151–160 of 231 posts
A note: It appears that the picture in the article is if the new formulation for tonight, not the one containing glyphosate.
[1] Cancer incidence and death rates in Argentine rural towns surrounded by pesticide-treated agricultural land: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221339842...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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!
Sure. If no-one does the R&D.
Perhaps if rent seeking is the mechanism for getting there, then it's better off if they don't? :)
Isn't there some bureaucratic way to just tie up the Supreme Court for three years? Their rulings have been extremely damaging and we need a sane balance to return before important stuff like this ends up being decided.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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!
> Because if no one does the R&D to create the seeds they WON'T EXIST. Sure. If no-one does the R&D. Perhaps if rent seeking is the mechanism for getting there, then it's better off if they don't? :)
Here in the real world, private firms are the source of things like this. Roundup Ready soybeans involved cooperation from multiple private firms that contributed various elements.
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…
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…
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-bogeyman...
It's based on a Rube Goldberg causal mechanism and a slapdash correlation analysis that vibes glyphosate as the presumed cause of sleep disorder and autism diagnostic increases over the preceding 20 years --- glyphosate went up, autism went up, what more is there to say?
A later review of the literature on glyphosate went out of its way to exclude it:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00420-022-01878-0...
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.
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—relevan…
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. 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…
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…
https://www.worldenergydata.org/roundup-herbicide-ingredient...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like this would actually be good to decide now if the court were truly a "conservative" court - there is no legitimate reason for preemption to apply to labeling laws (even as broken as California's labeling law is), as labeling a product a certain way is not a mutually-exclusive action. But I expect the rank hypocrisy will win out, especially with the "culture war" backdrop of California delenda est.
> there is no legitimate reason for preemption to apply to labeling laws (even as broken as California's labeling law is), as labeling a product a certain way is not a mutually-exclusive action. That's not really what preemption is about. A major point of having "interstate commerce" -- actual products crossing state lines -- at the federal level, is to prevent states from enacting trade barriers. Suppose California…
> So they could preempt California from requiring labeling on products shipped from Ohio, or require specific federal labeling on the things that are, but only California gets to decide about the things that never leave California
In my ideal world I'd slightly adjust the framing here. California law should apply to products that are being sold within California, regardless where they may have previously been (yes, that would be a complete repudiation of Wickard v Filburn's declaration that a butterfly flapping its wings is interstate commerce). A California distributor or retail store that gets shipments from Ohio but then sells locally should be required to follow California law about what they're selling, as those sales are occurring wholly in California. Also if Ohio and California can agree on something that differs from federal, then that should also take it out of federal preemption territory. But of Ohio and California cannot agree, and someone in California orders direct from Ohio, only then federal law should step in with preemption.