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

221–230 of 231 posts

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

#221

Post by themafia »

tptacek wrote: post #209
themafia wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This question has been answered several times on the thread already: because glyphosate is more benign, and relatively more inert, than other herbicides. The case for it is not complicated.

> This question has been answered several times on the thread already

Yet you continue to respond. So why mention it?

> because glyphosate is more benign, and relatively more inert, than other herbicides

Except for the fact you have to use genetically modified crop seeds to survive it. Do other herbicides require this?

> The case for it is not complicated.

The case against it isn't either.

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

#222

Post by tptacek »

themafia wrote: post #221
tptacek wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This question has been answered several times on the thread already: because glyphosate is more benign, and relatively more inert, than other herbicides. The case for it is not complicated.

> This question has been answered several times on the thread already Yet you continue to respond. So why mention it? > because glyphosate is more benign, and relatively more inert, than other herbicides Except for the fact you have to use genetically modified crop seeds to survive it. Do other herbicides require this? > The case for it is not complicated. The case against it isn't either.

You asked a question. I just answered it. And no, the logic you just gave about GM makes no sense. Herbicides long predate GM crops!

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

#223

Post by inquirerGeneral »

rpmisms wrote: post #164
pfdietz wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Changing your diet disrupts the gut biome. When I started eating bran flakes it massively disrupted my gut biome. Should I be alarmed? Or are you slipping a double standard in there, perhaps from the naturalistic fallacy?

Maybe you should see if you adjust to the bran flakes, cut them out if you don't improve, and see if there's a difference? All sorts of things can disrupt gut biomes, and I think ancestral diets are an interesting area of study. Gut inflammation is absolutely rampant.

[dead]

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

#224

Post by fmajid »

I'm assuming Clarence Thomas, formerly a lawyer for Monsanto, will again not recuse himself, just as he did not for General Electric Co. v. Joiner (1997), Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms (2010) or Bowman v. Monsanto Co. (2013), and purely coincidentally no doubt, ruled for Monsanto.

The rule of law is well and truly dead in the United States.

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

#225

Post by victorbjorklund »

jayd16 wrote: post #87
victorbjorklund wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, not regardless of magnitude. But anything that have a large impact on food prices will decrease the ability of poor people to pay for it. It’s not rocket science.

Then it's a discussion about magnitude and jumping to starvation is unfounded.

People are already starving in the world. With higher prices the amount of people starving would be more. It's gonna be ten thousand more or a million more? That's up for debate.

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

#226

Post by gzread »

tptacek wrote: post #220
gzread wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can for using them commercially.

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

#227

Post by tptacek »

gzread wrote: post #226
tptacek wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can for using them commercially.

Feel free to cite a case where that happened. I don't think you can.

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

#228

Post by acmotifs »

21asdffdsa12 wrote: post #213
acmotifs wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

? 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…

You may not be aware, modern fertilizer is not as cheap and accessible as you believe. Closing Hormuz affects everyone’s food access, not sure that’s a great system.

https://apple.news/AQ4nHcV41Qd6azTmXaEDHPg

https://www.npr.org/2026/04/25/nx-s1-5795674/farmers-tariffs...

https://apple.news/AMiKpZ2bAS6Os1h7C2gl7_w

https://apple.news/A9S4aFHoiQw-Tl1Q9TsQbeg

? Organic Valley is not a hobby, over a billion in revenues.

? Seems like the current way of doing things leads to a lot of externalities that aren’t accounted for…

https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/fertilizer-and-climate-

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

#230

Post by mapt »

rpmisms wrote: post #86
mapt wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are inferring from our crude understanding of processes in general. Evidence is more specific. Do you have an exclusion trial comparing glyphosate vs non-glyphosate diets? This is amenable to natural experiments where one country bans it on a specific date and the neighbor does not.

Here's a decent one: 13% of the UK reports gluten intolerance symptoms, and only 7% of Germany does. The UK allows pre-harvest glyphosate desiccation, Germany doesn't. I would be happy to bet that the trend continues past my quick Google search.

N=2.
Post reply on HN