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

81–90 of 116 posts

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

#81

Post by giantg2 »

dennis_jeeves1 wrote: post #68
jvans wrote: post #50

This story is a broken record that just repeats over and over again in different forms and industries. It follows the general form of: 1. Develop some profitable product 2. years later people report horrible effects 3. Big co denies and stalls for years/decades 4. Hundreds of thousands /millions of people are negatively effected 5. Science eventually overwhelms any counter argument and product in taken off market 6.…

Excellent summary. Like they say history repeats. And teaching history does not help.

"And teaching history does not help."

It does to some extent, but only those who truly learn it. In the current conversation, there are people who have seen this patern of recurring failure and are increasingly skeptical of new stuff. You'd be surprised how many doctors choose the older tried and true treatments for themselves rather than the newest stuff. They have personal experience that says "new" is more synonymous with "untested" than it is to "better".

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

#82

Post by dekhn »

dreen wrote: post #76
dekhn wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yep, I know there are other pollinators- but there are definitely plants that are only pollinated by bees (see "Pollinator impact: 4- essential" on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_crop_plants_pollinated...) and that's why I wrote. my comment that way.

Now you've gone from "are they all dead" to "I have an anecdote and some local people reported all their bees died". I, too have seen local anecdotes about that... and then verified that they weren't true, and areas near me have huge and healthy bee populations.

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

#83

Post by outworlder »

jvans wrote: post #50

This story is a broken record that just repeats over and over again in different forms and industries. It follows the general form of: 1. Develop some profitable product 2. years later people report horrible effects 3. Big co denies and stalls for years/decades 4. Hundreds of thousands /millions of people are negatively effected 5. Science eventually overwhelms any counter argument and product in taken off market 6.…

Add to that:

  6. Sugar (all forms, but especially high fructose corn syrup)

  7. Processed Meat (nitrites)
[6] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-in...

https://ceh.org/high-fructose-corn-syrup/

[7] https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/meat/politics...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nX1KUPZC3Ck (0:00 / 52:26 The Meat Lobby: How the Meat Industry Hides the Truth)

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

#84

Post by kuhewa »

hosh wrote: post #56
jxramos wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

interesting, do those treated crops get knocked over in strong winds compared to untreated crops or something like that?

Root systems are not necessarily just about being able to hold soil or not getting knocked over. I don’t know what the parent comment meant by that, but I do know the root zone is vital for plants. Plants do not directly mine minerals. Instead, they produce complex sugars which they exchange with bacteria and fungi, who in turn, trade minerals that the plant needs. Some plants with also trade nutrients with each othe…

Granting that is perfectly true for arguments sake, roundup also enables widescale no-till agriculture which is huge for soil conservation

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

#85

Post by dreen »

dekhn wrote: post #82
dreen wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yep, I know there are other pollinators- but there are definitely plants that are only pollinated by bees (see "Pollinator impact: 4- essential" on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_crop_plants_pollinated... ) and that's why I wrote. my comment that way. Now you've gone from "are they all dead" to "I have an anecdote and some local people reported all their bees died". I, too have seen local anecdotes about that.…

Good to hear. I think its mostly wheat here, and I am positive there's been a significant bee dieoff. Again, not a professional farmer.

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

#86

Post by kuhewa »

SuoDuanDao wrote: post #70
Jolliness7501 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

As a counterpoint, here's a relevant part of an interview with the lawyer who won 2 billion dollars in damages from Monsanto addressing skeptics of the trial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw5H36B1tJE&t=2842s

Since we all know a jury is the best way to arbitrate scientific fact

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

#87

Post by ch4s3 »

SuoDuanDao wrote: post #67
ch4s3 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah, it's totally a self own but it gets paraded around a lot like it proves something which it clearly doesn't.

It proves the guy is blatantly dishonest, no?

Does it? It really just shows that he wasn't serious when he said he'd literally dirk it. I wouldn't assume that was a serious statement. A more careful person would have said something like "you could hypothetically drink the stuff and based on everything we know right now you'd be just fine."

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

#88

Post by adrr »

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.

Only EU considers it a potential carcinogen. Rest world says it safe. No animal model study has shown it to be dangerous.

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

#89

Post by Retric »

adrr wrote: post #88
Retric wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Only EU considers it a potential carcinogen. Rest world says it safe. No animal model study has shown it to be dangerous.

Not just EU, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” back in 2015.

Here’s a systemic review showing glyphosate causes cancer in multiple animal studies: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32050978/

“The strongest evidence shows that glyphosate causes hemangiosarcomas, kidney tumors and malignant lymphomas in male CD-1 mice, hemangiomas and malignant lymphomas in female CD-1 mice, hemangiomas in female Swiss albino mice, kidney adenomas, liver adenomas, skin keratoacanthomas and skin basal cell tumors in male Sprague-Dawley rats, adrenal cortical carcinomas in female Sprague-Dawley rats and hepatocellular adenomas and skin keratocanthomas in male Wistar rats.”

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

#90

Post by dekhn »

dreen wrote: post #85
dekhn wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, I know there are other pollinators- but there are definitely plants that are only pollinated by bees (see "Pollinator impact: 4- essential" on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_crop_plants_pollinated... ) and that's why I wrote. my comment that way. Now you've gone from "are they all dead" to "I have an anecdote and some local people reported all their bees died". I, too have seen local anecdotes about that.…

Good to hear. I think its mostly wheat here, and I am positive there's been a significant bee dieoff. Again, not a professional farmer.

Wheat is self pollinating so not a good example. Do you have watermelons? Those depend on bees.
Post reply on HN