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

191–200 of 231 posts

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

#191

Post by hinkley »

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.

Roundup also contains a very strong surfactant and we know that those totally fuck up your GI as well.

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

#192

Post by hinkley »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #171
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 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?

Roundup-Ready is a subset of GMO crops. I don't know how profitable they are but it's one of the more loudly announced groups.

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

#193

Post by JumpCrisscross »

coolkewlcuil wrote: post #185
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> my use seems to fit the definition to me

Where is that definition from? It lacks key elements of the definition, notably, an agenda.

Your operating definition would turn the teaching of evolution (or frankly, any education or broadly-communicated message) into propaganda.

That isn’t a serious claim. If it is for someone, that person’s definition of propaganda isn’t the generally-accepted one, which means it’s unclear how they’re speaking about anything else. By being hyperbolic you’re getting downvoted and ignored.

> You are applying personal emotional bias

Nope. I’m explaining why a serious argument you’re making, one that deserves consideration, is being downvoted and ignored for being introduced with a thoroughly unserious assertion.

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

#194

Post by internet_points »

tptacek wrote: post #67
titzer wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I don't know of people claiming that microplastics are "killing us", there are dozens of papers that implicate microplastics in negative health effects from hearts to intestines, to sperm. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2309822 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.3c09524 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.1c03924 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/ebiom/article/PIIS2352-39... There are a…

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jan/13/micropla... (This is a summary of a Nature Matters Arising article).

I understood that article as there being many bad studies on how much plastics are in our body. But I find it highly unlikely there isn't any plastic in my body, from my toothbrush or chewing gum or water bottle or that old black plastic spatula I fry my eggs with or the air that pushes all kinds of particles into me etc. etc. And studies like your parent comment's https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12692081/ make it seem likely that they could have some negative effect. So I'm not worried about it, but I also find it a good idea to be cautious (maybe I'll avoid heating food in plastic containers) and for there to be more research into it.

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

#195

Post by [deleted] »

themafia wrote: post #187
tptacek wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[deleted]

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

#196

Post by justinclift »

pfdietz wrote: post #155
justinclift wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? :)

Yes, yes, let's imagine automated turbo communism where all inventions can be made outside the free market. 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.

That's the same line Private Equity often trots out, and those seem to corrode the world far more than they improve it.

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

#197

Post by 21asdffdsa12 »

If all of agriculture went fully organic tomorrow, no fertilizer, no fungicide, no insecitizide, no herbicide- billions would starve. Organic advocates who do not present viable alternatives are monsterous.

We almost saw that played out in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_economic_crisis_(20... - and its a call for genocide on the economic less prosperous by economic means. It should be treated as that - regardless of the appeal of the ideology pushing for such measures.

And that is coming from someone rooting for weeding robots to remove parts of the pressure to use herbicides.

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

#198

Post by defrost »

hinkley wrote: post #190
stubish wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Real farmers, all 3,500 of them in local coop, take careful measures to control everything on large farms- spraying is generaly done at night for the cooler temps, rates are watched as over spray costs $$'s etc. Seed volumes are manually run through air seeder calibrate seed weight per acre, etc.

The trend today is toward AgBot / SwarmBot type boom sprayers with onboard weather stations for wind speed and air temp, coupled with computer vision to limit spray to actual weeds rather than broad area even spray for weed / non weed alike.

Again, driven by $$ watching, etc.

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

#199

Post by malfist »

coolkewlcuil wrote: post #180
gzread wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO SCOTUS should retain the power to interpret vagaries of law; Congress still holds ultimate power, as it can pass a more specific law overriding their interpretation. What about striking down unconstitutional laws, though? That has to be up to SCOTUS, nobody else can do it.

SCOTUS granted itself that power. Their originalist powers are extremely limited. So do not listen to justices that claim to be "originalist". SCOTUS authority to strike laws is self dealing and not at all an originalist power. The original expectation was the public would demand such change via elections every 2-6 years and remove the corrupted Senator or Representative. SCOTUS is not supposed to have power over the…

This is just not true. Yes the SCOTUS ruled that it had the right to judicial review, because that's what the constitution said it had the power to do. This isn't "granting itself that power" anymore than Congress granted itself the power to pass laws or the president granting themselves the power to execute laws.

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

#200

Post by ceejayoz »

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.

> The evidence on glyphosphate causing cancer isn’t particularly strong.

This may be the case.

But I remember tobacco execs testifying under oath in the mid 90s that nicotine wasn't addictive and that there wasn't strong evidence smoking directly caused cancer.

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

https://senate.ucsf.edu/tobacco-ceo-statement-to-congress

https://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/15/us/tobacco-chiefs-say-cig...

> The executives also made a number of other notable admissions, including these:

> * Cigarettes may cause lung cancer, heart disease and other health problems, but the evidence is not conclusive.

> * Despite earlier denials, a Philip Morris study that suggested that animals could become addicted to nicotine was suppressed in 1983 and 1985.

Post reply on HN