Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why does the US allow a controversial weedkiller banned across the world?

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–197 of 197 posts

Re: Why does the US allow a controversial weedkiller banned across the world?

#191

Post by imglorp »

dekhn wrote: post #99
imglorp wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Roundup is also available at your home center in a big flashy display. This seems like criminal deception and disregard for public safety.

It would be if there was unambiguous proof that roundup was unsafe and that the manufacturer knew it. The health risks of glyphosate are ... not well determined and nobody has made a conclusive case. There was a lot of noise in the past done by scientists operating not in good faith.

That's interesting. Bayer settled some $10 billion in lawsuits: yes agree, class action shystering is not necessarily evidence of anything. But that's a LOT of go-away money which might indicate the risk at trial with actual evidence would be even more than 10B.

Given so much suspicion about this substance, homeowners are probably not equipped to handle it safely in a spray bottle with a mile of fine print on it. Professional farmers might be if well informed.

Re: Why does the US allow a controversial weedkiller banned across the world?

#192

Post by CoastalCoder »

refurb wrote: post #173
CoastalCoder wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That training is given to general employees, not to the lobbying firms that the company hires.

You realize that lobbyists have to be registered and have laws around appropriate behavior? I’ve been involved in lobbying efforts before as an employee of a firm. It’s not bribery. The company pays a lobbying firm to strategize around an issue, put together talking points or a white paper and leverage their network (as registered lobbyists) to argue their point with various politicians. There is no money transfer ha…

Apologies, I wasn't drawing enough of a distinction between lobbying, legalized campaign contributions by corporations, and other forms of influence peddling.

Re: Why does the US allow a controversial weedkiller banned across the world?

#193

Post by sooheon »

colechristensen wrote: post #103
sooheon wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would more easily support a "ban all herbicides" movement... Though I would be somewhat skeptical of the feasibility of going completely herbicide-free. This is my view as well. If your skepticism of a herbicide free system stems from the meme that we need industrialized agriculture to feed the world, you can rest assured that small agriculture and local permaculture is more than capable of feeding the world: htt…

Sri Lanka tried wholesale banning of everything and it was a disaster. >small agriculture and local permaculture … feeding the world Requires a major restructuring of civilization and economic upheavals involving an enormous number of people returning to food production. It might be a yuppie ideal to go start up a hobby farm but a few rich people having fun is a lot different than changing world economies. It’s not s…

Yeah, the best way to stop a car isn't to run it into a brick wall.

> It’s quite hard to feed the poor by throwing out industrialization and replacing it with lots of labor. This makes food much more expensive.

This is untrue. Small farms produce the majority of the world's food, despite increasing industrialization. More importantly, small farms are more efficient than big agro.

> In the European Union, 20 countries register a higher rate of production per hectare on small farms than on large farms. In nine EU countries, productivity of small farms is at least twice that of big farms.55 In the seven countries where large farms have higher productivity, it is only slightly higher than that of small farms.56 This tendency is confirmed by numerous studies in other countries and regions, all of them showing higher productivity on small farms.

> Our data indicate, for example, that if all farms in Kenya had the current productivity of the country's small farms, Kenya's agricultural production would double. In Central America and Ukraine, it would almost triple. In Hungary and Tajikistan it would increase by 30%. In Russia, it would be increased by a factor of six.57

> Although big farms generally consume more resources, control the best lands, receive most of the irrigation water and infrastructure, get most of the financial credit and technical assistance, and are the ones for whom most modern inputs are designed, they have lower technical efficiency and therefore lower overall productivity. Much of this has to do with low levels of employment used on big farms in order to maximise return on investment.58

https://grain.org/article/entries/4929-hungry-for-land-small...

We don't need economic upheaval, just stop regulatory capture and stop giving handouts to big agro.

Re: Why does the US allow a controversial weedkiller banned across the world?

#194

Post by sooheon »

epgui wrote: post #98
sooheon wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would more easily support a "ban all herbicides" movement... Though I would be somewhat skeptical of the feasibility of going completely herbicide-free. This is my view as well. If your skepticism of a herbicide free system stems from the meme that we need industrialized agriculture to feed the world, you can rest assured that small agriculture and local permaculture is more than capable of feeding the world: htt…

I don't think it would be technically impossible, but I do think it's a very very non-trivial problem that would require a lot of changes, some of which would be expensive and inflationary. It's a hard problem, and a lot of very smart academics (some of which I know personally and admire) are very interested in it.

What's expensive and inflationary is regulatory capture and almost a trillion $ of annual subsidies to big agro. Small farms already feed the majority of the world, and are more productive already. We just need to stop subsidizing big farms buying up all arable land.

Re: Why does the US allow a controversial weedkiller banned across the world?

#195

Post by TimTheTinker »

randomdata wrote: post #188
TimTheTinker wrote: post #9

I'm more worried about the GMO "roundup ready" seeds they sell, and the crops that result. Those contain alterations that (I hypothesize) are partially responsible for increased allergies in the US population.

Which “roundup ready”?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_Ready

Re: Why does the US allow a controversial weedkiller banned across the world?

#196

Post by epgui »

sooheon wrote: post #194
epgui wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it would be technically impossible, but I do think it's a very very non-trivial problem that would require a lot of changes, some of which would be expensive and inflationary. It's a hard problem, and a lot of very smart academics (some of which I know personally and admire) are very interested in it.

What's expensive and inflationary is regulatory capture and almost a trillion $ of annual subsidies to big agro. Small farms already feed the majority of the world, and are more productive already. We just need to stop subsidizing big farms buying up all arable land.

Oh, just that now? And then it’s a problem solved?

Re: Why does the US allow a controversial weedkiller banned across the world?

#197

Post by randomdata »

TimTheTinker wrote: post #195
randomdata wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which “roundup ready”?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_Ready

Let me try to be more clear: Which RR technology are you referring to? There are variants.
Post reply on HN