson is lobbying. Hell testifying at my statehouse in an official capacity during hearings about proposed legislation is lobbying. I did it once and was even paid for it because it’s a lot to ask for
someone to take off work, write a statement, edit it, get dressed up to speak, and then get grilled by people who, to put it mildly, kinda hate you and want to use you to score cheap political points.
Dgmr, I agree that it’s a huge problem but banning lobbying will just be used as a tool to hang some politican they can’t oust any other way.
Re: Why does the US allow a controversial weedkiller banned across the world?
#169SPOILER 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…
The first step is to eliminate Citizens United.
Re: Why does the US allow a controversial weedkiller banned across the world?
#170Earlier 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…
If votes are secret then voters have nothing to base their vote on except campaigning. The solution is simply to ban lobbying.
It isn't lobbying, it's uncontrolled campaign contributions.
When spending money is equated with speech, and corporations are given the same free speech rights as people, and you allow anonymous shell corporations... You end up with a corrupted government.