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

171–180 of 231 posts

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

#171

Post by JumpCrisscross »

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 idea that glyphosate is part of the technology stack of GM crops

Is this true? Can't we we give in on glyphosphate without losing GMOs?

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

#172

Post by JumpCrisscross »

coolkewlcuil wrote: post #158
MostlyStable wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. It was mentioned on a podcast recently that in many cases, the SC is not making a decision on what should/shouldn't happen/be the policy/is correct or whatever. They are deciding which layer of government gets to decide a given question. The Executiv…

[flagged]

> 3 equal branches is modern propaganda

It's not propaganda. It's a legal and historical theory that found popular purchase. The word propaganda has a meaning, and we're in a point in history where ensuring it retains that meaning is more important than in any other time in my life.

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

#173

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

stubish wrote: post #159
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Important to note it's not Glyphosate on trial, it's Roundup. There is a huge gulf between studies and conclusions on Glyphosate, and studies and conclusions on Roundup. Glyphosate is the safest and most effective herbicide known to mankind. Roundup - which includes Glyphosate, in addition to other additives - may be unnecessarily dangerous. Also worth noting that Monsanto could stop selling Roundup entirely, and it…

While glyphosate may technically be considered safe, there are reports and I believe lawsuits about it reacting with hard water creating extremely unsafe compounds. ie. it poisons your ground water. https://www.worldenergydata.org/roundup-herbicide-ingredient...

I'm not opposed to further studies, but basic critical thinking makes it unlikely that this is a danger outside of those specific areas.

First remember that glyphosate has been used around the world continuously for 52 years. If there is some kind of pattern of harm due to its use, it's already happened, so it should be possible to find those harms all over the place.

85% of the USA has hard water. If glyphosate being in hard water causes 10% of children to have early onset kidney disease, we would have been seeing that in the USA for at least the last 42 years. But we haven't. So it's likely that whatever is happening in Sri Lanka, is specific to Sri Lanka.

You can take this same basic logical premise and apply it to all of the concerns about glyphosate. None of them stand up to scrutiny, because we have been using it for so long, everywhere, and despite that, we have no concrete evidence of any significant harms caused by glyphosate itself.

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

#174

Post by rpmisms »

tptacek wrote: post #169
rpmisms wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Call it (pun intended) a smell test. I have cited a study that shows biomarkers of gut inflammation strongly correlated with glyphosate exposure. Perhaps you should have read it. I have raised a flag. Lowering your exposure to a novel chemical agent that directly impacts a massive and poorly-understood symbiotic system within the body isn't a bad response. Glyphosate exposure certainly isn't beneficial, so I'll treat…

I obviously did look at the paper. Glyphosate isn't going anywhere, so Pascal's Wager isn't on the table.

You can absolutely avoid glyphosate in your diet. This is obviously some sort of emotional issue for you.

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

#175

Post by tptacek »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #171
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 idea that glyphosate is part of the technology stack of GM crops Is this true? Can't we we give in on glyphosphate without losing GMOs?

We can, but why would we? Without GM in the background, nobody would be talking about glyphosate. It's just an herbicide. People have comfortable priors about herbicides already; the only interesting thing about glyphosate is that it's less gnarly than those priors.

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

#176

Post by pfdietz »

rpmisms wrote: post #164
pfdietz wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Maybe you should see if you adjust to the bran flakes, cut them out if you don't improve, and see if there's a difference? All sorts of things can disrupt gut biomes, and I think ancestral diets are an interesting area of study. Gut inflammation is absolutely rampant.

That misses the point I was making.

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

#177

Post by tptacek »

rpmisms wrote: post #174
tptacek wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I obviously did look at the paper. Glyphosate isn't going anywhere, so Pascal's Wager isn't on the table.

You can absolutely avoid glyphosate in your diet. This is obviously some sort of emotional issue for you.

I don't think there's much glyphosate in any of our diets!

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

#178

Post by coolkewlcuil »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #172
coolkewlcuil wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> 3 equal branches is modern propaganda It's not propaganda. It's a legal and historical theory that found popular purchase. The word propaganda has a meaning, and we're in a point in history where ensuring it retains that meaning is more important than in any other time in my life.

Definition of language is not up to you but society in the aggregate.

You can claim as you wish while I and others can do the same.

If you're saying we need to hold to beliefs of the past, that's a position that physical reality makes untenable.

See you in church? That was the center of communal life for the majority for centuries. Anyone that's abandoned such agency has engaged in abandonment of history, of norms others can just as easily (and do) claim are more important than ever.

You can make whatever claims you want rhetorically but the non-fractal reality we live in does not allow for the strict conservatism you appeal for. Entropy gives rise to generational churn which gives rise to shifting social values.

These corny appeals to history you never directly experienced are little more than parroting grammatically correct statements you were taught.

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

#179

Post by tptacek »

windexh8er wrote: post #170
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…

These aren't labeling cases. Durnell is the one the Supreme Court took, but it's one of tens of thousands. John Durnell sued Monsanto in Missouri state court after getting non-Hodgkin's lymphoma from twenty years of spraying Roundup as the "spray guy" for his neighborhood, and the jury gave him $1.25 million for his cancer, not a fine for a missing sticker. The legal theory is "failure to warn," but that's a tort cla…

I didn't say they had to pay a fine; I said they lost the strict-liability duty to warn claim, one of three, which requires Monsanto in that state to warn of any potential risks known at the time of manufacture. I think we're all clear it's a tort claim!

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

#180

Post by coolkewlcuil »

gzread wrote: post #161
coolkewlcuil wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

IMO SCOTUS should retain the power to interpret vagaries of law; Congress still holds ultimate power, as it can pass a more specific law overriding their interpretation. What about striking down unconstitutional laws, though? That has to be up to SCOTUS, nobody else can do it.

SCOTUS granted itself that power. Their originalist powers are extremely limited.

So do not listen to justices that claim to be "originalist". SCOTUS authority to strike laws is self dealing and not at all an originalist power.

The original expectation was the public would demand such change via elections every 2-6 years and remove the corrupted Senator or Representative.

SCOTUS is not supposed to have power over theoretical cases yet it operates on concepts all the time. Just another way in which the system is rigged; the appeals of originalists who have clearly read the words, they're plain English, are just more self dealing power away from the public to the elites

Post reply on HN