Live data from Hacker News

Impossible Foods Responds to Glyphosate Allegation

assets.ctfassets.net

81–90 of 90 posts

Re: Impossible Foods Responds to Glyphosate Allegation

#81
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't like use of pesticides and I think there's a reasonable controversy to be had about the dangers of Glyphosate. There's an important economic perspective to pesticide use: farmers are going to be doing whatever they can to kill enough pests to protect their crops and get a satisfactory yield/ROI. That means that, the more effective a pesticide is, the less of it they need to use; and the less effective a pes…

This assumes that all pesticides have the same effects at the same dosages in humans, which would be surprising if true. Sure, the more potent the pesticide, the less growers need to use, and the less residual pesticide ends up ingested by people. But it's impossible to say anything about the relative harm of a small residual amount of potent pesticide versus a larger residual amount of less potent (and chemically di…

> This assumes that all pesticides have the same effects at the same dosages in humans

Nah, my assumption was that the level of harm scales with the power of the pesticide in humans just as it does in, well, pests. (It's not true, but it's an interesting model to study.)

If we assume that relationship, it should imply that, if your vegetables were never washed once from the farm to your mouth, you'd be getting equivalent levels of harm from more- and less-powerful pesticides, since the amount of them sprayed on the vegetable would be in inverse proportion to their toxicity.

However, once you introduce washing, the amount of the pesticide you remove isn't constant, nor linear.

In fact, some pesticides are non-"organic" precisely because they have chemicals in them that make them more easily washed off!

So the better-engineered (less "natural") pesticides are both originally present in smaller quantities, and reduced in quantity more by washing. You might end up eating none of a synthetic pesticide, whereas an "organic" one might be all over your food even after washing. "None" is very different from even a little.

(Further, there are synthetic pesticides that are entirely safe for humans—or are even considered food by humans—but which are considered non-"organic" because we can only create them via de novo synthesis rather than in a bioreactor. Consider some artificial sugar that the human liver can process but insects cannot metabolize. If we sprayed it on plants, it'd be a "synthetic pesticide." If "synthetic pesticide" looks like that, and "organic pesticide" looks like, say, nicotine, which would you prefer to miss some residue of?)

Re: Impossible Foods Responds to Glyphosate Allegation

#82
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This assumes that all pesticides have the same effects at the same dosages in humans, which would be surprising if true. Sure, the more potent the pesticide, the less growers need to use, and the less residual pesticide ends up ingested by people. But it's impossible to say anything about the relative harm of a small residual amount of potent pesticide versus a larger residual amount of less potent (and chemically di…

> This assumes that all pesticides have the same effects at the same dosages in humans Nah, my assumption was that the level of harm scales with the power of the pesticide in humans just as it does in, well, pests. (It's not true , but it's an interesting model to study.) If we assume that relationship, it should imply that, if your vegetables were never washed once from the farm to your mouth, you'd be getting equiv…

> my assumption was that the level of harm scales with the power of the pesticide in humans just as it does in, well, pests.

This is a highly questionable assumption that you'll need to support or abandon. It's as important as your later points about washing.

For example, caffeine acts as a natural pesticide (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine#Natural_occurrence). It kills insects, but humans collectively consume 10 million tons per year.

As another example, diatomaceous earth kills pretty much anything with an exoskeleton through a physical mechanism, but is completely non-toxic to mammals (prolonged breathing is not a good idea, though). (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatomaceous_earth#Pest_contro...)

It is convenient but erroneous to assume that all pesticides affect humans and pests equally.

Re: Impossible Foods Responds to Glyphosate Allegation

#84

Why do they even bother answering allegations? If the other group believes whatever they believe in, any answer or evidence will only bolster their claims because they are already way into the pseudoscience camp. I don't like the taste of it but by golly I am going to support these new fangled vegan stuff: they are doing the right thing. Without GMOs a billion people in India will not be alive today. So let's not giv…

"Without GMOs a billion people in India will not be alive today. So let's not give these people any more attention than they deserve." I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest you don't have any evidence to back up this hyperbolic claim. It doesn't help your case by making up data especially when you're denigrating psuedoscience in the same breath.

It's not just India, and not just (or even largely) GMOs, but:

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

> Borlaug was often called "the father of the Green Revolution", and is credited with saving over a billion people worldwide from starvation. According to Jan Douglas, executive assistant to the president of the World Food Prize Foundation, the source of this number is Gregg Easterbrook's 1997 article "Forgotten Benefactor of Humanity." The article states that the "form of agriculture that Borlaug preaches may have prevented a billion deaths." He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 in recognition of his contributions to world peace through increasing food supply.

https://twin-cities.umn.edu/news-events/man-who-saved-billio...

Re: Impossible Foods Responds to Glyphosate Allegation

#85
post #23
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They also came from farmers who were using glyphosate solutions that included many other chemicals, and no doubt came into contact with a variety of other pesticides. A direct link between glyphosate and actual illness has not been established.

>has not been established Then why are lawsuits that claim those links have been established winning regularly in courts now?

Why the are winning _now_?

Great question. The answer seems to be "because Monsanto is now owned by a foreign company".

Before that those claims weren't really winning in the courts.

Re: Impossible Foods Responds to Glyphosate Allegation

#86

Why do they even bother answering allegations? If the other group believes whatever they believe in, any answer or evidence will only bolster their claims because they are already way into the pseudoscience camp. I don't like the taste of it but by golly I am going to support these new fangled vegan stuff: they are doing the right thing. Without GMOs a billion people in India will not be alive today. So let's not giv…

"Without GMOs a billion people in India will not be alive today. So let's not give these people any more attention than they deserve." I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest you don't have any evidence to back up this hyperbolic claim. It doesn't help your case by making up data especially when you're denigrating psuedoscience in the same breath.

I should have explained my comment. It's about a strain called IR8 that yields more rice per hectare. This saved so many lives in India and elsewhere. And yes I am thinking of Norman Borlaug.

Re: Impossible Foods Responds to Glyphosate Allegation

#87
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an uncanny valley of food. It tries so hard to simulate meat that it emphasizes its fakeness. Personally I prefer a simple vegetable patty that's not trying to be what it is not.

I thought all veggie patties to date have fallen into the "uncanny valley of food," whereas the Impossible patty is intended (and purported) to cross it entirely. People eat too much meat. The closer meat alternatives taste to actual meat, the more people will switch. So I strongly support innovation in this space.

The best I’ve had are nut cutlets or nut burgers. Stuff based on chickpeas can be great, basically a falafel burger. Falafels are awesome. There used to be a cafe on Charing Cross Road in London that did great vegetable fritter, served in a pita bread with salad, hummus and chillis.

Those are all fine foods, for me it’s not that veggie alternatives to meat don’t exits. They do and some of them are fantastic. It’s about variety. Giving up meat fur me would be a bit like giving up all nut cutlet/falafel type stuff and all other meat except chicken. I’ve not tried these new faux meat burgers, but will when so get the chance.

Re: Impossible Foods Responds to Glyphosate Allegation

#88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Failing to answer may be construed as a pregnant admission.

Is "pregnant admission" a typo, or a mutation from the phrase "pregnant pause"? If the latter, the metaphor is lost, as "pregnant" does not mean "tacit." https://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/7/messages/348.htm...

In that you're familiar with the metaphor I'm puzzled that you find it inappropriate. Where did it stray? One's silence when faced with an allegation where denial of a material allegation is appropriate is often construed as being "pregnant with admission" of the allegation.

Re: Impossible Foods Responds to Glyphosate Allegation

#89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> " the environmental impact of meat production is so enormous desastrous " Reference, please. In case you haven't seen what industrial plants agriculture looks like nowadays: https://www.ecowatch.com/europes-dirty-little-secret-morocca... The anti-meat propaganda is getting obnoxious. The most sustainable agriculture is one in which the soil is fertilised with manure and rotated livestock, because grazing animals k…

I'm just glad I got to read this comment before r/vegan showed up and downvoted it into oblivion. Such is the current state of discourse around this subject on HN. We need to eat less meat, we need to look after animals better and we need to do it in a much more eco-friendly and sustainable manner. We don't all need to go vegan. Going from one extreme to another is never the answer.

> We need to eat less meat

You might be interested in this submission (which got flagged so as to censor it out of the frontpage at that time): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20029519

Re: Impossible Foods Responds to Glyphosate Allegation

#90
post #45
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I'm certainly not an expert on this, but my understanding was that WHO had identified it as probably a carcinogen. https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/MonographVolu... Other studies show the link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S138357421... Now, admittedly, I don't have a strong background to stand on here, so I'm open to being convinced otherwise. And I would agree with the overa…

My understanding --- this is from memory, so correct me if I'm wrong --- is that IARC published a report classifying glyphosate as a 2A carcinogen (joining a long list of common substances that occur in food both naturally and as a result of processing), but that the broader WHO did not back this assessment up. Reuters also ran a story based on an earlier draft of the IARC report showing that evidence against the car…

No one cares about the truth. XYZ is identified as a potential carcinogen? It is mostly used to attack a dietary group involving XYZ than to actually cure cancer. You see this liberally happening with red meat, despite questionable evidence towards it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20029519

It is all rather amusing, actually.

Post reply on HN