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

Monsanto Weed Killer Roundup Faces New Doubts on Safety in Unsealed Documents

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 261 posts

Re: Monsanto Weed Killer Roundup Faces New Doubts on Safety in Unsealed Documents

#81

Post by mythrwy »

mikekchar wrote: post #62
baldfat wrote: post #11

The funny thing is we have less herbicides because of Roundup. The option is we starve the world, because we will not be able to product enough wheat etc. or we use stronger herbicides. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/organic-farming-y...

There is actually another option -- especially with respect to herbicides: manual labour. Herbicides don't increase yield. They decrease cost. Wheat is currently $4.35 a bushel. A bushel of wheat is about 60 lbs. So, we're paying just over 7 cents a pound for wheat. Fix the distribution side, not the production side. There's a lot more fat there. And in the mean time, research ways of reducing labour on physical meth…

Assume the option of substituting manual labor for Roundup was feasible it's quite probable many more people would die of skin cancer from being in the sun or snakebites or hoe accidents or car wrecks on the way out to the field than currently die from Roundup.

I love the environment and nature but sometimes we cause bigger problems trying to solve smaller problems. And pay extra to do so.

Re: Monsanto Weed Killer Roundup Faces New Doubts on Safety in Unsealed Documents

#82

Post by shriphani »

alevskaya wrote: post #61
abandonliberty wrote: post #32

I've been researching this. 1. Glyphosate (roundup) use is two orders of magnitude higher than originally approved. 2. Due to the emergence of glyphosate-resistant weeds, the dosage has been increased substantially. 3. It is now also usually combined with other compounds to increase effectiveness, which affects how it breaks down and affects both the food and environment. 4. It is now also used for 'green burndown'.…

There are many conflicts of interest in the world - organic farming is an industry too. e.g. at least one of those 14 experts is an active member of the organic industry and has long had a beef with the GMO industry: https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/charles-ben... As to the science: the original highly-questionable IARC determination has since been contested by both the European Chemical Agency and th…

As Nicholas Taleb put it - stuff that is natural is time-tested. Food we've grown + consumed has a multi-millennium history of being safe to consume. The burden of proof is on the synthetic. And health issues can materialize with a time gap of a decade or so - essentially you can ruin a couple of generations with a mistake you didn't catch in time.

It doesn't help when those who have to prove their validity have to resort to regulatory capture so often.

Re: Monsanto Weed Killer Roundup Faces New Doubts on Safety in Unsealed Documents

#83

Post by jnordwick »

drakonandor wrote: post #73
beautifulfreak wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/ITX_2013_06_04_Seneff.pdf

Is Seneff an expert on whatever sub-field of biology this is?

CS grads think they are experts on everything. Does that count?

Re: Monsanto Weed Killer Roundup Faces New Doubts on Safety in Unsealed Documents

#84

Post by sametmax »

alevskaya wrote: post #61
abandonliberty wrote: post #32

I've been researching this. 1. Glyphosate (roundup) use is two orders of magnitude higher than originally approved. 2. Due to the emergence of glyphosate-resistant weeds, the dosage has been increased substantially. 3. It is now also usually combined with other compounds to increase effectiveness, which affects how it breaks down and affects both the food and environment. 4. It is now also used for 'green burndown'.…

There are many conflicts of interest in the world - organic farming is an industry too. e.g. at least one of those 14 experts is an active member of the organic industry and has long had a beef with the GMO industry: https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/charles-ben... As to the science: the original highly-questionable IARC determination has since been contested by both the European Chemical Agency and th…

Ockham's razor reasoning is that a gigantic profit driven structure with a huge lobbying activity, and high financial stakes should probably not be trusted with making the right choice between their business and our health.

History tells it didn't work very well for us when the big guys said tobacco, asbestos, the Chernobyl cloud and PCBs were all safe and good.

Given Monsanto's pretty poor moral track record (improper accounting for incentive rebates, Agent Orange, terminator seeds, patent trolling...), it's only fair to be suspicious by default with them.

Re: Monsanto Weed Killer Roundup Faces New Doubts on Safety in Unsealed Documents

#85

Post by yodsanklai »

djsumdog wrote: post #27

It's difficult to judge long term toxicity in humans. You don't immediately keel over and die when you smoke a cigarette, and the correlation between lung cancer and cigarettes needs a fully understandable cause. That's how the industry slipped by for years. Likewise, most European countries do not fluoridate their water and the correlation doesn't seem to show any significant difference in dental health. The anti-fl…

> Likewise, most European countries do not fluoridate their water and the correlation doesn't seem to show any significant difference in dental health

I've never researched this so it may be confirmation bias, but my experience living in Europe and the US is that Americans have better looking teeth.

Re: Monsanto Weed Killer Roundup Faces New Doubts on Safety in Unsealed Documents

#86

Post by sametmax »

shriphani wrote: post #82
alevskaya wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many conflicts of interest in the world - organic farming is an industry too. e.g. at least one of those 14 experts is an active member of the organic industry and has long had a beef with the GMO industry: https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/charles-ben... As to the science: the original highly-questionable IARC determination has since been contested by both the European Chemical Agency and th…

As Nicholas Taleb put it - stuff that is natural is time-tested. Food we've grown + consumed has a multi-millennium history of being safe to consume. The burden of proof is on the synthetic. And health issues can materialize with a time gap of a decade or so - essentially you can ruin a couple of generations with a mistake you didn't catch in time. It doesn't help when those who have to prove their validity have to r…

Particularly, they have been time-tested in a complex system.

Our tests are not only limited in time, but also in complexity. Scientists take a sample of subjects in a defined environment. The benefit of that is that they can draw definitive conclusions because of the manageable variables. The problem with it is that you fail to see the big picture, the many interactions with the numerous components of a real life activity, and on the long run.

When talking about living things and food, or in that case, living things that are food, the context is incredibly important to define what is safe or not.

Re: Monsanto Weed Killer Roundup Faces New Doubts on Safety in Unsealed Documents

#87

Post by hcurtiss »

djyaz1200 wrote: post #77

Having held my mothers hand as she received chemo for her Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma I can tell you this... if there is a even a tiny chance using Roundup increases the risk of the disease it isn't worth it.

This is a difficult position to maintain when we promote many activities that kill many people every day (e.g., driving). Sometimes the profound benefits of certain activities are worth the the "tiny chance" of downside risk. Whether this is one of those is up for debate, but it doesn't seem you're attributing any value to using glyphosate, which there doubtless is some.

Re: Monsanto Weed Killer Roundup Faces New Doubts on Safety in Unsealed Documents

#88

Post by sametmax »

macandcheese wrote: post #72

It's not legal for sale in New York, mostly because of false advertising the company previously did touting it's biodegradability, even going so far as to say that it's "practically non-toxic". In fact, they continue to be the subject of a class action lawsuit in NY: https://www.law360.com/articles/849367/monsanto-trims-but-ca... Unfortunately all that may come of that lawsuit is a small label change... It pains me t…

It's a recent trend in many niche (but maybe somehow influential ?) social networks like HN or some subreddits. Controversial big players are having more and more supportive comments, despite previously being famous for dubious proven activities.

It wasn't like that at the beginning. I tend to put my tinfoil hat on when I think about what could have caused it.

Re: Monsanto Weed Killer Roundup Faces New Doubts on Safety in Unsealed Documents

#89

Post by bkkssnn »

sametmax wrote: post #84
alevskaya wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many conflicts of interest in the world - organic farming is an industry too. e.g. at least one of those 14 experts is an active member of the organic industry and has long had a beef with the GMO industry: https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/charles-ben... As to the science: the original highly-questionable IARC determination has since been contested by both the European Chemical Agency and th…

Ockham's razor reasoning is that a gigantic profit driven structure with a huge lobbying activity, and high financial stakes should probably not be trusted with making the right choice between their business and our health. History tells it didn't work very well for us when the big guys said tobacco, asbestos, the Chernobyl cloud and PCBs were all safe and good. Given Monsanto's pretty poor moral track record (improp…

Don't forget when Lead was claimed to be "safe" enough to put into gasoline - . -

Re: Monsanto Weed Killer Roundup Faces New Doubts on Safety in Unsealed Documents

#90

Post by DannyBee »

crumchunks wrote: post #42
a_bonobo wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a common misconception that organic food doesn't use pesticides - the USDA's list of allowed pesticides has quite a few pesticides that are dangerous to humans, such as various coppers, elemental sulfur, boric acid, the list is here: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9874504b6f1...

Did you even read your own link?

Did you?

Things like copper sulfate, etc are not exactly on the "great for humans" list.

Post reply on HN