In glyphosate review, WHO agency edited out “non-carcinogenic” findings (2017) • Hacker News Board

Re: In glyphosate review, WHO agency edited out “non-carcinogenic” findings (2017)

#71

Post by perl4ever » Wed, Dec 25, 2019, 9:39 PM UTC

glofish wrote: post #21

zo1 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most non-profit organizations are in some way biased toward maintaining their own existence alongside their actual goal. I would reckon that would be a good place to start looking for "follow the money". I'm sure I could come up with one, though without thinking too deeply, it'd probably end up being a little too contrived, far-fetched or conspiratorial. Not as a way to boast, but more to illustrate that if we accept…

Some might call this a jaded and a cynical view but is one that I have also observed and concluded that is more realistic than we care to admit. It is not a conspiracy, it is not a predetermined plan, it just happens that certain kinds of people get promoted to leadership positions in these organizations. It is a survival phenomenon, an evolutionary principle at work. The organization does its best to ensure the futu…

I don't disagree in principle, but this sort of "realist" commentary tends to be advanced whenever people get too out of sorts about a for-profit company to whom the same logic applies.

There's a reason big companies defend hundreds of lawsuits at any given time, and it's simply because they do a lot of bad stuff and society doesn't shut them down for it. I've worked in litigation support, and you know what? Non-profits were not the ones paying us $$$. It may be that the sort of companies (banks, drug companies, chemical companies) people love to hate are still a net benefit to society. But they don't have the all the slings and arrows aimed at them because of a conspiracy of plaintiffs' lawyers and whatnot, but because they do harm on a daily basis.

Re: In glyphosate review, WHO agency edited out “non-carcinogenic” findings (2017)

#72

Post by emodendroket » Sat, Dec 28, 2019, 4:49 AM UTC

perl4ever wrote: post #70

gumby wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That cuts both ways. Look at California Prop 65: it’s so widely applicable that the posted signs are ubiquitous and thus meaningless. I don’t have a fix for this problem and I do have a bias for more info; just saying it isn’t obvious.

Those warnings are useless not because they're ubiquitous, but because they don't specify the reason/ingredient. I'm not sure whether that's allowed by the law, or it's just that the law isn't fully enforced. So I don't think you're making an argument against disclosure, just against bad law or scofflaws.

Also, a neutral description of the things used without a warning per se should be fine for consumers who care about avoiding them.

Re: In glyphosate review, WHO agency edited out “non-carcinogenic” findings (2017)

#73

Post by perl4ever » Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 2:16 AM UTC

emodendroket wrote: post #72

perl4ever wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those warnings are useless not because they're ubiquitous, but because they don't specify the reason/ingredient. I'm not sure whether that's allowed by the law, or it's just that the law isn't fully enforced. So I don't think you're making an argument against disclosure, just against bad law or scofflaws.

Also, a neutral description of the things used without a warning per se should be fine for consumers who care about avoiding them.

I feel like the phrase "neutral description of the things used" might be loaded.

Everybody seems to have "warnings" these days like "Cancer and reproductive harm". That's not a warning or a description.