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

101–110 of 231 posts

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

#101

Post by parineum »

perrygeo wrote: post #70
cmiles8 wrote: post #45

The evidence on glyphosphate causing cancer isn’t particularly strong. I wouldn’t bathe in the stuff, but the data strongly indicates it’s one of the more benign compounds used in agriculture and landscaping.

WHO classifies it as "Probably carcinogenic to humans". But it's important to talk about the exposure model. Glyphosate in our food supply - almost no evidence of cancer risk. (The gut microbiome is affected though). Direct and sustained contact to glyphosate as an agricultural worker - potentially very severe risks, particularly non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The data is strong but epidemiological. So yeah, I think your conc…

Included in this list under the same classification (2A)[1]:

> Night shift work

> Red meat (consumption of)

> Very hot beverages at above 65 °C (drinking)

Defined as[2]:

> Group 2A: The agent is probably carcinogenic to humans

> This category is used when there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and either sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals or strong mechanistic evidence, showing that the agent exhibits key characteristics of human carcinogens. Limited evidence of carcinogenicity means that a positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer but that other explanations for the observations (technically termed “chance”, “bias”, or “confounding”) could not be ruled out with reasonable confidence. This category may also be used when there is inadequate evidence regarding carcinogenicity in humans but both sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals and strong mechanistic evidence in human cells or tissues.

[1] https://monographs.iarc.who.int/list-of-classifications

[2] https://monographs.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/I...

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

#102

Post by themafia »

tptacek wrote: post #47
themafia wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a weird backstory to public opposition to glyphosate which has very little to do with glyphosate itself Is it required that the public have a "good reason" for wanting something? > glyphosate is relatively benign and relatively inert compared other common crop and landscape treatments We used to spray DDT everywhere. This isn't exactly a resounding recommendation. Perhaps there's a case for using as little additive…

No, it isn't. What's your point?

Your quip follows a trope:

"There's a weird reason the public wants this and it has little to do with the thing itself."

Very often the implication being:

"Therefore the public is wrong and should be ignored."

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

#103

Post by keane »

tptacek wrote: post #72
keane wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not claiming you needed to mention this in your original post about the lawsuit. This fact would be relevant in the sub thread here with nekusar about what we can or cannot draw from the designation.

The logical flaw in their argument also doesn't depend on the EPA's actions! In fact, the additional color you added works against the claim, in their logic.

Strictly speaking, you're right: they're more than prepared to disregard the position of the EPA (all of us seem willing to). But said designation being currently under review is pertinent to the possibility they raise, namely that consensus has changed in the past, and sometimes the more skeptical or conservative heading taken preemptively has been borne out wise.

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

#104

Post by FireBeyond »

atrus wrote: post #82
nekusar wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Thalidomide never even made it to use in the USA.

What? It was initially blocked by the FDA, but was later approved for use in cancer, where it is in fact a front line drug for some myelomas, albeit with significant usage warnings.

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

#105

Post by saxonww »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #83
jandrewrogers wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

FODMAP stands for fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols. FODMAPs generate gas as side effect of being fermented in the gut. Most people just pass this gas, but for some people, usually people with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), it can be very uncomfortable and amplify their other IBS problems.

People who are suffering from pain and bloating with no obvious cause may be advised to go on a low-FODMAP diet for a few weeks to see if their symptoms go away.

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

#106

Post by jml7c5 »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #83
jandrewrogers wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Wikipedia page for it is pretty good. Basically, there are a number of short-chain carbohydrates that tend to pass through the small intestine (where nutrients are digested and absorbed into the bloodstream) and reach the large intestine (where water is removed). Bacteria in the large intestine eat these nutrients (fermentation). In some people, this causes intestinal distress. (Bloating, gas, discomfort, watery stool, etc.) It's not clear why this only affects some people.

You hear a lot about it because a large subset of people have discovered that a low-FODMAP diet relieves their torment of intestinal distress.

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

#107

Post by sokoloff »

themafia wrote: post #100
parineum wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it required that the public have a "good reason" for wanting something? Not required but it's a nice to have, especially if the thing they want done is to have the desired outcome.

The desired outcome is simply not using Glyphosate. I'm not seeing how "reasonability" of this idea impacts it's implementation. If you find someone using it you severely fine them and/or put them in jail.

I’m sure someone’s desired outcome is to stop using urea or ammonium nitrate as a fertilizer.

“Reasonability of X” factors into many people’s assessment of “should we do X or not-X?”

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

#108

Post by rpmisms »

tptacek wrote: post #91
rpmisms wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

By itself, it's simply an argument that proves too much. Anything you ingest impacts your gut flora. There can be gut microbiome hypos about glyphosate! But you have to actually have them; you can't stop at "it impacts gut flora".

Well, I didn't intend that as a conversation-ender, but it is true. This particular substance inhibits a particular function of certain gut flora that seems important. I think it's safe to call that significant.

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

#109

Post by tptacek »

rpmisms wrote: post #86
mapt wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Surely there are no other lifestyle, supply chain, or medical system differences between the UK and Germany! Open and shut!

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

#110

Post by atrus »

FireBeyond wrote: post #104
atrus wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Thalidomide never even made it to use in the USA. What? It was initially blocked by the FDA, but was later approved for use in cancer, where it is in fact a front line drug for some myelomas, albeit with significant usage warnings.

Fair, I was talking more the initial pregnancy use, but even still that further pushes my point that those examples have either never been considered perfectly safe, or have been in active normal usage for so many years that you really have to squint to say it's unsafe.
Post reply on HN