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

141–150 of 231 posts

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

#141

Post by justinclift »

pfdietz wrote: post #136
justinclift wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Isn't that a massive societal benefit vs rent seeking though?

If we got the seeds from the GMO fairy, yes. If we have to get the seeds from expensive R&D that wouldn't occur without patent protection, then no.

> then no.

Why not?

It's literally a self replicating system. Trying to control that for rent seeking purposes seems pretty unethical.

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

#142

Post by pfdietz »

justinclift wrote: post #141
pfdietz wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we got the seeds from the GMO fairy, yes. If we have to get the seeds from expensive R&D that wouldn't occur without patent protection, then no.

> then no. Why not? It's literally a self replicating system. Trying to control that for rent seeking purposes seems pretty unethical.

> Why not?

(rolls eyes)

Because if no one does the R&D to create the seeds they WON'T EXIST.

I would have thought that was 100% obvious, but apparently not!

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

#143

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#144

Post by bennettnate5 »

saalweachter wrote: post #24
whyenot wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From an environmental perspective you are probably right. One of the nice things is that glyphosate, unlike most herbicides, is broken down quickly by soil bacteria. The longer term issue is evolved weed resistance due to its over use with "Roundup Ready" crops and for end of the season dry down.

I think the fears about glyphosate resistance owes too much to antibiotic resistance, but I am not really sure it makes sense. I suppose there's some regimen where you carefully monitor every plant sprayed with a weedkiller is monitored for survival and killed with fire if it survives, or some other extreme measure to be sure there are no survivors to develop resistance, but realistically the weeds are going to devel…

It's a matter of when, not if, and that _when_ was more than a decade ago. Round-up resistant Kochia (a weed) has spread across Western Canada and was first observed in 2011. Pretty difficult stuff to get out of your field once it takes root.

As for solutions, I agree with you that there's no single clean solution to mitigate resistance. But it seems like some weeds' reproduction paths are better suited for resistance than others (Kochia produces tens of thousands of seeds and spread similar to tumbleweeds, so there's a lot of potential for mixing and genetic diversity relative to other weeds).

https://saskpulse.com/resources/kochia-resistance-update-res...

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

#145

Post by brightball »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #30
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…

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…

There are numerous studies that show glyphosate binds with aluminum and other metals, having negative impacts on public health.

"Aluminum and Glyphosate Can Synergistically Induce Pineal Gland Pathology: Connection to Gut Dysbiosis and Neurological Disease"

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=53106

"Glyphosate, a chelating agent—relevant for ecological risk assessment?"

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5823954/

"Glyphosate complexation to aluminium(III). An equilibrium and structural study in solution using potentiometry, multinuclear NMR, ATR–FTIR, ESI-MS and DFT calculations"

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01620...

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

#146

Post by brightball »

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.

Posted this above, but will repost here because it's relevant.

There are numerous studies that show glyphosate binds with aluminum and other metals, having negative impacts on public health.

"Aluminum and Glyphosate Can Synergistically Induce Pineal Gland Pathology: Connection to Gut Dysbiosis and Neurological Disease"

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=53106

"Glyphosate, a chelating agent—relevant for ecological risk assessment?"

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5823954/

"Glyphosate complexation to aluminium(III). An equilibrium and structural study in solution using potentiometry, multinuclear NMR, ATR–FTIR, ESI-MS and DFT calculations"

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01620...

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

#147

Post by bluGill »

nozzlegear wrote: post #38
bluGill wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Perhaps if herbicides weren't viable, more work would've gone into developing the mechanical alternatives and we'd have had solar-powered machines removing weeds from fields.

Soil resistance is worse than air resistance, but similar concept. It needs a lot of energy to overcome.

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

#148

Post by onlypassingthru »

array_key_first wrote: post #128
eagsalazar2 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why not? A fecal transplant seems to work for C. difficile sufferers.

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

#149

Post by bluGill »

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…

The major important gmo patents are expiring close to it. If that is your argument it isn't relevant. There are new patents but they are not hard to work around.

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

#150

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

criddell wrote: post #40
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If roundup is your alternative to starvation you're probably just delaying the inevitable. Yes. That is literally exactly what we're doing. You can't sustain the current human population without fertilizers and pesticides made from fossil fuels. Half the people on the planet would die. If we don't want half the planet to die, we need pesticides. So do you choose a pesticide that's more harmful, or less? If you said…

I think you meant to write herbicide rather than pesticide.

Ah you're right, glyphosate is the herbicide. We also need the pesticides to keep the yields up.
Post reply on HN