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

121–130 of 231 posts

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

#121

Post by pfdietz »

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.

Changing your diet disrupts the gut biome. When I started eating bran flakes it massively disrupted my gut biome. Should I be alarmed? Or are you slipping a double standard in there, perhaps from the naturalistic fallacy?

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

#122

Post by yosamino »

parineum wrote: post #97
yosamino wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apart from the health aspect, there is the thing were these GMOs are patented and the business model is one where farmers are not allowed to keep a portion of this years yield to use to seed for next year, but essentially get roped into a subscription model for the crops they plant. Essentially turning > You wouldn't download a car into > You wouldn't plant your seed for your crop. Which is obviously absurd. So while…

> Apart from the health aspect, there is the thing were these GMOs are patented and the business model is one where farmers are not allowed to keep a portion of this years yield to use to seed for next year, but essentially get roped into a subscription model for the crops they plant. They don't get roped into anything. They elect to do that because the crop yields are significantly better and justify the cost. Furth…

> They elect to do that because the crop yields are significantly better and justify the cost.

That is correct. They are so much better ( and I am in awe of that technology) that outside of some niches (depending on the crop) as a farmer you cannot afford not to use them. But now your farmer-timeframe of a few years is up against a 20 year artificial monopoly in the form of a patent. And all your peers are facing the same situation. This isn't a situation where you can just decide to do whatever you want.

You suddenly find yourself dependent on a third party that knows your situation exactly and will try to extract the most amount of value from you - trying to capture your profit while keeping you healthy enough to keep being a customer.

This skews towards the seed supplier.

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

#123

Post by parineum »

yosamino wrote: post #122
parineum wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apart from the health aspect, there is the thing were these GMOs are patented and the business model is one where farmers are not allowed to keep a portion of this years yield to use to seed for next year, but essentially get roped into a subscription model for the crops they plant. They don't get roped into anything. They elect to do that because the crop yields are significantly better and justify the cost. Furth…

> They elect to do that because the crop yields are significantly better and justify the cost. That is correct. They are so much better ( and I am in awe of that technology) that outside of some niches (depending on the crop) as a farmer you cannot afford not to use them. But now your farmer-timeframe of a few years is up against a 20 year artificial monopoly in the form of a patent. And all your peers are facing the…

> as a farmer you cannot afford not to use them.

Yes, because it's a good product.

Farmer's can't afford not to use tractors or artificial irrigation either.

It's not sinister to develop a product that is better than the competition.

> This skews towards the seed supplier.

Right up until someone else makes a better product.

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

#124

Post by pfdietz »

quickthrowman wrote: post #26
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…

> There's a weird backstory to public opposition to glyphosate which has very little to do with glyphosate itself (as someone else on this thread pointed out, glyphosate is relatively benign and relatively inert compared other common crop and landscape treatments), but rather with the idea that glyphosate is part of the technology stack of GM crops. I still don’t understand why people seem to care about genetically m…

It's some combination of ideological opposition to GMOs and a way to get trade barriers against import of cheap grain and soybeans from the US to the EU. The latter is less important now that Trump has blown up free trade.

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

#126

Post by array_key_first »

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.

People who have gluten allergies have a legitimate disease, typically celiac disease.

Being tired after eating bread or whatever is not a gluten allergy, that's just how food works. A lot of people claim to have gluten allergies but no, you would know for sure if you had a gluten allergy.

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

#127

Post by pfdietz »

yosamino wrote: post #119
tptacek wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the case law supports this argument that farmers got roped into subscription crops. Farmers use this system because it has value, and is economically superior to the systems that preceded it (or they don't use it).

I worded it so carefully to not have an argument, just for illustration, but... Yes, you are correct, and you are not contradicting me: This is a system that makes sense on the surface. It's economically superior to pay some more money to a seed supplier to get a better yield on my fields. But this economic advantage is captured by the seed supplier after all farmers moved to this new system where you are no longer a…

I find the objection to patents on GMO plants to be completely indefensible.

If there was ever an area where patents are justified and necessary, this is it. This is a product that in normal operation manufactures itself. Without patent protection, the farmer would buy at most one batch to seed his fields, and then never again.

Objection to patents on GMO plants is just a way to object to GMO plants themselves without coming out and saying so directly.

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

#128

Post by array_key_first »

eagsalazar2 wrote: post #90
ottah wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 disr…

Gluten intolerance is a real thing but I don't think that necessarily means that your gut flora is damaged or whatever. Plenty of people are lactose intolerant, and their gut flora is fine, they're just lactose intolerant.

I don't think you could solve gluten intolerance but just improving your gut microbiome, so they're probably not related.

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

#129

Post by saghm »

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…

> 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.

I know what you meant, and I suspect everyone reading it does too, but this is the type of sentence where the ambiguity amuses me. It's certainly true that most of the controversies before the Supreme Court aren't about glyphosate!

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

#130

Post by bigbadfeline »

tptacek wrote: post #96
bigbadfeline wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you have an exclusion trial comparing glyphosate vs non-glyphosate diets? That's a rather sneaky way to invert the issue. It's fishing for random luck when you ask for more and harder to obtain evidence given existing facts pointing to possible harm. A single study that doesn't show harm doesn't refute those that do. You have to provide hard evidence that glyphosate (or another non-essential ingredient) does not…

You can't even get smoked fish accepted through precautionary-principle logic like that. This is the same reasoning that puts cancer warnings on bags of potato chips.

> You can't even get smoked fish accepted through precautionary-principle logic like that.

No, you really can't do that without breaking the Code of Federal Regulations. Smoked products must be labeled "smoked" in addition to many other requirements, and that despite the distinctive stink that self-labels these products. Even the font size is specified to be no smaller than the letters for the kind of meat on the label.

The real issue is why there's no such requirement for glyphosate, having it would be a good starting point.

> This is the same reasoning that puts cancer warnings on bags of potato chips.

I don't think all potato chips deserve, or have, such warnings but some might. Regardless, there might be specific regulations that are over the top and I don't mind admitting or discussing such cases but glyphosate isn't among them.

Post reply on HN