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

Monsanto Weedkiller Is ‘Probably Carcinogenic,’ WHO Says

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 123 posts

Re: Monsanto Weedkiller Is ‘Probably Carcinogenic,’ WHO Says

#91

Post by realusername »

sukilot wrote: post #81
realusername wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually there is no evidence of this, a good proportion of of the food produced is actually used to feed animals which is the most inefficient way to produce food. Just by eating less meat (which makes sense because we are not supposed to eat so much meat), suddenly we don't need to product so much. The actual price of the food is so low currently that what you pay in a supermarket is mostly the externalities. Switc…

Most americans would happily choose cancer over vegetarianism. That part isn't Monsanto's fault. Source: I am a vegetarian who talks to omnivores and near-carnivores.

Yeah, that's the main problem I guess, the system is providing people what they want but not what they need. It works like any other market, the consumers want cheap meat so the industry is providing cheap meat. The whole industry is then shaped to solve the wrong problem. They don't even need to fully switch to vegetarianism for it to work but they need to understand that eating meat once in a while is healthier and more reasonable than having a diet based on eating meat every day.

Re: Monsanto Weedkiller Is ‘Probably Carcinogenic,’ WHO Says

#92

Post by realjakedoe »

rmason wrote: post #7

I know that its hard for someone to understand who doesn't work with farm chemicals on a regular basis but Roundup is on the low side in terms of toxicity. Here's a copy of a Material Safety Data Sheet that all those who handle herbicides need to maintain for employee access: http://greenhouse.ucdavis.edu/pest/pmsds/Roundup.PDF Almost anything is toxic, even salt, if the dose is high enough. The question that must be…

And who has written this data sheet? This data sheet is based on whose data?

Look back a few decades on the data sheets of Asbestos or Thalidomide. Or at the research about how smoking is safe. I believe a WHO panel of independent researchers more than your sponsored data sheet.

Re: Monsanto Weedkiller Is ‘Probably Carcinogenic,’ WHO Says

#93

Post by rl3 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #82
rl3 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I understand that you can't be responsible for people being randomly stupid, but if the stupidity is systematic and predictable, then indeed it becomes your responsibilty if you know about it and play into it for profit. Though I tend to agree, it's a bit of a stretch to conclude that an article, due to its brevity, was intentionally written that way for the sake of profit.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was written this way only because it's just how everyone writes such things these days (i.e. "it's cancer!!!1111") - but not having malicious intent doesn't change the fact it's harmful.

The value in awareness alone outweighs any supposed harm.

If the article didn't exist, the discussion about it on HN wouldn't either. Thus, some people would arguably be less informed as a result.

The first step to becoming informed on a topic is knowing it exists in the first place.

Re: Monsanto Weedkiller Is ‘Probably Carcinogenic,’ WHO Says

#94

Post by soufron »

healthisevil wrote: post #26
fit2rule wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whats your point? That the WHO are scare-mongering? That Monsanto shouldn't be held accountable for knowingly marketing a poisonous, carcinogenic substance and profiting from it in the billions?

The acetaminophen in Tylenol ( a common over the counter pain and fever medication used by millions of children and adults every day ) is carcinogenic and hepatotoxic. " There are, however, published data giving clear evidence that paracetamol causes chromosomal damage in vitro in mammalian cells at high concentrations and indicating that similar effects occur in vivo at high dosages. Available data point to three po…

This is such a stupid, misleading and criminal way to put things up. The world is toxic. You can die by crossing the path of a car. You can die by drowning. You can die by ingesting meat until you choke.

But why would you do that? There is a name to it. It's called suicide.

Accepting to use and eat toxic products when other possibilities exist is a form of suicide - even if it's collective.

Re: Monsanto Weedkiller Is ‘Probably Carcinogenic,’ WHO Says

#96

Post by ptaipale »

Ygg2 wrote: post #89
ideonexus wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wrote a blog post defending GMOs awhile back, with examples of non-Monsanto GMOs that have saved papayas in Hawaii, promise to deliver food to Africa, and improve nutrition. The thing many people don't realize is that all food is GMO. There are no such things as tomatoes, peaches, apples, or corn in nature. These are all products of just a few thousand years of selective breeding. With GMOs, we are also constantly…

That's misleading definition of GMO. Genetically Modified Organisms is not the same as Gene Modified organisms. Gene modified organisms are made through selective breeding. Genetically Modified Organisms are made by splicing genes from other creatures. The former means application of genetics, while second implies selective breeding. I've honestly got nothing against GMO, and I know that GMO carries a stigma, but hon…

Not necessarily other creatures, GMO technology is often used by selecting genes from same species.

The so-called "traditional" method of crop development, on the other hand, takes genes not just from other creatures but from totally random mutations, often induced by carcinogens and radiation, and then selected.

With GMOs we know much more about what has happened to the genome of the species.

Re: Monsanto Weedkiller Is ‘Probably Carcinogenic,’ WHO Says

#97

Post by ptaipale »

robbiep wrote: post #28
DanBC wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The entire point of roundup is that you use a GMO that has been modified to make it resistant to the weedkiller. In theory this allows you to use less weedkiller earlier in the growing cycle.

You got that around backwards. The entire point of certain GMOs is to enable roundup to be used to kill weeds in the crop without affecting the crop itself. Ie Roundup-ready Cotton (and other Roundup-ready crops that are grown in the US - My family grows Roundup-ready cotton and it has been awesome in terms of improving productivity) You can't use weedkiller at all in the growing cycle unless you modify the organism…

Depends on how you define "cycle" though. It's quite possible to use Roundup on the ground to first kill the weeds, then wait some time for the glyphosate to disintegrate, then plant the crop. Or just use weedkiller on areas outside the planted crop, in order to stop weeds from spreading from outside.

Re: Monsanto Weedkiller Is ‘Probably Carcinogenic,’ WHO Says

#98

Post by frostmatthew »

kyrra wrote: post #24
rmason wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm trying to provide a background because I have twenty plus years in the fertilizer business. I'm old enough that I remember when it was introduced. I don't know WHO's agenda but I've seen enough cycles on both pesticides and GMO's when someone makes a provocative statement based on early research and are usually proven wrong.

Side question. If I wanted to explain with studies to someone that GMO hate is unfounded, do you have a recommendation on a place to gather facts or recent studies on it?

There was a Forbes article[1] last year that linked to a number of studies. If you're looking for a less "journalistic" take and want to poke around with the data/studies yourself check out GENERA[2] (a database of peer reviewed GMO studies).

[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2014/09/17/the-debate-...

[2] http://genera.biofortified.org/

Re: Monsanto Weedkiller Is ‘Probably Carcinogenic,’ WHO Says

#99

Post by kbutler »

Htsthbjig wrote: post #51
rmason wrote: post #7

I know that its hard for someone to understand who doesn't work with farm chemicals on a regular basis but Roundup is on the low side in terms of toxicity. Here's a copy of a Material Safety Data Sheet that all those who handle herbicides need to maintain for employee access: http://greenhouse.ucdavis.edu/pest/pmsds/Roundup.PDF Almost anything is toxic, even salt, if the dose is high enough. The question that must be…

We are not talking about toxicity, but about carcinogen products. Very different. Carbon monoxide is toxic. If I breath it while walking a previously fired forest, I feel bad today. If I breath too much I die. But if I get out alive tomorrow my body will be fine. Carcinogen work in totally different ways. If I contact or breath it I will feel fine today but I will have created damage to some of my cells DNA. This dam…

We know that sunshine is carcinogenic.

Is a farm worker more likely to contract cancer from the 8 hours/day exposure to sunshine, or to glyphosate?

I personally have no idea, but I think it would be an interesting measure.

Re: Monsanto Weedkiller Is ‘Probably Carcinogenic,’ WHO Says

#100

Post by Ygg2 »

ptaipale wrote: post #96
Ygg2 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's misleading definition of GMO. Genetically Modified Organisms is not the same as Gene Modified organisms. Gene modified organisms are made through selective breeding. Genetically Modified Organisms are made by splicing genes from other creatures. The former means application of genetics, while second implies selective breeding. I've honestly got nothing against GMO, and I know that GMO carries a stigma, but hon…

Not necessarily other creatures, GMO technology is often used by selecting genes from same species. The so-called "traditional" method of crop development, on the other hand, takes genes not just from other creatures but from totally random mutations, often induced by carcinogens and radiation, and then selected. With GMOs we know much more about what has happened to the genome of the species.

By creatures I mean anything living. Bacteria, plant, animal, etc.

I think even regular GMO technology probably still is affected by radiation (cosmic radiation and sun) and breeding - I doubt every single grain of corn is genetically manufactured once you can just let it naturally breed.

Not to mention radiation is a great and cheap way to rid of some pests really fast, but tell that to any organic food lover and they'll get defensive.

Post reply on HN