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

171–180 of 197 posts

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

#171

Post by uni_rule »

bradknowles wrote: post #169
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…

The first step is to eliminate Citizens United.

Good news: the current supreme court hates stare decisis Bad news: there's no way in hell they're doing this

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

#172

Post by redprince »

Ekaros wrote: post #89
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.

They are literally stuff meant to kill other stuff. As such they will be deadly for some stuff and likely also others. So I agree that we have to evaluate which of them is least worse. Or presents acceptable risk levels in comparative scenarios. And we cannot farm successfully on scale we need without them.

> And we cannot farm successfully on scale we need without them.

The following study states that organic farming on average is 25% less productive than conventional farming. The major difference being the use of plant protection products (herbicides, pesticides, etc.).

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2019/6344...

That additional land use could be satisfied if the consumption of meat would be drastically reduced. Currently 33% of cropland are used for feed production. (https://www.fao.org/3/ar591e/ar591e.pdf)

So yes, we could farm successfully without them. But not at the current prices for produce and not with the current meat consumption.

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

#173

Post by refurb »

CoastalCoder wrote: post #38
darth_avocado wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my basic corporate training, we are told spending any more money than non trivial swag on people in the government is strictly prohibited because it can be considered bribery. So, I’m pretty sure the definition of bribery is very flexible.

That training is given to general employees, not to the lobbying firms that the company hires.

You realize that lobbyists have to be registered and have laws around appropriate behavior?

I’ve been involved in lobbying efforts before as an employee of a firm. It’s not bribery. The company pays a lobbying firm to strategize around an issue, put together talking points or a white paper and leverage their network (as registered lobbyists) to argue their point with various politicians. There is no money transfer happening.

The EU has a very healthy lobbying process as well.

Campaign donations are a different matter, but I can donate up to $5000 to any member of Congress as a citizen and likely get time with them. Am I “bribing” when I do that?

I mean lobbyists can break those laws, but you can break any law.

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

#174

Post by refurb »

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.

You don’t have experience then.

My professor in college actually drafted a pro-entrepreneurship law in the office of his representative who then brought it to the floor for a vote.

No money was exchanged.

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

#175

Post by epakai »

bobbylarrybobby wrote: post #167
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…

If votes are secret then voters have nothing to base their vote on except campaigning. The solution is simply to ban lobbying.

There's plenty. Legislators can introduce, co-sign, and otherwise endorse particular bills or amendments. Floor arguments can be public, and the news can actually collate and report on that. If you want representatives to represent then they have to have the same freedom to vote their conscience as the rest of us.

Perhaps there are even certain types of votes that should be visible at the individual level, but I can't think of them right now.

If you ban more direct lobbying there will always be indirect routes to reward desired behavior. As long as buyers can see returns they'll keep investing. We don't have to make it easy for them to see. We don't have to let political machines force party line votes.

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

#176

Post by refurb »

redprince wrote: post #172
Ekaros wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are literally stuff meant to kill other stuff. As such they will be deadly for some stuff and likely also others. So I agree that we have to evaluate which of them is least worse. Or presents acceptable risk levels in comparative scenarios. And we cannot farm successfully on scale we need without them.

> And we cannot farm successfully on scale we need without them. The following study states that organic farming on average is 25% less productive than conventional farming. The major difference being the use of plant protection products (herbicides, pesticides, etc.). https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2019/6344... That additional land use could be satisfied if the consumption of meat would be drasti…

Organic farms just use “organic pesticides”, which certainly aren’t non-toxic.

https://www.agdaily.com/technology/the-list-of-pesticides-ap...

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

#177

Post by refurb »

lostmsu wrote: post #45
kornhole wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your skepticism is warranted. Of course the negative affects of these chemicals is down played by those who sell them. Many leech into ecosystems, our homes, and our bodies causing obvious and latent issues. I personally love insects and plants considered weeds as they are critical to our biosphere. I have learned to live with and around them managing a balance both in my house and in my garden. Chemical warfare shou…

How do you deal with ant infestations inside your house?

I’ve had great success with the boric acid-sugar traps. Boric acid is toxic if you eat it, but not very toxic. The ants eat it, carry it back the nest and kill the rest of the inhabitants.

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

#178

Post by refurb »

jmclnx wrote: post #2

Really ? Every person in the US knows why. Reason, Campaign Contributions, or as what is known in all other Countries as Bribes.

Do they call it bribery in the EU too?

https://www.appf.europa.eu/appf/en/donations-and-contributio...

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

#179

Post by TimTheTinker »

collegeburner wrote: post #159
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…

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.

If you're looking for a single hypothesis, then yeah those numbers would throw doubt on the GMO as cause hypothesis.

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

#180

Post by dahdum »

Ptchd wrote: post #148
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…

Lobbying is NOT fine. It is bribery and is illegal almost anywhere else.

Where is lobbying illegal in a democracy? France, Germany, and the UK all have it.
Post reply on HN