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

181–190 of 231 posts

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

#181

Post by JumpCrisscross »

tptacek wrote: post #175
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> why would we?

They’re annoying and might go home with a symbolic win.

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

#182

Post by JumpCrisscross »

coolkewlcuil wrote: post #178
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ot…

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

Sure. The definition of propaganda OP uses is an internet niche one to mean any broadly-held (and thus disseminated) theory one disagrees with.

The argument against co-equal branches is a legitimate one. Calling the theory propaganda cheapens a real argument by making it look childish.

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

#183

Post by array_key_first »

onlypassingthru wrote: post #148
array_key_first wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A fecal transplant definitely doesn't work for celiac disease, which is the only gluten intolerance you have to worry about.

Other gluten intolerance is probably not gluten, gluten is just a close enough proxy. Could be FODMAP + IBS or maybe some other sensitivity.

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

#184

Post by Suppafly »

yosamino wrote: post #32
quickthrowman wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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.

The thing is, that existed for like 100 years before GMOs were a thing. Basically no one saves seeds to reuse and didn't even prior to GMOs. The whole "poor farmers can't save their seeds" thing is propaganda from the organics industry that gets repeated by people who don't understand modern (or even semi-modern) works.

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

#185

Post by coolkewlcuil »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #182
coolkewlcuil wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ot…

> Definition of language is not up to you but society in the aggregate Sure. The definition of propaganda OP uses is an internet niche one to mean any broadly-held (and thus disseminated) theory one disagrees with. The argument against co-equal branches is a legitimate one. Calling the theory propaganda cheapens a real argument by making it look childish.

propaganda /prŏp″ə-găn′də/

noun The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

...my use seems to fit the definition to me.

You are applying personal emotional bias to a very plain stated definition.

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

#186

Post by [deleted] »

Tuna-Fish wrote: post #140
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…

Using last years harvest stopped being a thing when heterosis was developed, 90 years ago. The entire argument is stupid, only bad/hobby farmers plant their own seed.

[deleted]

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

#187

Post by themafia »

tptacek wrote: post #115
themafia wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why is that a desired outcome?

Why is using Glyphosate worth defending? Does it make food taste better, or grow larger, or become more nutruitious?

If the only value is to increase the value of crops, by planting patent seeds, and then dousing the land in weed killer, perhaps people, regardless of the published scientific quality of their rationale, think that our food supply would be better off without it.

Unless the suggestion that Glyphosate is the only way to grow the necessary amount of food then I think the question should be: What justifies it's use? So then why would you bother to care if the imputed and over generalized public rationale is right or wrong?

If it is in fact so worth using then why shouldn't the government use imminent domain to capture the patents and distribute the technology for free?

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

#188

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

#189

Post by hinkley »

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…

Monsanto is pretty consistent about trying to change the noun to glyphosate from roundup any chance they get.

If you refer to it as glyphosate, as GP does, that either means you've fallen victim to their PR campaign, or labels you as a paid astroturfer.

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

#190

Post by hinkley »

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...

And real farmers have bad days and have difficulty maintaining the prescribed application conditions.

For one, you can't control what the weather does in the afternoon after you've applied it in the morning (and it might take all morning because farms are huge and you have to tank up again)

Post reply on HN