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

Roundup herbicide ingredient connected to epidemic chronic kidney disease

phys.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 302 posts

Re: Roundup herbicide ingredient connected to epidemic chronic kidney disease

#171

Post by ses1984 »

bb88 wrote: post #150
ses1984 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has anyone tried not using any pesticides or herbicides on their yard? I haven’t dropped anything on my yard except for grass seed in 15 years and it’s fine. So what if there are some weeds on it.

Yeah, balanced fertilizer and water. The goal is to get the grass to generate roots and then this will turn into a nice lush carpet. The thicker the carpet the more competition for resources. I mow at 6" to keep germinating weeds from getting easy sunlight.

I prefer not to drop fertilizer either, I don’t see a need for it.

Re: Roundup herbicide ingredient connected to epidemic chronic kidney disease

#172

Post by LorenPechtel »

m00x wrote: post #139
tivert wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Glyphosate is used for only one reason, it’s profitable for Monsanto. It's used because it's effective broad-spectrum herbicide. My understanding it's quite a bit less toxic than its predecessors, and I understand there's no equivalent replacement on the horizon. IIRC, the problem was they marketed it as practically non toxic to humans, which is definitely not the case.

So far, there is monumental evidence that it's non-toxic to humans at normal doses. This study doesn't prove it's toxic. It only introduces the aspect that it might be associated to kidney disease. Everything is toxic to humans at the right dose, even water.

I would call causing chronic kidney disease to be toxic.

It sounds like they evaluated the chemical itself but didn't evaluate what could happen to the chemical once it was in the environment.

Re: Roundup herbicide ingredient connected to epidemic chronic kidney disease

#173

Post by kirrent »

mandmandam wrote: post #110
parineum wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there no possibility that you're misinformed? No room for self reflection?

I supposed you could prove me wrong: Try to find a HN thread about glyphosate where no one gaslights, deflects, toxifies or baits. Any time, in the whole history of HN. One single story , where no one tries to pretend or insinuate that Roundup / glyphosate is perfectly safe, or attack people / studies / lawsuits that suggest otherwise. The only rule is that it must have at least a dozen comments - there's no need to…

If you think that people saying that glyphosate is safe are arguing in bad faith I can see why you'd think there's a lot of disingenuousness around here. I can't speak for other people but I've defended glyphosate in plenty of threads simply because I've seen no compelling evidence of any significant danger from it in general and the specific stories we're discussing are often even weaker, with the comments sections drawing massive conclusions from equivocal evidence.

Take this article as an example, people are drawing some quite radical conclusions from it when if you read the original paper, the data isn't strong and the stats are incredibly weak. The authors are hypothesising a quite long pathway from glyphosate in a country with a ban to water contamination to glyphosate-metal complex to kidney disease. Given the lack of existing compelling literature for this chain (and kidney disease in Sri Lanka has seen a lot of study), I'd want to see some compelling evidence, but this paper isn't it. I'm sure you don't want to argue over one specific case but it does bother me how they brush off the far more significant fluorine so easily, treat glyphosate differently in the analysis to all other contaminants, and didn't consider a dose response calculation over all wells between glyphosate and kidney disease.

This isn't me deflecting or gaslighting. Just disagreeing and trying to do it as intellectually honestly as I can on a subject which is massively important to the modern world.

Re: Roundup herbicide ingredient connected to epidemic chronic kidney disease

#174

Post by xpe »

mvdtnz wrote: post #76
xpe wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When you consider cost/acre and calories/acre, it is also abundantly clear that for all its flaws, modern industrial farming is a technological marvel. Modern farming seems optimized for the wrong thing all too often: cheap calories. Calories are important (for basic metabolic needs) but not the whole story. Nutrient density and sustainable practices are worth promoting.

It's easy to be picky about nutrient density and sustainable farming when you have a full belly. Modern farming techniques have saved the lives of millions of people who would otherwise starve to death.

The only problem is (can’t tell if you intend it) an implied false dichotomy. Why do we have to pick abundant calories or nutritious food? This is a false choice. In the short term, it is a tradeoff given a particular set of technological and economic constraints.

Over the medium and long-term, the constraints change.

If people were wiser, {technological development, economics, and policy} could have led us to a better place.

Perhaps one with a better mix of agricultural offerings: a range of calorie dense & nutrient dense & combinations of both. All at prices that people are willing to pay, which of course depends on subsidies, earning power, and personal values.

Forgive me, but I’m going to preempt one kind of knee-jerk response someone might feel they need to write next: I’m describing a range of possible future outcomes, not a particular political philosophy.

Remember, my point is to reject the false choice. The tiresome (but classic) “next move” for someone would be to move the goalposts and criticize some particular policy they think I’m recommending. I’m not recommending a particular policy. I’m simply saying there are other possible futures that are available to us.

I challenge everyone on (and off) Hacker News to not fall into the obvious ‘debate’ patterns that add minimal value. I’m done with debate. I want to learn, and I want to teach. I’m not here to score points.

Synthesize. Be curious.

What do you all think are the most likely technological advancements that could revolutionize food?

Re: Roundup herbicide ingredient connected to epidemic chronic kidney disease

#175

Post by bluGill »

diogenes4 wrote: post #149
OfSanguineFire wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Glyphosate is used for only one reason, it’s profitable for Monsanto. Farmers love glyphosate because it kills weeds very effectively. It’s hard to exaggerate how much of a neat thing glyphosate was considered in the agricultural world when it appeared. That’s the reason it is used. Now, the reason it is produced and sold is that it is profitable for Monsanto, and regulation hasn’t stopped Monsanto.

Glyphosate kills far more than just weeds (whatever those are).

Glyphosate is well studied and affects cell paths that don't exist in humans.

Re: Roundup herbicide ingredient connected to epidemic chronic kidney disease

#176

Post by riversflow »

zzzeek wrote: post #132
user3939382 wrote: post #59

Remember when Bayer (who now owns Monsanto) intentionally sold HIV infected blood in South America? The people that own these companies would sell their own grandmother for $5. They’re poisoning the world, as science and litigation they couldn’t buy their way out of has evidenced, and we get people on here “hacktually”ing their defense. Glyphosate is used for only one reason, it’s profitable for Monsanto.

following that, the most prevalent use for GM crops is herbicide tolerance, where glyphosate is the most common herbicide targeted [1]. If you posted on Hacker News eight years ago that you thought it was a good idea for GM foods to be labeled, you'd be roundly mocked with all the data showing genetic modification is safe (as I'm sure is about to happen here anyway). That was never what the debate was about and it wa…

> Why GM is pushed so hard.

Well go on, don't just eldude to it. Spell it out.

My understanding is that GM is pushed so hard because while farming is the most necessary thing humans do, it's also highly undesirable labor and the pay is shit. It's also risky business, on a long enough timeline every crop fails.

Consumers should grow their own food if they are worried. See how hard it is.

My experience is that 99% of the people who are agasinst Roundup haven't ever done a day's farming.

Re: Roundup herbicide ingredient connected to epidemic chronic kidney disease

#177

Post by imchillyb »

'sola dosis facit venenum' It is only the dose that makes the poison.

Nothing is without toxin, all things are toxic. It is only the dose that makes the poison.

'ne quid nimis' Nothing in excess.

There is a reason modern day pharmacology has its roots in these statements. Truth is, even drinking an excess of water will unalive a human.

Re: Roundup herbicide ingredient connected to epidemic chronic kidney disease

#178

Post by orwin »

m00x wrote: post #167
robbiep wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t spray roundup over vegetables and fruits

Farms do.

No. It's a weedkiller. Putting it ON the fruits would be expensive and useless.

In conventional/industrial agriculture, its used after harvest and before seeding. In intelligent agriculture , it's used a day before seeding.

Re: Roundup herbicide ingredient connected to epidemic chronic kidney disease

#179

Post by namuol »

improv wrote: post #160
whalesalad wrote: post #8

Have y'all seen the movie "Don't Look Up"? It's a reference to the climate crisis but could very well be a reference to industrial agriculture. Then again, the climate crisis is largely rooted in our agricultural industrial complex. It's wild when I see folks defending the use of glyphosate... the movie does a great job demonstrating this sort of predicament. edit: looks like I am already being downvoted. outstanding…

Indeed, there are many who make so much noise made about how unsustainable and environmentally toxic industrial cattle farming is, but then it's crickets when it comes to how unsustainable and environmentally toxic industrial agriculture is.

This could well be a regional thing, but where I’m from most who decry industrial cattle farming do so along with industrial agriculture. The thinking is that a disproportionate amount of industrial agriculture is done in support of cattle farming. Less industrial cattle farming means less industrial agriculture.

Re: Roundup herbicide ingredient connected to epidemic chronic kidney disease

#180

Post by xpe »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #88
xpe wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When you consider cost/acre and calories/acre, it is also abundantly clear that for all its flaws, modern industrial farming is a technological marvel. Modern farming seems optimized for the wrong thing all too often: cheap calories. Calories are important (for basic metabolic needs) but not the whole story. Nutrient density and sustainable practices are worth promoting.

Tell me you've never had trouble affording enough calories to survive without telling me you've never had trouble affording enough calories to survive. "Cheap calories" are what keeps the world from starving to death, and incidentally what allows some of us to be software engineers, novelists, and YouTube "influencers", rather than 95% of us being either agricultural serfs or foot soldiers.

Sort of, but you portray a false dichotomy. See my other lengthy comment.
Post reply on HN