Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Toxic Exposure: The True Story Behind the Monsanto Trials

press.jhu.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 116 posts

Re: Toxic Exposure: The True Story Behind the Monsanto Trials

#71

Post by dylan604 »

scarby2 wrote: post #65
dylan604 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if the news makes into other EU countries, wouldn't the EU then be able to use it's "powers" to prevent the sale of that grain into the rest of the EU?

this has nothing to do with the EU. EEU and EU are unrelated. the EU could blacklist grain imports from the EEU.

" to medias around the Europe"

what else am I supposed to infer from that than the EU regulating over countries "around the Europe"? another poster stated they specifically by grains from Europe under the notion that EU regulations were protecting them from this type of stuff. so, how is this hard to figure out how these are related?

Re: Toxic Exposure: The True Story Behind the Monsanto Trials

#72

Post by myshpa »

Jolliness7501 wrote: post #32
smolder wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dear reader, you should elaborate on what you view as a firehose of bullshit.

Sure: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-bogeyman... https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-behind-the-roun...

Just skimmed your sources.

> https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-bogeyman...

"Glyphosate is one of the least toxic herbicides used. It inhibits the enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimic acid-3-phosphate synthase which interferes with the shikimic pathway in plants, resulting in the accumulation of shikimic acid in plant tissues and ultimately plant death. The enzyme and pathway do not exist in animals, which is why toxicity is so low."

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shikimate_pathway

"The shikimate pathway (shikimic acid pathway) is a seven-step metabolic pathway used by bacteria, archaea, fungi, algae, some protozoans, and plants for the biosynthesis of folates and aromatic amino acids ..."

Even if there is no biaccumulation of glyphosphate in animals (maybe), can we be sure that there are no negative effects on digestive systems of humans (and wild animals)? What about water and soil biomes?

> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_propaganda

Is is really wise to base food production on (overuse of) poisons? Especially when reasonable alternatives exists?

The idea that current industrial agriculture practices are the only viable method of farming is just another form of propaganda.

Re: Toxic Exposure: The True Story Behind the Monsanto Trials

#73

Post by singularity2001 »

cashsterling wrote: post #38

Just FYI... Monsanto is now owned by Bayer. So the Monsanto arm of the company now has even larger international regulatory influence via the Bayer parent.

Bayer : pesticides since 1942

Forgive me if that humor is too dark, so is the topic of roundup and corporate manipulation of scientific studies

Re: Toxic Exposure: The True Story Behind the Monsanto Trials

#74

Post by algoatecorn »

Demonsult wrote: post #61
algoatecorn wrote: post #48

Sure is lovely when a bunch of non-experts decide to chime in on a nuanced subject. Imagine a bunch of plant biologists congregated on a discussion board to make sweeping claims about SaaS or whatever your area of expertise is. Hilarious. Even appealing to literature is limited by your knowledge background. Spend a few years in the field and you will realize that some studies are good and some are bad. Some indicate…

When experts do chime in, they're blasted as shills. Have fun finding someone who is truly an expert yet has no connection to the industry that uses the technology.

It's tricky because you can be well informed without being biased. In the case of glyphosate, it just so happens that being well informed comes off as shilling because the genpop conjecture is void of nuance

Re: Toxic Exposure: The True Story Behind the Monsanto Trials

#75

Post by dreen »

scarby2 wrote: post #66
hammock wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is really sad. I go out of my way to buy grain imported from Europe on the assumption that it is glyphosate free.

The only EEU country in Europe proper is Belarus.

Sorry, I wasn't aware of Eurasian Economic Union. Makes sense. I'm in Eastern EU.

Re: Toxic Exposure: The True Story Behind the Monsanto Trials

#76

Post by dreen »

dekhn wrote: post #63
dreen wrote: post #3

The damage is still being done. I am a non-producing farmer in EEU. I know for a fact many local farmers still use Roundup on crops, even though its illegal. There are no checks done when they sell the grain. All the bees in the area have already died.

All the bees? Then anything that needs to be pollinated with bees has also died. Is that the case? Answer truthfully.

I am not a career farmer, nor a bee inspector. Are they all dead? Probably not. But I know some beekeepers in the area and all of theirs died, and I'm not seeing hives around while they used to be common. Also, you should know bees are not the only pollinators.

Re: Toxic Exposure: The True Story Behind the Monsanto Trials

#77

Post by jessaustin »

singularity2001 wrote: post #73
cashsterling wrote: post #38

Just FYI... Monsanto is now owned by Bayer. So the Monsanto arm of the company now has even larger international regulatory influence via the Bayer parent.

Bayer : pesticides since 1942 Forgive me if that humor is too dark, so is the topic of roundup and corporate manipulation of scientific studies

The "Monsanto" trademark was too toxic to keep using after the merger, so they've continued using this other trademark, which is somehow apparently less toxic.

Re: Toxic Exposure: The True Story Behind the Monsanto Trials

#78

Post by weberer »

jessaustin wrote: post #77
singularity2001 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bayer : pesticides since 1942 Forgive me if that humor is too dark, so is the topic of roundup and corporate manipulation of scientific studies

The "Monsanto" trademark was too toxic to keep using after the merger, so they've continued using this other trademark, which is somehow apparently less toxic.

Well yeah. When I see Bayer, I think aspirin.

Re: Toxic Exposure: The True Story Behind the Monsanto Trials

#79

Post by pas »

Retric wrote: post #52
adrr wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For comparison, hot beverages(eg: Coffee), red meat and working the night shift are also probable carcinogens. Known carcinogens include alcohol, fried food, bbq/grilling.

As always it comes down to scale not labels. Glyphosate in normal use is vastly more dangerous than anything you mentioned.

What's the current consensus?

It's dangerous to the workers who work on the fields, not to the consumers at the end of the chain, or both?

Re: Toxic Exposure: The True Story Behind the Monsanto Trials

#80

Post by dreen »

scarby2 wrote: post #65
dylan604 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if the news makes into other EU countries, wouldn't the EU then be able to use it's "powers" to prevent the sale of that grain into the rest of the EU?

this has nothing to do with the EU. EEU and EU are unrelated. the EU could blacklist grain imports from the EEU.

I am in EU, it was my mistake to shorten Eastern EU to EEU.

As to why not report this, sadly the systemic problems in this particular area are pretty deep. I'm not saying 'it won't do anything', but the results may be, at best, insignificant, and at worst quite bad for me.

What is needed is farmland consolidation. It's easier to control one big, invested farmer than 100 semi-literate drunks holding the same amount collectively, each working their tiny little 10 acre bit. Unfortunately it is a common populist policy to slow down or reverse this process, to "stop foreigners buying out our homeland" or something.

Post reply on HN