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

211–220 of 302 posts

Re: Roundup herbicide ingredient connected to epidemic chronic kidney disease

#211

Post by cvccvroomvroom »

namuol wrote: post #204
riversflow wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

> My experience is that 99% of the people who are agasinst Roundup haven't ever done a day's farming. Sounds about right[0]. > Direct on-farm employment accounted for about 2.6 million of these jobs, or 1.3 percent of U.S. employment. Are farmers somehow not susceptible to conflicts of interest? You suggested it yourself: The work is hard enough as it is, so the last thing farmers have time for is to pressure godlike…

Wow, lots of pro chemical lobbyists here who have no clue about chemical residues or cross-contamination.

Eat organic.

Re: Roundup herbicide ingredient connected to epidemic chronic kidney disease

#212

Post by mandmandam »

parineum wrote: post #184
mandmandam wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Try to find a HN thread about glyphosate where no one gaslights, deflects, toxifies or baits. That's an impossible barrier. Not only are those complete subjective traits, that stuff is going to appear in nearly every online discussion, especially one with any sort of controversy attached. It seems fairly clear to me that the harmfulness of glyphosate (when used as directed) is somewhere between none and inconclusiv…

> > Try to find a HN thread about glyphosate where no one gaslights, deflects, toxifies or baits.

> That's an impossible barrier.

I know, right?

The notion Monsanto and Bayer would never stoop so low as to employ propagandists to protect their profits is literally unbelievably naive. As in, I don't believe that you believe that.

> Given the prevalence and duration of glyphosate use, compelling evidence should be readily available, just like it was with lead or asbestos.

You'll never guess what people who sold lead and asbestos used to say about lead and asbestos. Also see the denials of PFAS dangers. And fracking. And lobotomies, thalidomide, tobacco, mercury, etc etc.

Re: Roundup herbicide ingredient connected to epidemic chronic kidney disease

#213

Post by tptacek »

xpe wrote: post #182
tuatoru wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, yes, nutrient density is worth promoting. But it seems to me that the populations of those who oppose herbicides like glyphosate, and those who oppose genetically modified crops with say extra niacin or vitamin D, overlap very heavily. We have a new mental illness, generalized antiscience disorder. Motto: "It is better that a hundred million die of famine or epidemic disease than one person die of cancer."

There are many other explanations for people that have these views that are not anti-scientific. The precautionary principle is one. Not wanting agribusiness to create patented crops is another. Recognizing that what we mean by nutrient-dense foods are more than just synthesizing more vitamin D or niacin in a plant. But sure, there is plenty of irrationality to go ‘round too. Just be rational yourself in understandin…

Why don't you want agribusiness to create patented crops? Nobody's making you plant them. The stories of people unwittingly or unwillingly planting Roundup-Ready crops are easily debunked.

Re: Roundup herbicide ingredient connected to epidemic chronic kidney disease

#214

Post by tptacek »

xpe wrote: post #180
Turing_Machine wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That comment doesn't really say anything other than that you believe cost vs. calories is a false dichotomy, but since that's an extraordinary claim, the onus is on you to provide evidence.

Re: Roundup herbicide ingredient connected to epidemic chronic kidney disease

#215

Post by diogenescynic »

algoatecorn wrote: post #133
diogenescynic wrote: post #79

If you discuss this on the internet, shills come out of the woodwork immediately to promote glyphosate. I've never seen such astroturfing for any other topic. For example, there are a handful of super user accounts on reddit that pop up at all hours and only discuss this topic and use extremely well researched talking points and citations.

Except astroturfing is coordinated. It's not a conspiracy. The shills you mention are just people who are well-informed on nuanced topic. A topic that that seemingly affects everyone (because food), and therefore everyone chimes in. Except most people don't know jack about modern food systems and its history. All they know is: big pharma bad, big ag bad, big food bad.

I disagree that these are just people who are well-informed. The frequency and rapid follow up comments by these shills/power users make it nearly impossible for these people to be doing anything else--it's clearly their full-time job. More likely, it's a shared account that some public affairs/relations company shares and they get alerts via keywords and immediately reply. It's very clearly a highly organized machine.

Re: Roundup herbicide ingredient connected to epidemic chronic kidney disease

#216

Post by parineum »

mandmandam wrote: post #212
parineum wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Try to find a HN thread about glyphosate where no one gaslights, deflects, toxifies or baits. That's an impossible barrier. Not only are those complete subjective traits, that stuff is going to appear in nearly every online discussion, especially one with any sort of controversy attached. It seems fairly clear to me that the harmfulness of glyphosate (when used as directed) is somewhere between none and inconclusiv…

> > Try to find a HN thread about glyphosate where no one gaslights, deflects, toxifies or baits. > That's an impossible barrier. I know, right? The notion Monsanto and Bayer would never stoop so low as to employ propagandists to protect their profits is literally unbelievably naive. As in, I don't believe that you believe that. > Given the prevalence and duration of glyphosate use, compelling evidence should be read…

> You'll never guess what people who sold lead and asbestos used to say about lead and asbestos. Also see the denials of PFAS dangers. And fracking. And lobotomies, thalidomide, tobacco, mercury, etc etc.

It's not about who said it was safe. It's about who proved it wasn't.

Who proved glyphosate wasn't safe?

Re: Roundup herbicide ingredient connected to epidemic chronic kidney disease

#217

Post by Qem »

orwin wrote: post #178
m00x wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

So, why Monsanto went all the trouble of developing GMO crops resistant to it, if it is intended just for the weeds?

Re: Roundup herbicide ingredient connected to epidemic chronic kidney disease

#219

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

xpe wrote: post #182
tuatoru wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, yes, nutrient density is worth promoting. But it seems to me that the populations of those who oppose herbicides like glyphosate, and those who oppose genetically modified crops with say extra niacin or vitamin D, overlap very heavily. We have a new mental illness, generalized antiscience disorder. Motto: "It is better that a hundred million die of famine or epidemic disease than one person die of cancer."

There are many other explanations for people that have these views that are not anti-scientific. The precautionary principle is one. Not wanting agribusiness to create patented crops is another. Recognizing that what we mean by nutrient-dense foods are more than just synthesizing more vitamin D or niacin in a plant. But sure, there is plenty of irrationality to go ‘round too. Just be rational yourself in understandin…

These principles are the exact same principles as the anti-vax people.

Precautionary principle is also used by them a lot.

Glyphosate has been used for a long time with massive benefits to humanity.

I would guess it would compare pretty favorable in terms of percent exposed having issues to vaccines.

Re: Roundup herbicide ingredient connected to epidemic chronic kidney disease

#220

Post by tengbretson »

cvccvroomvroom wrote: post #195
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.

Salt and vinegar can do the same. Chemically-intensive pollution and contamination of the food supply, air, soil, and water is a choice. But it's not a Hobson's choice. Go organic.

I'd like to hire you to eradicate the multiflora rose and wild parsnip on my property using only salt and vinegar. What would you charge to do this?
Post reply on HN