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

Supreme Court to hear arguments in landmark Roundup weedkiller case

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 231 posts

Re: Supreme Court to hear arguments in landmark Roundup weedkiller case

#81

Post by ottah »

rpmisms wrote: post #16
tptacek wrote: post #14

As is so often the case for controversies before the Supreme Court, this case isn't so much about glyphosate as it is about the interface between federal and state law. Since 1991, the EPA has held that glyphosate is not carcinogenic; it was (at the time) categorized "Group E", which means that not only is there not evidence for it being carcinogenic, but that there is material evidence that it is not. Later, IARC (i…

The best-reasoned criticism of glyphosate is that it disrupts the gut biome (this is a fact). I suspect that many "gluten allergies" are actually gut biome problems from glyphosate-desiccated wheat.

I will never understand this bizarre obsession with gut flora. We don't know what is normal, what is a beneficial ratio or when a change happens if that is good or bad thing. No one besides the people who study these things should be much attention to gut microbiomes. We just don't have enough information to let this be an influence on decision making.

Re: Supreme Court to hear arguments in landmark Roundup weedkiller case

#82

Post by atrus »

nekusar wrote: post #42
tptacek wrote: post #14

As is so often the case for controversies before the Supreme Court, this case isn't so much about glyphosate as it is about the interface between federal and state law. Since 1991, the EPA has held that glyphosate is not carcinogenic; it was (at the time) categorized "Group E", which means that not only is there not evidence for it being carcinogenic, but that there is material evidence that it is not. Later, IARC (i…

> Since 1991, the EPA has held that glyphosate is not carcinogenic; it was (at the time) categorized "Group E", which means that not only is there not evidence for it being carcinogenic, but that there is material evidence that it is not. Later, IARC (in a decision that was controversial among global public health agencies) listed glyphosate as a 2A probable carcinogen, alongside red meat, potatoes, deep fryer oil, a…

Those aren't really great examples, considering that Arsenic and Asbestos have been known to be harmful for centuries/millennia.

Thalidomide never even made it to use in the USA.

Fluoride being good for teeth was discovered by fluoride naturally being in the water already

Can't speak for the other two, but I hope you're not basing your fears on stuff like that.

Re: Supreme Court to hear arguments in landmark Roundup weedkiller case

#83

Post by AnimalMuppet »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #29
rpmisms wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best-reasoned criticism of glyphosate is that it disrupts the gut biome (this is a fact). I suspect that many "gluten allergies" are actually gut biome problems from glyphosate-desiccated wheat.

AFAIK the preponderance of the evidence is that most "gluten sensitivity" is actually just a FODMAP sensitivity, which also interacts with the gut biome.

Off topic, but can someone ELI5 (or at least ELI20) what the deal is with FODMAP? I keep hearing about it, but I don't understand it at all.

Re: Supreme Court to hear arguments in landmark Roundup weedkiller case

#84

Post by yxhuvud »

bluGill wrote: post #23
yxhuvud wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, mass starvation would not ensue from having to fight weeds using mechanical means. It would take more work and more fuel, but it is eminently doable if the need is there. Especially if the change would be gradual. Making do without artificial fertilizer would be a lot harder.

Increased fuel means a lot more CO2. That is a very significant factor you cannot ignore.

More CO2 compared to what tractors use today, yes. But that is not a lot compared to the rest of the human civilization spend on transportation.

So no, it is not a very significant factor.

Re: Supreme Court to hear arguments in landmark Roundup weedkiller case

#85

Post by rpmisms »

ottah wrote: post #81
rpmisms wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best-reasoned criticism of glyphosate is that it disrupts the gut biome (this is a fact). I suspect that many "gluten allergies" are actually gut biome problems from glyphosate-desiccated wheat.

I will never understand this bizarre obsession with gut flora. We don't know what is normal, what is a beneficial ratio or when a change happens if that is good or bad thing. No one besides the people who study these things should be much attention to gut microbiomes. We just don't have enough information to let this be an influence on decision making.

We know that it's really important to neurological function, which is enough reason to be careful.

Re: Supreme Court to hear arguments in landmark Roundup weedkiller case

#86

Post by rpmisms »

mapt wrote: post #20
rpmisms wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mechanism of action of glyphosate inhibits several important amino acid production processes in the gut. I'm simplifying here, but not having glyphosate in the food supply would be a good thing for the gut, and the science agrees on this. Glyphosate for field prep also doesn't really come through in food, it's much worse with the pre-harvest desiccation.

You are inferring from our crude understanding of processes in general. Evidence is more specific. Do you have an exclusion trial comparing glyphosate vs non-glyphosate diets? This is amenable to natural experiments where one country bans it on a specific date and the neighbor does not.

Here's a decent one: 13% of the UK reports gluten intolerance symptoms, and only 7% of Germany does. The UK allows pre-harvest glyphosate desiccation, Germany doesn't. I would be happy to bet that the trend continues past my quick Google search.

Re: Supreme Court to hear arguments in landmark Roundup weedkiller case

#87

Post by jayd16 »

victorbjorklund wrote: post #55
jayd16 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So anything that effects food prices, regardless of magnitude, causes mass starvation?

No, not regardless of magnitude. But anything that have a large impact on food prices will decrease the ability of poor people to pay for it. It’s not rocket science.

Then it's a discussion about magnitude and jumping to starvation is unfounded.

Re: Supreme Court to hear arguments in landmark Roundup weedkiller case

#88

Post by adzm »

chromacity wrote: post #13

It's striking how many of these "product safety" cases are decided in the court of public opinion, independent of actual scientific merit. The case of DDT was pretty interesting. More recently, we have microplastics - no one has really shown they're dangerous to humans, but there's enough hand-waving that "everyone knows" they're killing us. And aspartame, etc... Glyphosate is probably the safest of the things people…

People are usually spraying broadleaf herbicides on their lawn like 2,4-D to control things like dandelions and yard plantains. Glyphosate just kills everything. Personally I only use it very selectively on poison ivy.

Re: Supreme Court to hear arguments in landmark Roundup weedkiller case

#89

Post by jay_kyburz »

EvanAnderson wrote: post #39
thayne wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the worst you get on a typical suburban lawn if you mow but don't spray are dandelions and clover I also get a lot of morning glory AKA bindweed that kills my grass. But spraying doesn't really help with that anyway, so :shrug:.

Bindweed is evil incarnate in plant form. Wouldn't wish that on anybody.

We hand some log droughts here about 10 years ago where you were not allowed to water the lawn at all.

I would have expected a single dominate weed to take over, but instead, if I let the grass grow for 6-8 weeks in summer I get this amazing field of different knee length plants. And it alive with bee's and butterflies.

I much prefer it to lawn.

Re: Supreme Court to hear arguments in landmark Roundup weedkiller case

#90

Post by eagsalazar2 »

ottah wrote: post #81
rpmisms wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best-reasoned criticism of glyphosate is that it disrupts the gut biome (this is a fact). I suspect that many "gluten allergies" are actually gut biome problems from glyphosate-desiccated wheat.

I will never understand this bizarre obsession with gut flora. We don't know what is normal, what is a beneficial ratio or when a change happens if that is good or bad thing. No one besides the people who study these things should be much attention to gut microbiomes. We just don't have enough information to let this be an influence on decision making.

Your comment seems a little flippant honestly. I know what "disrupted" is, trust me. I developed a gluten sensitivity about 10 years ago but only figured it out 5 years ago. "Healthy" is "feels healthy" and "doesn't die young", that is pretty simple.

It sounds like you think this is about hypothetical and marginal health benefits but people have very acute and immediate physical (and cognitive) issues because of disrupted gut biome that are objectively improved by cutting out, in particular, gluten. This isn't just some weird obession.

Post reply on HN