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

211–220 of 231 posts

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

#211

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

hinkley wrote: post #189
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…

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.

Or, third option, it could mean you're one of the few scientifically literate critical thinkers who doesn't jump on one or another end of extreme arguments, looks for evidence, and understands nuance

I admit that's probably like 1 out of every 100,000 people, but they're out there

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

#212

Post by PyWoody »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #89
EvanAnderson wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bindweed is evil incarnate in plant form. Wouldn't wish that on anybody.

We hand some log droughts here about 10 years ago where you were not allowed to water the lawn at all. I would have expected a single dominate weed to take over, but instead, if I let the grass grow for 6-8 weeks in summer I get this amazing field of different knee length plants. And it alive with bee's and butterflies. I much prefer it to lawn.

I would love to do that, if if weren't for ticks.

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

#213

Post by 21asdffdsa12 »

acmotifs wrote: post #210
21asdffdsa12 wrote: post #197

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 -…

? There are organic fertilizers, and natural methods of pest control. Sure they cost more than modern chemicals. If you get sick from the modern chemicals, the costs incurred from treatment might be higher than the organic premium. https://www.organicvalley.coop/blog/organic-farming-from-the... https://www.arbico-organics.com/category/aphid-control-preve...

Its not whether you get sick or not. Its about having something available- anything. You treat a matter of survival like a luxury problem - which it is not. Without fertilizer human civilization is over. Just because you can engage in a "hobby" version of something as a luxury, does not mean you can have any valid contribution to the discussion for those unable to afford the luxury.

And if you contribute anyway- you are naive or mercilessly willing to sacrifice millions in the 3 digits. Which makes this one of the more murderous ideologies- that ever roamed the earth- just because it has spots on the apples on the flyers does not make it so.

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

#214

Post by tim333 »

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).

Since that "doubt cast on discovery of microplastics" article there has been the

>Scientists Tracking the Microplastic Pollution Just Realized They Were Measuring Their Own Lab Gloves

thing. Which was quite entertaining. Reminds me of my own abilities as an experimental scientist.

(https://www.zmescience.com/ecology/environmental-issues/scie...)

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

#216

Post by array_key_first »

mint5 wrote: post #206
array_key_first wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why are you narrowly focusing on gluten intolerance when this line of comments appears to be denying whether gut biome is worth caring about due to having impacts on health?

Because the parent used their anecdote of gluten intolerance to explain why caring about the gut microbiome matters. But traditional gluten intolerances are not related to the gut microbiome.

We also don't really understand why things like a FODMAP diet work. It's not that feeding your gut bacteria is bad, it's actually pretty good. But for some people it's bad, and they get symptoms they attribute to gluten intolerance.

Legumes, onions, whole grain etc that are high FODMAP are good for you. Fiber is good for you, it lowers your risk of metabolic diseases and helps your digestion. But, for some people, it's bad for their digestion. That's weird.

So all that is to say that, while gut bacteria matters, it varies person to person and we can't definitely say what food is good for the microbiome and what isn't.

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

#217

Post by JumpCrisscross »

okdawg wrote: post #208
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 uncle…

[flagged]

> just Googled the definition; it reads the same as the posted definition on various sites; from Merriams to Oxford

These are those source’s definitions [1][2]. They’re significantly more precise than the one I suspect you got from Google’s AI, hence your mis-use of the word. (Mis-use is fine. Doubling down against evidence is less forgiving.)

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/propaganda

[2] https://www.oed.com/dictionary/propaganda_n

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

#218

Post by onlypassingthru »

array_key_first wrote: post #216
mint5 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you narrowly focusing on gluten intolerance when this line of comments appears to be denying whether gut biome is worth caring about due to having impacts on health?

Because the parent used their anecdote of gluten intolerance to explain why caring about the gut microbiome matters. But traditional gluten intolerances are not related to the gut microbiome. We also don't really understand why things like a FODMAP diet work. It's not that feeding your gut bacteria is bad, it's actually pretty good. But for some people it's bad, and they get symptoms they attribute to gluten intolera…

I think the interesting point as evidenced by the fecal transplant therapy is that it's not "the" microbiome, it's "your" microbiome. Maybe some people have bad (C. difficile) or incompatible (various E. coli strains) microbiomes and need a microbiome hard reboot.

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

#219

Post by wasabi991011 »

array_key_first wrote: post #183
onlypassingthru wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Could be FODMAP + IBS or maybe some other sensitivity.

Seems extremely unlikely. Of someone is eliminating gluten they from their diet they usually aren't also eliminating dairy, legumes, and other high-fodmap foods; gluten-free is restrictive enough already.

The only other sensitivity I could think of in which this makes sense is wheat sensitivity (but not other gluten containing grains which are less common).

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

#220

Post by tptacek »

gzread wrote: post #203
HDThoreaun wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is absolutely no case law suggesting it is illegal to harvest and keep accidentally cross contaminated seed. Seeing as farming seeds is default legal there would need to be precedent otherwise for such an act to be illegal.

There is patent law. Patent law says you can't do the patented thing without the license. Growing the seeds is patented. So you can't grow them without license. This may be so obvious that it never needed to become a notable precedent-setting case.

Nice of you to axiomatically rederive patent law for us, but this is false. You cannot be sued simply for allowing seeds that blew onto your land grow.
Post reply on HN