Does anyone have the insight as to why Bayer purchased Monsanto? This to me is one of the biggest corporate acquisition mistakes in history. To make things worse Bayer even retired the name Monsanto making Bayer the defendant in all these cases.
Bayer has a long history of doing the wrong thing on purpose and coming out the other side with riches to show for it. It appears that people have wisened up to this style of business practice faster than Bayer realized.
It appears that people have wisened up to this style of business...
More to the point, I think there was a profound amount of attention scrutinizing Monsanto, more than any other company I can think of.
The concept of Monsanto's business model has been probably the most chilling example of vendor lock-in ever imagined, and certainly throughout the 1980's and onward, raised more than a few eyebrows anywhere it was explained.
It really resonates to the core of human values as a concept of highly calculated evil, executed as a long game. Apologists will shrug their shoulders, and with open hands, suggest that it's enough to say that a company motivated to earn money is justified in any behavior, and that the truth is that natural modes of food supply would strangle and starve civilization, were it not for innovators creating expanded production volumes by exploiting powerful technologies under tightly controlled circumstances.
But, it's clear that Monsanto's products and services represent a direct threat to those who dare to depend on them. Genetic modfication of herbicide/pesticide resistant food supplies, combined with litigation designed to destroy unlicensed supplies, all to further sales of proprietary organisms and their matching chemicals, is such an intuitively horrific system of practices that it begs disbelief.
And with that, you have the far reaching attention that glyphosphate weed killer and genetically engineered crops have brought upon those who would seek to threaten the world with them.
To properly internalize the ideas in play, one can handily imagine what it means, should anything ever go wrong. Every mouth fed by food grown as corporate product will starve, if ever there's an incident that precludes the use of the product.
Thus, if Monsanto's genetic engineering enables crops that feed two billion, and suddenly, next year, for any reason, farmers are made to cease production, well... what happens to two billion people?
Except, it's worse than that. Because it's not like you can draw a line around those two billion people. They aren't living in some enclave, sealed off in a parallel universe. It's not a hypothetical person that eats RoundUp Ready food. We've all probably eaten some, and now, we'll all have to cram into the same life boat if something goes wrong, and the mistake can't be reversed.
The only thing that got farmers sued by Monsanto was the planting of "Roundup-Ready" seeds and subsequent application of glyphosate to the crop, which would kill a non-Roundup-Ready crop. You could plant Monsanto's GM seeds all you wanted without legal risk, so long as you treated them like any other crop and didn't try to exploit their GM properties.
This is a link that directly repeats the claim I just made, in more detail. Both elements are present in these cases: the planting of licensed seed, and the subsequent application of glyphosate to that crop. If you spray non-GM soybean crops with Roundup, you kill the crop.
> This is a link that directly repeats the claim I just made, in more detail.
This is a mischaracterization. The suit is not about the USE of glyphosate. The suit is about the replanting of the plants that survive it. Making it, effectively, a licensing issue. This is why I initially characterized it as such.
I didn't, and obviously wouldn't, say that Roundup-Ready seeds aren't license-encumbered. What I said was that you don't get in legal trouble unless you plant them and then spray them with Roundup --- in other words, you can't "accidentally" use the product, because to use it, you have to do something that would kill an ordinary crop.
Again, spraying with roundup is not the issue at the heart of the suit mentioned (he was using roundup BEFORE the GMO seeds were purchased by a neighbor). The issue is about planting without a license. The spraying of roundup was a step in the process used to trigger the licensing issue, after replanting what survived. He was never sued for using Roundup. Since you've reverted to downvoting and repeating yourself, you're wrong and are not interested in acknowledging it. GL with whatever.
When you buy Monsanto seed you are licensed to use it under certain terms. One of those terms is not saving/harvesting the seeds and replanting them. Parr went to farmers, convinced them this was ok, and then charged them money to help them do it.
Monsanto did not sue Dave Runyon. The article says they threatened to sue. Therefore it's not a counterexample to GP's specific point.
Maybe you think Monsanto's conduct re: Dave Runyon makes them evil, maybe not. I don't -- how would one would run a GM seed business without threatening to sue left and right? (Or using terminator genes, which seem more evil.) I'd be interested to hear from anyone that shares my priors and disagrees with my conclusions.
oh - I suspect that Monsanto was seeing this coming, and that caused them to sell to a "too big to fail"-type company, with out-of-US base.. as noted extensively in other places, its not a bad business decision until the costs have to be paid, and actually are paid.. meanwhile collect money as usual.. the extent of this sort of strategy in the real world is probably shocking to people who aren't in the back rooms of money decisions often.. of course its unpleasant, thats part of why they keep it quiet
Precision Agriculture. There is a lot of non-glyphosphate work going on there to improve farm-specific and soil specific fertilization and yield optimization. They both make chemicals, they have common inputs, it seems like the expectation was "synergies" and inorganic growth.
> ...10,000 further cases are pending, worrying Bayer investors as well as farmers who rely on the product as a cheap, effective herbicide.
> Cancer may only be part of the story. Studies over the past decade suggest that glyphosate — the active ingredient in Roundup — pollutes water sources, hangs around in soil far longer than previously suspected, and routinely taints human food supplies.
I mean... yeah. I'm not formally trained in biology, but I think at this point it's a sane default to just suppose that any chemical compound that kills plants so efficiently on contact is likely to also have effects on human tissue, especially when the contact is as frequent and intense as is the case for farm workers.
This style of farming (using genetic modification to increase robustness against a particular chemical, and then dousing the field with that chemical) is best understood as a mistake and completely set aside as immediately as can practically be done.
Until it ceases (and after that), if you can afford organic food, buy it (and I don't just mean USDA Certified Organic, although that's a great start, I mean food you know to be organic from a farmer's market). Even if you don't care to reduce your own exposure, it turns out that life is sucking for thousands of these farm workers who get this shit on their hands and faces and clothes every day.
Glyphosate has been used for over 60 years. It works in a part of the plant that controls photosynthesis. No one is even sure how it would impact humans. Here's a podcast with some more information. They will update if better information comes in it disproves the previous assumptions.
But is that relevant? Isn't it more sane to let our first assumption be that plant killers aren't good for us? Until we have some compelling reason to believe otherwise?
I find this a cynical or maybe a sardonic statement.
Judgment aside, there's a cost for the society which is not borne by owners of these giant corporations. These owners have a selfish interest to propagate dubious means. With "selfish" I mean the good natured selfishness in the sense of Smith's capitalism. So we as a society should strive to charge the owners with these costs, so that products like RoundUp get uneconomical to produce and sell.
It is, indeed, a cynical statement. But it gets to the very reason why we aren't looking closely enough at the potential social costs.
As an aside, I think the conventional wisdom reading of Adam Smith, that somehow selfishness begets virtue, was not the author's intent, and is mostly just a self-serving rationalization. At the very least, it ignores the ways that selfish action can turn toxic - deception, corruption, theft, and of course externalized costs.
You do realize vinegar is a plant killer right? Too much water is a plant killer, too much sun is a plant killer. There are insecticides that kill bugs that don't have an impact on humans. Starvation probably kills far more people than Roundup. I mean I hate Monsanto as a company too but literally you could die drinking too much water. If you cannot even define how something would impact humans wouldn't the appropriate way to determine that be to perform science? Just saying we don't know so it must be bad is literally the opposite of science. People used to think tomatoes were poisonous, they weren't. Tapioca was poisonous unless cooked. You routinely ingest poisonous metals in your food. Your argument has no place in a discussion about whether something is harmful. Evidence does, once we can define the harm, if any, we can determine whether we can mitigate it, whether it's a real risk factor, and whether it's risks outweigh the benefits. You must likely drive around in a vehicle that causes more cancer and harm to the environment than Roundup. Plastic bags don't decay for generations. We have literal known problems that we give less focus than a problem that isn't even proven to exist.
You do realize vinegar (acid) is a human killer right? Too much water is a human killer, too much sun is a human killer. Science typically starts with a hypothesis and tests it. Starting with the hypothesis that roundup is dangerous for humans is logical because we already know it is not safe for other forms of life.
Vinegar is only dangerous if consumed above a safe level, same with the sun, water, etc. Which was the point you seemed to miss. Toxicity is determined not by how it interacts with plants, but the safe level for humans, which is different than plants. Your assumption that everything is automatically dangerous is not founded in anything close to science or even evidence at this point. Prove that it's dangerous, it's been the most common and least toxic herbicide for years. Wouldn't you expect more concrete evidence to turn up similar to smoking, black lung disease, mesthelioma, etc? There hasn't been a huge upsurge in cancer rates, in fact they've gone down since glyphosate has been used. There is literally no concrete evidence currently that this is dangerous to humans at concentrations currently used. Find proof then I'll believe you.
I will try to listen to this later, but until then I don't know if they address this:
One concern I've read is that safety testing is done in isolation, and glyphosate is actually used with a surfactant, designed to make it able to penetrate cell walls.
Those are concerns that should be addressed and taken into consideration. But as of right now, there is no evidence for this level of alarm. If that changes I'll be there first one to change my position.
Many herbicides are harmful in some way, but most are safe if used properly (i.e. respecting the correct dosage for each target, respecting the safety interval, etc).
Buying organic is not safer, though, because one can still use herbicides in organic farming, as long as they aren't synthetic. Sometimes the safer organic option won't be as safe as the synthetic one.
Some herbicides are dangerous, and if safer solutions were available farmers would use them - if only their crops would survive that substance. That is one of the points of glyphosate-resistant varieties.
Be it as it may, the danger will always be greater for farmers than consumers. Integrated Farming accounts for this as well, and the list of available pest management substances is constantly being updated. I don't know how well IF works in the US, but in the EU (Portugal) at least I get updates every now an then.
I still use glyphosate and will keep using it for weed control. In an olive field, I use a shredder for most of the field, and leave herbicides for plantation lines only. This means that only about 30% of the total area is actually sprayed with herbicides in some orchards.
I'd reserve the ban on allegedly dangerous substances for personal use. And I would start with home spray insecticides.
> Buying organic is not safer, though, because one can still use herbicides in organic farming, as long as they aren't synthetic. Sometimes the safer organic option won't be as safe as the synthetic one.
I don't have problems per se with "synthetic" materials, but I do respect that compounds introduced within the past few decades are more likely to have zany side effects than those which plants have evolved alongside for hundreds of thousands of years.
> Be it as it may, the danger will always be greater for farmers than consumers. Integrated Farming accounts for this as well, and the list of available pest management substances is constantly being updated. I don't know how well IF works in the US, but in the EU (Portugal) at least I get updates every now an then.
It seems to me that the disparity in danger can be reduced by backing out of the monoculture / dead soil / carpet bombing style of farming and adopting practices more in keeping with how these plants seem to want to grow.
I understand your heuristics, but let it not drift towards the naturalistic fallacy.
Rotenone, an insecticide produced by some plants, is used in organic farming because it is naturally ocurring. It has been pointed out as a cause for Parkinson disease in farmers.[1]
The likelihood of danger should be approached without any preconceived ideas.
The problem with the glyphosate-resistant varieties is that they allow for liberal and injudicious use of the chemical. I'm sure it makes economic sense to be able to carpet spray your crop instead of having to spot spray or use careful timing, but over-spray blowing onto trees causes damage in many areas, as well as putting large quantities of glyphosate into water systems.
I understand that worry, but it doesn't make much economic sense.
It is possible that some farmers would abuse it, but that would be expensive and unnecessary, since the target weed would die with a regular dosage.
Abuse of glyphosate spraying is also counter-productive. Low volume sprayings are generally more effective.
And by the way, glyphosate-resistant does not mean glyphosate-impervious. Non-targets can still be harmed.
The risk of over-usage of glyphosate is re-enforcing naturally occurring resistance in target weeds. Glyphosate should always be used at intervals, with different herbicides filling in the gaps.
I mean to say that current levels of application as actually practiced are too high and cause damage. It seemingly hasn't been proven, but many people blame it for oak tatters:
https://hortnews.extension.iastate.edu/oak-tatters
I don't have the skills to evaluate it in depth but it seems to indicate a plausible connection between glyphosate and leaky gut, which could explain why a lot of people who don't actually have celiac's have troubles with wheat.
This is conjecture on my part, but it's possible that many people with trouble with wheat would be fine if they were able to avoid pesticides and repair their gut bacteria and general gut health.
The other thing I learned alongside reading that paper (or maybe it was mentioned in it, I forget), was that they use glyphosate not just to kill weeds, but as a dessicant applied directly to wheat to aid in the harvest, and a "ripening agent" applied directly to sugar cane.
Finally, although the risks are not well understood, it has been demonstrated that glyphosate does appear in detectable amounts in human excretions (urine and milk), which goes against some of the claims that were made in approving its safety (they claimed it does not bioaccumulate).
Sorry I don't have sources handy for the rest of this stuff, but it's enough to perhaps encourage others to run some searches too.
Edit: a final concern is not to humans but to soil biology. This new and growing field has been finding that there are symbiotic relationships between plants and fungi in the soil and that pesticides may disrupt this, dramatically reducing effective soil quality and the nutritional content of the plants grown there.
Note that the USDA organic label isn't exactly foolproof either - "organic" compounds are chosen by committee:
> This week, in a process that is largely invisible to consumers but that has become a semi-annual ritual of controversy within the world of organic politics, a committee called the National Organic Standards Board is selecting those synthetic substances that organic farmers and processors may use.
> ...For while many would prefer to exclude the use of any synthetic chemicals, there are some substances - including herbicides, fungicides, emulsifiers and other additives - that some organic farmers say they cannot do without.
This was a very disturbing article. In particular, he alluded to congenital defects in pigs that appeared to match observations of human populations near intensely treated agricultural areas in https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-....
"Human epidemiological [23, 29, 30, 31] and domesticated animal studies [32, 33] suggest associations between exposures to GBHs and adverse health outcomes. For example, congenital malformations have been reported in young pigs fed GBH residues-contaminated soybeans [32]. This suggests that GBHs may be at least a contributing factor to similar birth defects observed in human populations living in and near farming regions with substantial land area planted to GBH-tolerant GE crop cultivars [23, 34]."
Footnote 23, https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/tx1001749, that detail the teratogenic effect is something I will be reading later, but was the most disturbing. Footnote 24, https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/tx1001749, should be eye opening to many people here based on (unfounded) isoflavone estrogen mimic fears of soy/tofu: "We also checked androgen to estrogen conversion by aromatase activity and mRNA. All parameters were disrupted at sub-agricultural doses with all formulations within 24 h."
Like I said in another comment in this thread, organic farming still uses pesticides, just not the synthetic ones.
In my opinion as a farmer, the foundational principle of Organic Farming is not a path towards better farming practices, but one that divides what is supposedly natural and organic, and what is artificial and synthetic.
This has more to do with a romantic ideal of purity regarding agriculture and food production than guiding farming with principles of science-based agronomy or efficacy/efficiency decision making.
Sure, I agree the organic standard is far from perfect and has many loopholes, but it's a starting point.
If there were a standard out there that instead embraced a systems-thinking view on safe practices - both chemical use and general land management, emphasizing safety for the long term health of the ecosystem, the farm economy, and the humans consuming the product - I would embrace that standard instead. Even if it were (as it might be) initially quite expensive.
Your second paragraph pretty much resumes what Integrated Farming is. That is exactly what I do.
And everything you do in Organic Farming can be done in Integrated Farming - you only resort to chemical solutions if there are no other options left. And even then, only if you've gone beyond a certain point beyond which the damage will out-cost the benefits of the spraying.
Not that the other is not the case. Organic farming is not allowed to use chemical solutions even they are better for the environment.
edit: as others have pointed out, some chemicals are allowed. However the points remains, environmentally friendly means to control weeds is often not allowed in organic.
This is a common falacy. Organic forming can only use organic chemical solutions, some of which are far more toxic than their synthetic alternatives. Explore this idea by checking out strawberry production.
Berries iirc are particularly sensitive to various pesticides, more so than a lot of other produce. It's one of the few products I will seek out Organic over not, when I have them.
The precautionary principle lies within Integrated Farming, because it is highly adaptable.
There are harmful insecticides being used in organic farming, and the avoidance of synthetic fungicides allows for higher levels of some dangerous fungal toxins in food.
If a fungus-resistant GMO variety were available, organic farmers could then avoid the use of fungicides altogether. But GMOS are completely of of question in OF. Why? Because it is artificial, and that's the end of it.
I think you don’t give yourself enough credit by calling it a “romantic ideal of purity;” it really does make a difference.
A little pesticide is fine for cosmetic value: people buy more of the prettier fruits and veggies, great. But when you start to apply modern engineering to it, you get extremely powerful pesticides which are able to do something much more dangerous.
The most talked-about example of what I am talking about is to consider that McDonald’s has uniform french fries throughout the US. They are able to do this because the potatoes that make the french fries are genetically identical; there is exactly one McDonald’s French Fry Potato plant.
As a consequence we are freezing the evolution of part of our food supply while the pests continue to evolve to be better and better at eating those bits. The absolute precondition to do this is that human engineering clears out the pests with advanced pesticides, so that the plants don’t need evolution to stand on their own. And that is really dangerous as it pits human wits against the laws of nature for the long-term.
This is also another reason why that label of “organic” is somewhat wrong. It labels whether something happened in the production of some produce. That is very helpful, say, in response to the OP’s article about avoiding a particular pesticide for health reasons. But it doesn’t say anything about doing the historical deeds of farming where you take your best performers and plant them again for the future: and, worse, there’s a “security vulnerability” here where I can deliver a bunch of organic produce but not support evolution. I can just plant the same crop, look for signs of pests, douse only those fields with advanced pesticides, and the other fields get delivered “organic” even though their survival had only to do with random chance in how they were cultivated, not whether they were tougher in the presence of (weakened) pests.
Thanks for coming here and arguing for Integrated Farming... are there any certifications we can look for that indicate this? (I am under the understanding that anyone can call something "integrated" and it's all on the honor system.)
I'd love to see any info you have on that, because I'm not seeing anything at all. My Google Fu may be weak, but all I find is that McDonalds continues to deny using GMO potatoes.
Also, anecdotally, McDonalds french fries are far from all identical.
I'm also not sure where the GP is going with this first point. I myself have cloned potatoes with nothing but old Russets and a shovel, and do not consider it nefarious.
Yeah, if you want to search more on it, the technique is called vegetative propagation, it is a procedure by which potatoes are cloned rather than bred. It happens to be really easy for potatoes. Searching for "mcdonalds genetically" is bound to be saturated with GMO articles.
The lack of identicality of the fries themselves turns out to be a part of McDonald’s’ broader engineering, as a matter of fact. (You could have expected this—this is the same company whose chicken nuggets come in well-defined named shapes—but it’s not terribly well talked about.) If all the fries at McDonald’s were uniformly long they would have bad stacking properties and would give you too much in your fry cup when filled, etc., so any new potato brand that they accept, or any change to their procedures for cooking their fries, must pass a bunch of stringent tests including having a certain distribution between shorter and longer fries.
In this case there is a page on McDonalds.com which specifies the only four monocultures which they exclusively farm to make McDonalds fries.
>it is a procedure by which potatoes are cloned rather than bred.
I might be wrong, but this is how many edible crops are propagated. Apples for instance are generally clones, because the alternative is getting a new kind of apple every time.
Farming has the issue of mass scale, as any other human activity. Farmers have been artificially selecting species for thousands of years, but perhaps not at the scale and speed we witness today.
I have no doubts that normalization and lack of diversity are a problem. It is being observed today, for example, in the decreasing quality of tomatoes, that have lost flavour in favour of appearance.
But normalization of food production often goes in hand with normalization of feeding habits, and that is a whole different problem.
For example, potato producers know that washing potatoes decreases shelf life, but they still do it because otherwise consumers wouldn't buy them.
Modern convenience has a lot to do with this, and I think that the solution lies with consumer habits as well. I am all in favour of a more conscientious approach in the consumer-side, but this should be done without resorting to simplifications and emotional responses. It will also take some time.
On the other hand, convenience is a rather early feature of our lives, so I hope adapting to new ways of producing and consuming could be at least half as quick.
In the end, I hope we will be able to use land efficiently, respecting biodiversity and allowing for a reasonable amount of natural harm, without sacrificing quality and, more importantly, food security.
As for Integrated Farming, the Wikipedia article is not as thorough as the Organic Farming article, perhaps because IF is still not a thing in the US.[1]
Integrated Farming is an extension of Integrated Pest Management, Soil management and Efficient Water Usage practices, along with other schemes. It was largely subsidized in the EU for farmers wanting to adapt their methods. From 2020 onwards, it will become the standard for EU farming practices and subsidies will stop, as far as I know.
Integrated Farming is certified by local agencies, in the same way organic farming is: checking farming logs, pesticide invoices, warehouses, equipments and such. A local agent visits my farm every year.
You take out the eyes of a potato and stick it in the ground and you've also created a genetically identical clone. I'd bet most potato varieties are farmed this way and have been for a long time.
All of the bananas you eat are also genetically identical, since all banana trees grown for U.S. markets are clippings from the same original cavendish tree. Bananas is a real concern though for U.S. markets and there is currently a blight spreading, but the good news is there are hundreds of types of bananas, most of them more flavorful. The hard part is shipping them to the U.S. without bruising.
I currently work at a business in the food industry and it was amazing to learn that there is a whole host of products that can be applied to organic produce and not affect it's organic rating. You can see the whole list here: https://www.omri.org/omri-lists/download
Organic doesn't mean nothing is applied. It's just a different category of product that is approved.
Personally, I'd love to see "what they're fed" labels for eggs and dairy products. There are definitely different characteristics and nutritional value in the products from naturally fed animals and those feed product they would never eat in the wild.
I mostly notice wrt soy fed chicken eggs and dairy myself, but can definitely tell the difference. Butter, and meat not as much beyond flavor.
This paper is actually part of a longer series of papers made by the same authors about the relation between glyphosate and several conditions. [1]
I haven't read it entirely so I cannot vouch for its quality, but you might be interested in the following paper which does a critique of their work: [2]
Glad to see this comment as #1 because you cite a study referencing Leaky Gut. Diet, health and nutrition are controversial topics...but last time I brought up the potential for Leaky Gut to be a legitimate health issue I was more or less attacked for referring to a pseudoscience. It’s true it’s not a recognized medical condition, but there are many studies and medical professionals who are beginning to recognize leaky gut as a real condition.
Extra points for also bringing up gut bacteria which also typically generates controversy, last HN article on the microbiome commenters were calling it peak gut bacteria. Whereas it’s also a science in its infancy.
“The linking of this effective herbicide to the alphabet soup list of conditions enumerated by the authors seems to be “shotgun science” — namely, multiple associations based on population‐based statistics, disconnected correlations, and manipulation of numbers and conditions that create an epidemiological recipe for errors and nonvalid associations. The authors link every kind of disorder imaginable to a widely used chemical that has not been specifically linked clinically to any of those disorders.”
Quoting from criticism of that paper in [1]. Seems to a rather apt description.
It's a fair point to bring up, but that statement is extremely biased in phrasing. Why is "effective herbicide" relevant here? Agent orange is also an effective herbicide. Further, "a widely used chemical that has not been specifically linked clinically to any of those disorders" ... you might not pick up on it, but "specifically linked clinically" has some pretty specific meaning and is an extraordinary level of proof to call for at this stage. What they have at this point are theoretical pathways for the observed effects and epidemiological correlations. Taken together, those are pretty damning and worthy of urgent funding of further study.
It is absolutely not. They observed sub agricultural limit exposure in vivo and in vitro (see linked papers and their footnotes from the article). The identified pathways for observed effects. They then saw similar effects in human populations with higher than average glyphosate exposure.
You argument is precisely the kind of one that would be deployed to argue against the health risks of tetraethyl lead, asbestos, or CFCs.
It's possible it's not related, but it probably is. You are right, though "damning" and "urgent" are subjective, and depend on how much you care about preventable cancers and birth defects.
They don't even have a clear hypothesis, just a spew of possible connections to every condition under the sun and population level correlations with no thought as to controls or study design (or as they call it "compelling correlation data".) This is not a serious attempt at science, this is a gish gallop designed to foster alarmism by known crackpots.
> You argument is precisely the kind of one that would be deployed to argue against the health risks of tetraethyl lead, asbestos, or CFCs.
Except there are specific clinical links between lead/asbestos and particular, well identified conditions. On the other hand, your argument is the same used by the anti-vax and "alternative science" crowd since time immortal.
> It's possible it's not related, but it probably is. You are right, though "damning" and "urgent" are subjective, and depend on how much you care about preventable cancers and birth defects.
It must also depend on your definition of "probably"; typically, people use the word to mean "very likely" or "more likely than not", but I see you've developed your own definition here.
If I look at number of glasses of water drank and 30 types of cancer and find that one statistically significant correlation between water and increased incidence of one of those cancers have I done good science?
Not to mention if I give someone a glass of water it will do nothing. If I force feed them a 1000x the dose, like many of these studies, they would die. A far worse outcome than what happened to these mice and fish.
But if glyphosate is this poisonous why don't rats get sick when we give it to them?
The health risks of lead, asbestos, or cfcs have a direct mammalian mechanism explaining their correlation. That part is important, because glyphosate targets a pathway that isn't present in animals at all.
From that samsel paper, figure 3 is the most damning to me as it's closer to my field so I know more about it. The reason why thyroid cancer incidence is rising is mostly that ultrasound is increasingly used for diagnosis which gives you power to detect smaller tumors that you'd otherwise miss and not diagnose as thyroid cancer.
The authors know that this paper is crap, that's why they published it in a predatory journal. There are lots of x that are rising at the same time as y and it's very easy to ignore context and make a correlation. Depression is rising while smoking is falling; you want a cigarette?
"Dr. Seneff has already predicted that by the year 2025, half of the children will be afflicted with autism from glyphosate poisoning." Half of all kids in 2025 will be autistic, right from the horse's mouth, does that seem reasonable to you?
I don't even know what you're talking about with Samsel and Seneff. And I can't view your link.
From the Chemical Research in Toxicology article: "A reporter gene assay revealed that GBH treatment increased endogenous retinoic acid (RA) activity in Xenopus embryos and cotreatment with a RA antagonist rescued the teratogenic effects of the GBH. Therefore, we conclude that the phenotypes produced by GBH are mainly a consequence of the increase of endogenous retinoid activity. This is consistent with the decrease of Sonic hedgehog (Shh) signaling from the embryonic dorsal midline, with the inhibition of otx2 expression and with the disruption of cephalic neural crest development."
From the Toxicology article: "First, we observed a human cell endocrine disruption from 0.5 ppm on the androgen receptor in MDA-MB453-kb2 cells for the most active formulation (R400), then from 2 ppm the transcriptional activities on both estrogen receptors were also inhibited on HepG2. Aromatase transcription and activity were disrupted from 10 ppm. Cytotoxic effects started at 10 ppm with Alamar Blue assay (the most sensitive), and DNA damages at 5 ppm."
Urgent, extremely urgent in fact. This thing will take time to phase out if it's dangerous. As in a decade or more. And if it's actually toxic, considering how common it is... Oof.
Pretty status quo for most Food Science publications it would seem. Eggs bad! Eggs good! Eggs bad!
Of course GMO Wheat, Soy, Corn and the increased intake in Fructose in general along with refined seed oils are probably all at least in part to blame about the general state of health in the world.
Now that we've generally solved the issues of famine, we need to work on healthier foods... of course corporations aren't aligned with such concerns.
Wikipedia cites its sources, and some of them are juicy indeed....
>In 2011, Seneff began publishing articles on topics related to biology and medicine, an area in which she has no relevant qualifications or expertise, in low-impact, open access journals,
>Seneff's claim that glyphosate is a major cause of autism and that, "At today's rates, by 2025, half the kids born will be diagnosed with autism," has also been criticized...contrary to Seneff's claims, many scientific reviews have found that the rise in autism rates over the past 20 years is due to changes in diagnostic practices
>Clinical neurologist and skeptic Steven Novella criticized Seneff's Entropy publication for making "correlation is causation" assumptions using broad statistical extrapolations from limited data,
>In 2014–2016 Seneff was proposed as an expert witness for litigators seeking damages from Pfizer associated with their cholesterol drug Lipitor,[15] but the court dismissed the claim largely because Seneff lacked expert status
I love the last one; she's actually a court-certified quack.
This is far from a compelling paper. Calling it deceptive or counterproductive wouldn't be outside of reason.
I understand that science is hard, and I think it's great that people read primary research, but your attempts to do so should be balanced (i.e. don't just read things that support your argument!) and you should seek expert interpretations when possible to consider counterarguments.
It's good to take a step back and understand the kind of evidence that a given manuscript may employ. Ideally you have high-quality data from experimental intervention, appropriately quantified with statistics. This generally comes from tried-and-true experimental methods, and will produce results that speak for themselves without 'squinting' at it with stats. For smaller effect sizes, or else when sampling is limited, you may need to rely on more questionable statistics, but as part of a suite of complementary methods, this data can be very useful as well.
Next would be observational data. Observational data must deal with confounding factors as no controlled experimental intervention is made, and can only demonstrate correlation, not causation. Sometimes this data is all that is reasonably available (for practical or ethical concerns), but extreme care must be used with observational data. It becomes very easy to support a desired conclusion by careful selection of data. Serious work with observational data will go to extreme lengths to consider potentially confounding factors and explore them in great detail.
This is not a serious paper. It's not good science, and there are litany of reasons.
This paper amounts of a sort of 'gish gallop' of specious correlations that pin glyphosate as the ultimate evil and cause of an absurd variety of maladies. Celiac disease, intestinal infection, sulfate metabolism, retinoic acid, reproductive issues, Cobalamin deficiency, anemia, Molybdenum deficiency, thyroid cancer and selenium, kidney disease, general cancer, and various nutritional deficiencies. It's an astounding list. More astounding, in other work, the first author has included asthma, autism, diabetes, COPD, and more!
A priori, you should consider whether this is plausible when it's such a well-studied molecule. How could so many studies, carefully conducted with standard methods in epidemiology, biochemistry, molecular biology, etc. have missed this litany of issues?
What kind of data is backing this up? The paper presents a few graphs where incidents of certain diseases are compared to the mass of glyhposate applied. One immediately wonders how this relationship plays out: are more acres being treated with glyphoste, is the application per acre increasing, what is the number of people exposed, what are the doses of exposure, are there geographic relationships between exposure and incidence, are there new diagnostic tools or detection of the disease, etc. etc.? These are the standard sorts of questions you expect to be addressed from observational studies, yet they have no discussion here. This is telling.
Furthermore, the proposed mechanisms are little more than idle speculation. This is basic biochemistry and molecular biology, tractable issues that can be investigated experimentally. So why is this discussed? This is the sort of thing that might get a paragraph or two in a review article talking about future work. Generally this is only done when the review author knows that a colleague is performing this work or seeking funding for it.
It's difficult to communicate how 'off' this kind of speculation is. Biology is full of specious hypotheses. It's so easy to be wrong, but to sound very right and reasonable while you're doing it. You quickly develop a deep distaste for speculation outside of some animated conversations you might have with colleagues in the lab or at conferences. It has no place in the literature. It is a violation of norms that is deeply revealing.
This article is a fishing expedition published by someone who is not involved in the field at all and wasn't peer reviewed by anyone who studies this seriously.
Speaking of fishy, the fish study was a small study where fish were literally swimming in roundup(not just glyphosate) at much higher concentrations than anything humans have contact with. Which tells us it's probably a bad idea to drink a glass of round up.
This topic is so aggravating. On one hand, you have the "Don't eat science words, they give you the autism cancer!" reactionaries, and on the other side, you have the "Everything is completely benign, because science!" reactionaries.
Yup, I hear you. I try to put my faith on the in-between folks, who say, "we can't prove in a court of law that this is harmful, but in this case there is a plausible mechanism and the risks don't seem justified. In this other case, there's no plausible mechanism for harm or the benefits outweigh the risks."
The people who show some kind of doubt are, as always, the ones to actually listen to.
That sort of reaction is exactly why the Overton window works. If Alice says that 2 + 2 = 4 and Bob says that 2 + 2 = 8, then Bob is wrong and the answer is not 6.
Sort of a tangent here, but I find very often in the workplace that my managers want me to tell them about how I "know" something will work. I never know if something will work. I can only be mostly sure that it will. It goes against my nature so much to respond to these questions the way that they want.
If it helps you out personally, it may be nice to impose a translation filter between the rest of the world and yourself here?
These other folks say “know” when they mean “have confidence in” and they are looking for you to similarly say “know” meaning that. Your internal meaning of knowledge can be much stronger, but they are just asking for you to give your reasons why you think that would be the case. You can feel free to hedge as well.
“I think we can resolve all of these things if we just make a UserInteractions table on our end, rather than proxying all of this to the upstream API. We will still proxy the interactions, but our source of truth can be our table.”
“How do you know that will work?”
“Well, it involves taking on some risks, like when they update things and never tell our source of truth about them, then our two systems are out-of-sync. I think that probably the problem of synchronizing our table with their system is simpler and more tractable than getting their system to behave in a normal way where we don't get successful responses until we're sure that the interaction has happened. It would be different if everything was changing every second of course, but that isn’t what we’ve been seeing happen on our staging server. The rest of it is not too bad, there are three API endpoints which generate these UserInteractions and they all touch it but rewriting them can’t be more than a day’s work, so the only hard problem is populating this UserInteractions table in the first place, but that’s not an ongoing risk, just a one-time cost for a developer to pay. That’s why I’m confident that this is a good choice moving forward.”
“How do you know that interaction times won’t suffer?”
“Well, I cannot say 100% for sure but usually requests over the local network to the local database are going to be faster than general network requests, unless things are really unusually smooth between the two. But at our present number of users and our projected go-live numbers, I have seen MySQL setups handle that with no problem and if it is a problem then we’ll have to face that scaling difficulty either way, as MySQL is not just used for these UserInteractions but also for X, Y, and Z.”
You see? I don’t need to claim absolute knowledge here, I just need to express:
1. There is some sort of cost-benefit analysis of trade-offs happening here,
2. someone has done this analysis, and,
3. more info can become available and I can be held accountable for this trade-off if this choice later becomes problematic.
It’s sort of a part of negotiation rather than part of technical responsibility. If you can appeal to an outside authority (“The OWASP security guidelines clearly state...”) or at least an unbiased one (“I ran this by Susan, who is a developer at our contractor that we work with, and she agreed it was worth a shot and gave me some good feedback about a potential pitfall that I should avoid...”) or otherwise communicate that some sort of expertise has peeked in to a problem, then people feel naturally more confident and trusting about it. If you don’t do that then it starts to sound more like “we should do this because I say so” even when the problem is legitimate and painful.
I guess I’m saying, think of yourself as a doctor talking to a patient about an upcoming surgery. They are right to have nebulous general concerns and they talk in funny ways that technically do not have much scientific value, but it is important to reassure them when needed, provide them options when needed, and just trust that if they lose trust of you and want to get second opinions, they are acting in good faith and have every right to be concerned about these things that are probably innocuous but have a tiny probability to kill them.
Your maxim is already in common parlance as Karlton’s principle. “There are only two hard things in computer science: cache invalidation and naming things.”
(Some add “and off-by-one errors” but arguably that is the same problem of some ‘cache’ being ‘invalid’ and never suitably repopulated…)
With that said downstream caches are often solid, if one treats them as the source of truth. “We just pretend this has not happened until we see it.” Same thing with denormalized data in a database, sometimes that's the only way to build the appropriate index which speeds things up.
People who are well-versed with statistics have studied vaccines, gmo, and glyphosate the overwhelming majority all came to the same conclusion and they're confident in that conclusion. Maybe these things are dangerous but there isn't any good evidence they are.
If you ignore both of those constituencies and focus, then you have this editorial, that talks about the risks in terms of science and how it is interpreted by various regulator bodies.
I count at least 6 links to prominent journals and 2 links to publications by the WHO and the EPA/EFSA. The author is a physicist and former editor of Nature.
I know there are better examples, but the one that always comes to mind for me is Asbestos. Everyone thought that was safe, now it kills 100,000+ people a year.
And to make matters worse, companies were able to suppress evidence of its danger for decades. We never know what evidence is being withheld from us, so I feel like a little irrational paranoia is actually rational.
Edit: Oh, and how about Exxon withholding all that information about climate change for 40 years? That's another good one.
There is another good one. Bayer took HIV infected blood from US and Europe and sold it in Africa, infecting many people with HIV in the process.
Also, many medications have under reported side effects. I myself have experienced insane side effects from an antibiotic. Doctors I have seen fail to report to the FDA and claim it is something else. I have talked to many people with the same symptoms and again they encountered the same issue with the medical community. While the FDA actually has been adding more and more serious side effects to the medications label, due to people self-reporting because doctors fail to do so.
The 'science' side is perfectly prepared to accept any compelling data about risks or hazards. In many cases, these are the same people that have raised the alarm on various pollutants or environmental risks. But they don't say that about glyphosate because .. there's no evidence. It's just not there. All the terrible evils that this compound is supposed to have, such powerful effects, would be easy to see in controlled studies. Even small effects that are nonetheless epidemiologically relevant are well within what is detectable.
Instead, what you get is a bunch of certifiable bullshit like Seralini, that Samsel guy linked above, etc. Stuff that is objectively bad science, so far beyond what is on the margin that it beggars belief.
It's crap.
The 'science' folk may seem a little defensive, and that's because we absolutely are. We care deeply about science and epistemology. We don't take kindly to liars, and there are an awful lot of them who take up this torch for whatever reason.
As a "science folk" myself, I care deeply about people just shouting "BUT SCIENCE!" to pretend their emotionally charged opinions are, somehow, facts. Which is absolutely what happens when discussing this issue.
Glysophate is one of the most researched chemicals in the world. 99.9% of substances in food are less researched than glysophate and many exist in concentrations at least as high.
I am really looking forward to the day we can replace chemical herbicides with weed-hunting robots. It seems such a huge market opportunity... little, inexpensive bots that can roam a field, picking out weeds the moment they appear as seedlings, never touching the crop itself, not putting anything in the soil.
When I was a kid growing up in central Illinois in the 1970s, before Roundup, "walking beans" was a common summer job for kids. You'd go out into soybean fields with some tools and rip out everything that wasn't a soybean plant. Of course, spraying chemicals is cheaper than hiring a busload of kids, so that's just a memory now.
Even in that case, we would have the issue of Vavilovian Mimicry. This time being done by robots, which would certainly be a counter-argument for those that claim that this is not natural selection, but artificial selection.
Abandoning monoculture means completely upending the harvesting process. That's a much harder problem. Or abandoning annual crops in favor of perennials, which would have tremendous negative impact on productivity.
That would be pretty cool. I've seen some early prototypes in the news, so perhaps we'll get there in the not-too-distant future. It seems to me that chief challenges would be the AI of course, but also energy and mobility across a wet, tangly, clumpy terrain.
Perhaps little automated dirt guns like mobile SAM sites that can shoot down pests as well? They can just pick up a few grains of dirt and shoot them at any pests that come near the plants.
What is the energy source for that? Solar? Is it therefore possible to have enough solar energy to operate the machinery with enough to pull out and keep on going? And wouldn't you need a tremendous amount of batteries as well? Would seem there would be an environmental impact that could far exceed some kind of potential 'safe' chemical solutions.
It actually seems like a straightforward problem for solar energy. Just have a little "bot barn" with a solar roof and local storage, and the bots return to the bot barn for a recharge. That's almost a trivial problem.
Keep in mind the bots don't have to be very large; certainly not human-sized. Something the size of a roller skate, maybe, with specialized weed-killing tools. And if it encounters something too big or weird to handle on its own, it can mark it on a map and send an alert for human intervention.
Thankfully, labour is cheaper in India than many herbicides, so farmers didn't subscribe to them in big numbers. I can tell you with certainty that we don’t use glyphosate on wheat or sugar cane (at least in a large part of India that I know).
There's a danger these companies can make inroads though: I was in field few days back and there was an Agriculture University professor who quite paternalistically suggested to a farmer that he use this product to de-weed the field. Gosh, degrees and education aren't enough sometimes. I wasn't in the position to debate (as someone younger and a software engineer), it made my stomach growl.
We honestly need to have ethics trainings for Professors/Researchers across the globe.
The book "Whitewash: The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer, and the Corruption of Science" by Carey Gillam is a very thorough take-down of Monstano, Roundup, glyphosphate, and the government agencies that have historically looked away from the evidence. She has done incredible work bringing these issues to light.
Even if such substances gets controlled in U.S. and manufacturers penalised, they will have a free run in developing countries.
Pesticides inc. *cides in agriculture along with antibiotics in poultry, which helped address world hunger is becoming bane of humanity.
When there are chances of superbug arising from antibiotics abuse such as colistin from India becoming a pandemic, why treat these issues as local to the country?
My wife used to administer Medical services in Santa Barbara country: coordinating translators and a program providing insurance to undocumented children. Many of the recipients worked the fields and I was always astonished to hear the frequency of occurrence of certain birth defects in these populations.
It's entirely possible the occurrence wasn't elevated relative to populations she didn't work with or I didn't hear about... but I've long suspected that there's a story hiding in plain sight that's bigger than even the recent cancer-related damages. Especially given that many of the workers are Mixtec and so are incredibly isolated from society-at-large (many would pretend to understand Spanish and didn't realize they could request Mixtec-speaking translators).
It's also worth noting that 2,4-D, in addition, to being dangerous, is organic.
A prime example of why "organic" food is dangerous. We developed artificial herbicides and pesticides to be safer than organic counterparts. I'm not exactly sure how people are convinced that "organic" food = higher quality and safer
> They were probably exposed to 2,4D, not glyphosate
Ok, and...? I'm not well-versed in these things, but a quick google suggests the situation with 2,4-D is the same: anecdotal evidence of birth defects and cancers, lack of research into these topics and, miraculously, an EPA declaration that they're safe.
> If they're using undocumented workers do you think they're going to prevent them from being exposed to a key ingredient in Agent Orange?
No, of course I don't think the employers or regulators are protecting the workers. That's my entire point.
I sprayed a bunch of glyphosphate yesterday and I'll spray a bunch more today. I live on country property that is infested with yellow starthistle, an invasive noxious weed. Right now is it's growing season. There's absolutely no practical way to beat it back without chemistry.
I'm sympathetic to concerns about our food chain but to the folks hoping for the downfall of Monsanto/Bayer: You are hereby invited over to pull weeds in 100 degree weather. I'll supply the beer.
I've done both chemical and manual removal of thistle in 100 degree weather, and I hear your pain. I don't think herbicide should be outright banned, but think it needs to be more carefully controlled and used more judiciously.
I'm not familiar with starthistle in particular, but thistles can be controlled through timed cuts and/or burning the seed heads. Takes multiple years and a lot of work though.
[Vinegar] works as a contact or burn-down herbicide, which means that it only kills the portion of the plant it contacts. The thistle will re-grow from the roots, and you will have to make repeated applications until you exhaust the carbohydrate reserves in the roots. There is probably a lot of seed present in the soil, and new thistle plants will sprout that you will have to treat in future years.
Just picture yourself doing this on 90ac of hills!
Its not that bad for anything under 5-10 acres. Just mix in a dash of soap and a lil salt, and fill a backpack sprayer. Soak the plant, specifically the leaves, and you have a very selective, very benign herbicide. Full grown plants take more than 1 treatment many times, but with thistles, you can just carefully remove the heads.
Glyosophate is an emotional issue rather than a logical one. And there are rarely shades of gray in the conversation around chemicals. There’s a huge difference between air dropping tons of the stuff over a thousand acre monoculture, and spot spraying to control noxious weeds. I don’t think what you’re saying is overly snarky: when faced with the pragmatic challenges of managing a large amount of land, it changes one’s opinion. I mean, the chemicals involved in our day-to-day lives are countless. The judicious use of them for a reasonable, practical purpose isn’t so ghastly.
There’s a second order conclusion here that seems to get constantly lost in the conversation. On a bumper sticker it’d be, “It’s the monocultures, stupid.”
When we talk about things like glysophate staying around in the soil or making it’s way into the water supply, what we really should be questioning is why so much is being used in the first place. And that’s because we grow fragile annual crops in enormous monocultures making the use of chemicals a necessity.
I’m for alternative methods of farming, like permaculture, but I’m not so ideological to be against chemicals in the absolute. Based on the evidence I’ve seen, pragmatic use of sprays isn’t terribly dangerous. I’m talking spot spraying as part of conservation and restoration work, etc.
The fixation on particular chemicals like glysophate is a distraction from the root issue, which is that industrial scale agriculture is — on the whole —damaging to the planet.
Yes but permaculture is not scalable for big companies, since it requires a lot of skilled labors. You cannot use one big tractor for a huge perma field and be done with it. And they dictate the market.
There is no strong evidence of its harm yet. It may be an EDC, but we don't have the data to prove it.
The fearmongering has got to stop. Why wasn't Bayer/Monsanto allowed to provide expert witness testimony? Are we going to continue to throw scientific methods out the window?
134 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 186 ms ] threadThe concept of Monsanto's business model has been probably the most chilling example of vendor lock-in ever imagined, and certainly throughout the 1980's and onward, raised more than a few eyebrows anywhere it was explained.
It really resonates to the core of human values as a concept of highly calculated evil, executed as a long game. Apologists will shrug their shoulders, and with open hands, suggest that it's enough to say that a company motivated to earn money is justified in any behavior, and that the truth is that natural modes of food supply would strangle and starve civilization, were it not for innovators creating expanded production volumes by exploiting powerful technologies under tightly controlled circumstances.
But, it's clear that Monsanto's products and services represent a direct threat to those who dare to depend on them. Genetic modfication of herbicide/pesticide resistant food supplies, combined with litigation designed to destroy unlicensed supplies, all to further sales of proprietary organisms and their matching chemicals, is such an intuitively horrific system of practices that it begs disbelief.
And with that, you have the far reaching attention that glyphosphate weed killer and genetically engineered crops have brought upon those who would seek to threaten the world with them.
To properly internalize the ideas in play, one can handily imagine what it means, should anything ever go wrong. Every mouth fed by food grown as corporate product will starve, if ever there's an incident that precludes the use of the product.
Thus, if Monsanto's genetic engineering enables crops that feed two billion, and suddenly, next year, for any reason, farmers are made to cease production, well... what happens to two billion people?
Except, it's worse than that. Because it's not like you can draw a line around those two billion people. They aren't living in some enclave, sealed off in a parallel universe. It's not a hypothetical person that eats RoundUp Ready food. We've all probably eaten some, and now, we'll all have to cram into the same life boat if something goes wrong, and the mistake can't be reversed.
That is factually incorrect.
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/06/01/dissecting-cla...
The licensing cases were world news.
This is a mischaracterization. The suit is not about the USE of glyphosate. The suit is about the replanting of the plants that survive it. Making it, effectively, a licensing issue. This is why I initially characterized it as such.
2. The guidelines ask you not to complain about downvoting.
3. Your argument boils down to "that thing you said is true".
It's fine to just agree! We don't have to pretend to disagree just for the sake of appearances.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/agricultural-giant-battles-smal...
Maybe you think Monsanto's conduct re: Dave Runyon makes them evil, maybe not. I don't -- how would one would run a GM seed business without threatening to sue left and right? (Or using terminator genes, which seem more evil.) I'd be interested to hear from anyone that shares my priors and disagrees with my conclusions.
> Cancer may only be part of the story. Studies over the past decade suggest that glyphosate — the active ingredient in Roundup — pollutes water sources, hangs around in soil far longer than previously suspected, and routinely taints human food supplies.
I mean... yeah. I'm not formally trained in biology, but I think at this point it's a sane default to just suppose that any chemical compound that kills plants so efficiently on contact is likely to also have effects on human tissue, especially when the contact is as frequent and intense as is the case for farm workers.
This style of farming (using genetic modification to increase robustness against a particular chemical, and then dousing the field with that chemical) is best understood as a mistake and completely set aside as immediately as can practically be done.
Until it ceases (and after that), if you can afford organic food, buy it (and I don't just mean USDA Certified Organic, although that's a great start, I mean food you know to be organic from a farmer's market). Even if you don't care to reduce your own exposure, it turns out that life is sucking for thousands of these farm workers who get this shit on their hands and faces and clothes every day.
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4676
But is that relevant? Isn't it more sane to let our first assumption be that plant killers aren't good for us? Until we have some compelling reason to believe otherwise?
Judgment aside, there's a cost for the society which is not borne by owners of these giant corporations. These owners have a selfish interest to propagate dubious means. With "selfish" I mean the good natured selfishness in the sense of Smith's capitalism. So we as a society should strive to charge the owners with these costs, so that products like RoundUp get uneconomical to produce and sell.
Keyword: external costs
As an aside, I think the conventional wisdom reading of Adam Smith, that somehow selfishness begets virtue, was not the author's intent, and is mostly just a self-serving rationalization. At the very least, it ignores the ways that selfish action can turn toxic - deception, corruption, theft, and of course externalized costs.
One concern I've read is that safety testing is done in isolation, and glyphosate is actually used with a surfactant, designed to make it able to penetrate cell walls.
The whole is different than the sum of its parts.
Buying organic is not safer, though, because one can still use herbicides in organic farming, as long as they aren't synthetic. Sometimes the safer organic option won't be as safe as the synthetic one.
Some herbicides are dangerous, and if safer solutions were available farmers would use them - if only their crops would survive that substance. That is one of the points of glyphosate-resistant varieties.
Be it as it may, the danger will always be greater for farmers than consumers. Integrated Farming accounts for this as well, and the list of available pest management substances is constantly being updated. I don't know how well IF works in the US, but in the EU (Portugal) at least I get updates every now an then.
I still use glyphosate and will keep using it for weed control. In an olive field, I use a shredder for most of the field, and leave herbicides for plantation lines only. This means that only about 30% of the total area is actually sprayed with herbicides in some orchards.
I'd reserve the ban on allegedly dangerous substances for personal use. And I would start with home spray insecticides.
I don't have problems per se with "synthetic" materials, but I do respect that compounds introduced within the past few decades are more likely to have zany side effects than those which plants have evolved alongside for hundreds of thousands of years.
> Be it as it may, the danger will always be greater for farmers than consumers. Integrated Farming accounts for this as well, and the list of available pest management substances is constantly being updated. I don't know how well IF works in the US, but in the EU (Portugal) at least I get updates every now an then.
It seems to me that the disparity in danger can be reduced by backing out of the monoculture / dead soil / carpet bombing style of farming and adopting practices more in keeping with how these plants seem to want to grow.
Rotenone, an insecticide produced by some plants, is used in organic farming because it is naturally ocurring. It has been pointed out as a cause for Parkinson disease in farmers.[1]
The likelihood of danger should be approached without any preconceived ideas.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotenone#Toxicity
It is possible that some farmers would abuse it, but that would be expensive and unnecessary, since the target weed would die with a regular dosage.
Abuse of glyphosate spraying is also counter-productive. Low volume sprayings are generally more effective.
And by the way, glyphosate-resistant does not mean glyphosate-impervious. Non-targets can still be harmed.
The risk of over-usage of glyphosate is re-enforcing naturally occurring resistance in target weeds. Glyphosate should always be used at intervals, with different herbicides filling in the gaps.
You don't have that. That's why it's different.
You don't need to be trained in biology. Plenty of people have written about the subject and will explain it to you.
Why are regulators not listening is a great question. Perhaps they are listening, just to well paid lobbyists on Bayer's side.
I don't have the skills to evaluate it in depth but it seems to indicate a plausible connection between glyphosate and leaky gut, which could explain why a lot of people who don't actually have celiac's have troubles with wheat.
This is conjecture on my part, but it's possible that many people with trouble with wheat would be fine if they were able to avoid pesticides and repair their gut bacteria and general gut health.
The other thing I learned alongside reading that paper (or maybe it was mentioned in it, I forget), was that they use glyphosate not just to kill weeds, but as a dessicant applied directly to wheat to aid in the harvest, and a "ripening agent" applied directly to sugar cane.
Finally, although the risks are not well understood, it has been demonstrated that glyphosate does appear in detectable amounts in human excretions (urine and milk), which goes against some of the claims that were made in approving its safety (they claimed it does not bioaccumulate).
Sorry I don't have sources handy for the rest of this stuff, but it's enough to perhaps encourage others to run some searches too.
Edit: a final concern is not to humans but to soil biology. This new and growing field has been finding that there are symbiotic relationships between plants and fungi in the soil and that pesticides may disrupt this, dramatically reducing effective soil quality and the nutritional content of the plants grown there.
> This week, in a process that is largely invisible to consumers but that has become a semi-annual ritual of controversy within the world of organic politics, a committee called the National Organic Standards Board is selecting those synthetic substances that organic farmers and processors may use.
> ...For while many would prefer to exclude the use of any synthetic chemicals, there are some substances - including herbicides, fungicides, emulsifiers and other additives - that some organic farmers say they cannot do without.
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/28/sure-...
"Human epidemiological [23, 29, 30, 31] and domesticated animal studies [32, 33] suggest associations between exposures to GBHs and adverse health outcomes. For example, congenital malformations have been reported in young pigs fed GBH residues-contaminated soybeans [32]. This suggests that GBHs may be at least a contributing factor to similar birth defects observed in human populations living in and near farming regions with substantial land area planted to GBH-tolerant GE crop cultivars [23, 34]."
Footnote 23, https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/tx1001749, that detail the teratogenic effect is something I will be reading later, but was the most disturbing. Footnote 24, https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/tx1001749, should be eye opening to many people here based on (unfounded) isoflavone estrogen mimic fears of soy/tofu: "We also checked androgen to estrogen conversion by aromatase activity and mRNA. All parameters were disrupted at sub-agricultural doses with all formulations within 24 h."
And with respect to your edit, it looks like the author touched on fungicides in his prior editorial: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-05-03/big-ag...
Like I said in another comment in this thread, organic farming still uses pesticides, just not the synthetic ones.
In my opinion as a farmer, the foundational principle of Organic Farming is not a path towards better farming practices, but one that divides what is supposedly natural and organic, and what is artificial and synthetic.
This has more to do with a romantic ideal of purity regarding agriculture and food production than guiding farming with principles of science-based agronomy or efficacy/efficiency decision making.
If there were a standard out there that instead embraced a systems-thinking view on safe practices - both chemical use and general land management, emphasizing safety for the long term health of the ecosystem, the farm economy, and the humans consuming the product - I would embrace that standard instead. Even if it were (as it might be) initially quite expensive.
And everything you do in Organic Farming can be done in Integrated Farming - you only resort to chemical solutions if there are no other options left. And even then, only if you've gone beyond a certain point beyond which the damage will out-cost the benefits of the spraying.
edit: as others have pointed out, some chemicals are allowed. However the points remains, environmentally friendly means to control weeds is often not allowed in organic.
In some rare cases, synthetic mineral solutions are allowed, like copper sulfate.
The precautionary principle lies within Integrated Farming, because it is highly adaptable.
There are harmful insecticides being used in organic farming, and the avoidance of synthetic fungicides allows for higher levels of some dangerous fungal toxins in food.
If a fungus-resistant GMO variety were available, organic farmers could then avoid the use of fungicides altogether. But GMOS are completely of of question in OF. Why? Because it is artificial, and that's the end of it.
A little pesticide is fine for cosmetic value: people buy more of the prettier fruits and veggies, great. But when you start to apply modern engineering to it, you get extremely powerful pesticides which are able to do something much more dangerous.
The most talked-about example of what I am talking about is to consider that McDonald’s has uniform french fries throughout the US. They are able to do this because the potatoes that make the french fries are genetically identical; there is exactly one McDonald’s French Fry Potato plant.
As a consequence we are freezing the evolution of part of our food supply while the pests continue to evolve to be better and better at eating those bits. The absolute precondition to do this is that human engineering clears out the pests with advanced pesticides, so that the plants don’t need evolution to stand on their own. And that is really dangerous as it pits human wits against the laws of nature for the long-term.
This is also another reason why that label of “organic” is somewhat wrong. It labels whether something happened in the production of some produce. That is very helpful, say, in response to the OP’s article about avoiding a particular pesticide for health reasons. But it doesn’t say anything about doing the historical deeds of farming where you take your best performers and plant them again for the future: and, worse, there’s a “security vulnerability” here where I can deliver a bunch of organic produce but not support evolution. I can just plant the same crop, look for signs of pests, douse only those fields with advanced pesticides, and the other fields get delivered “organic” even though their survival had only to do with random chance in how they were cultivated, not whether they were tougher in the presence of (weakened) pests.
Thanks for coming here and arguing for Integrated Farming... are there any certifications we can look for that indicate this? (I am under the understanding that anyone can call something "integrated" and it's all on the honor system.)
I'd love to see any info you have on that, because I'm not seeing anything at all. My Google Fu may be weak, but all I find is that McDonalds continues to deny using GMO potatoes.
Also, anecdotally, McDonalds french fries are far from all identical.
The lack of identicality of the fries themselves turns out to be a part of McDonald’s’ broader engineering, as a matter of fact. (You could have expected this—this is the same company whose chicken nuggets come in well-defined named shapes—but it’s not terribly well talked about.) If all the fries at McDonald’s were uniformly long they would have bad stacking properties and would give you too much in your fry cup when filled, etc., so any new potato brand that they accept, or any change to their procedures for cooking their fries, must pass a bunch of stringent tests including having a certain distribution between shorter and longer fries.
In this case there is a page on McDonalds.com which specifies the only four monocultures which they exclusively farm to make McDonalds fries.
I might be wrong, but this is how many edible crops are propagated. Apples for instance are generally clones, because the alternative is getting a new kind of apple every time.
Granted I haven't been to Mcdonalds in a while, but from what I remember this is 100% not the case. You get fries of all different sizes.
I have no doubts that normalization and lack of diversity are a problem. It is being observed today, for example, in the decreasing quality of tomatoes, that have lost flavour in favour of appearance.
But normalization of food production often goes in hand with normalization of feeding habits, and that is a whole different problem. For example, potato producers know that washing potatoes decreases shelf life, but they still do it because otherwise consumers wouldn't buy them.
Modern convenience has a lot to do with this, and I think that the solution lies with consumer habits as well. I am all in favour of a more conscientious approach in the consumer-side, but this should be done without resorting to simplifications and emotional responses. It will also take some time.
On the other hand, convenience is a rather early feature of our lives, so I hope adapting to new ways of producing and consuming could be at least half as quick.
In the end, I hope we will be able to use land efficiently, respecting biodiversity and allowing for a reasonable amount of natural harm, without sacrificing quality and, more importantly, food security.
As for Integrated Farming, the Wikipedia article is not as thorough as the Organic Farming article, perhaps because IF is still not a thing in the US.[1]
Integrated Farming is an extension of Integrated Pest Management, Soil management and Efficient Water Usage practices, along with other schemes. It was largely subsidized in the EU for farmers wanting to adapt their methods. From 2020 onwards, it will become the standard for EU farming practices and subsidies will stop, as far as I know.
Integrated Farming is certified by local agencies, in the same way organic farming is: checking farming logs, pesticide invoices, warehouses, equipments and such. A local agent visits my farm every year.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_farming
All of the bananas you eat are also genetically identical, since all banana trees grown for U.S. markets are clippings from the same original cavendish tree. Bananas is a real concern though for U.S. markets and there is currently a blight spreading, but the good news is there are hundreds of types of bananas, most of them more flavorful. The hard part is shipping them to the U.S. without bruising.
Organic doesn't mean nothing is applied. It's just a different category of product that is approved.
I mostly notice wrt soy fed chicken eggs and dairy myself, but can definitely tell the difference. Butter, and meat not as much beyond flavor.
I haven't read it entirely so I cannot vouch for its quality, but you might be interested in the following paper which does a critique of their work: [2]
[1] https://www.semanticscholar.org/search?q=Glyphosate%2C%20pat...
[2] https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Glyphosate%2C-neurolog...
Extra points for also bringing up gut bacteria which also typically generates controversy, last HN article on the microbiome commenters were calling it peak gut bacteria. Whereas it’s also a science in its infancy.
Quoting from criticism of that paper in [1]. Seems to a rather apt description.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4538578/
[1]https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
You argument is precisely the kind of one that would be deployed to argue against the health risks of tetraethyl lead, asbestos, or CFCs.
It's possible it's not related, but it probably is. You are right, though "damning" and "urgent" are subjective, and depend on how much you care about preventable cancers and birth defects.
> You argument is precisely the kind of one that would be deployed to argue against the health risks of tetraethyl lead, asbestos, or CFCs.
Except there are specific clinical links between lead/asbestos and particular, well identified conditions. On the other hand, your argument is the same used by the anti-vax and "alternative science" crowd since time immortal.
> It's possible it's not related, but it probably is. You are right, though "damning" and "urgent" are subjective, and depend on how much you care about preventable cancers and birth defects.
It must also depend on your definition of "probably"; typically, people use the word to mean "very likely" or "more likely than not", but I see you've developed your own definition here.
Not to mention if I give someone a glass of water it will do nothing. If I force feed them a 1000x the dose, like many of these studies, they would die. A far worse outcome than what happened to these mice and fish.
But if glyphosate is this poisonous why don't rats get sick when we give it to them?
From that samsel paper, figure 3 is the most damning to me as it's closer to my field so I know more about it. The reason why thyroid cancer incidence is rising is mostly that ultrasound is increasingly used for diagnosis which gives you power to detect smaller tumors that you'd otherwise miss and not diagnose as thyroid cancer.
The authors know that this paper is crap, that's why they published it in a predatory journal. There are lots of x that are rising at the same time as y and it's very easy to ignore context and make a correlation. Depression is rising while smoking is falling; you want a cigarette?
Read this damning critic on samsel and seneff: https://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/pmc/ar...
"Dr. Seneff has already predicted that by the year 2025, half of the children will be afflicted with autism from glyphosate poisoning." Half of all kids in 2025 will be autistic, right from the horse's mouth, does that seem reasonable to you?
It cites a number of studies. In particular, https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/tx1001749 ("Glyphosate-Based Herbicides Produce Teratogenic Effects on Vertebrates by Impairing Retinoic Acid Signaling") and https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300483X0... ("Glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and endocrine disruptors in human cell lines")
I don't even know what you're talking about with Samsel and Seneff. And I can't view your link.
From the Chemical Research in Toxicology article: "A reporter gene assay revealed that GBH treatment increased endogenous retinoic acid (RA) activity in Xenopus embryos and cotreatment with a RA antagonist rescued the teratogenic effects of the GBH. Therefore, we conclude that the phenotypes produced by GBH are mainly a consequence of the increase of endogenous retinoid activity. This is consistent with the decrease of Sonic hedgehog (Shh) signaling from the embryonic dorsal midline, with the inhibition of otx2 expression and with the disruption of cephalic neural crest development."
From the Toxicology article: "First, we observed a human cell endocrine disruption from 0.5 ppm on the androgen receptor in MDA-MB453-kb2 cells for the most active formulation (R400), then from 2 ppm the transcriptional activities on both estrogen receptors were also inhibited on HepG2. Aromatase transcription and activity were disrupted from 10 ppm. Cytotoxic effects started at 10 ppm with Alamar Blue assay (the most sensitive), and DNA damages at 5 ppm."
Of course GMO Wheat, Soy, Corn and the increased intake in Fructose in general along with refined seed oils are probably all at least in part to blame about the general state of health in the world.
Now that we've generally solved the issues of famine, we need to work on healthier foods... of course corporations aren't aligned with such concerns.
>In 2011, Seneff began publishing articles on topics related to biology and medicine, an area in which she has no relevant qualifications or expertise, in low-impact, open access journals,
>Seneff's claim that glyphosate is a major cause of autism and that, "At today's rates, by 2025, half the kids born will be diagnosed with autism," has also been criticized...contrary to Seneff's claims, many scientific reviews have found that the rise in autism rates over the past 20 years is due to changes in diagnostic practices
>Clinical neurologist and skeptic Steven Novella criticized Seneff's Entropy publication for making "correlation is causation" assumptions using broad statistical extrapolations from limited data,
>In 2014–2016 Seneff was proposed as an expert witness for litigators seeking damages from Pfizer associated with their cholesterol drug Lipitor,[15] but the court dismissed the claim largely because Seneff lacked expert status
I love the last one; she's actually a court-certified quack.
https://predatoryjournals.com/journals/
I understand that science is hard, and I think it's great that people read primary research, but your attempts to do so should be balanced (i.e. don't just read things that support your argument!) and you should seek expert interpretations when possible to consider counterarguments.
It's good to take a step back and understand the kind of evidence that a given manuscript may employ. Ideally you have high-quality data from experimental intervention, appropriately quantified with statistics. This generally comes from tried-and-true experimental methods, and will produce results that speak for themselves without 'squinting' at it with stats. For smaller effect sizes, or else when sampling is limited, you may need to rely on more questionable statistics, but as part of a suite of complementary methods, this data can be very useful as well.
Next would be observational data. Observational data must deal with confounding factors as no controlled experimental intervention is made, and can only demonstrate correlation, not causation. Sometimes this data is all that is reasonably available (for practical or ethical concerns), but extreme care must be used with observational data. It becomes very easy to support a desired conclusion by careful selection of data. Serious work with observational data will go to extreme lengths to consider potentially confounding factors and explore them in great detail.
This is not a serious paper. It's not good science, and there are litany of reasons.
This paper amounts of a sort of 'gish gallop' of specious correlations that pin glyphosate as the ultimate evil and cause of an absurd variety of maladies. Celiac disease, intestinal infection, sulfate metabolism, retinoic acid, reproductive issues, Cobalamin deficiency, anemia, Molybdenum deficiency, thyroid cancer and selenium, kidney disease, general cancer, and various nutritional deficiencies. It's an astounding list. More astounding, in other work, the first author has included asthma, autism, diabetes, COPD, and more!
A priori, you should consider whether this is plausible when it's such a well-studied molecule. How could so many studies, carefully conducted with standard methods in epidemiology, biochemistry, molecular biology, etc. have missed this litany of issues?
What kind of data is backing this up? The paper presents a few graphs where incidents of certain diseases are compared to the mass of glyhposate applied. One immediately wonders how this relationship plays out: are more acres being treated with glyphoste, is the application per acre increasing, what is the number of people exposed, what are the doses of exposure, are there geographic relationships between exposure and incidence, are there new diagnostic tools or detection of the disease, etc. etc.? These are the standard sorts of questions you expect to be addressed from observational studies, yet they have no discussion here. This is telling.
Furthermore, the proposed mechanisms are little more than idle speculation. This is basic biochemistry and molecular biology, tractable issues that can be investigated experimentally. So why is this discussed? This is the sort of thing that might get a paragraph or two in a review article talking about future work. Generally this is only done when the review author knows that a colleague is performing this work or seeking funding for it.
It's difficult to communicate how 'off' this kind of speculation is. Biology is full of specious hypotheses. It's so easy to be wrong, but to sound very right and reasonable while you're doing it. You quickly develop a deep distaste for speculation outside of some animated conversations you might have with colleagues in the lab or at conferences. It has no place in the literature. It is a violation of norms that is deeply revealing.
So what about these ...
Speaking of fishy, the fish study was a small study where fish were literally swimming in roundup(not just glyphosate) at much higher concentrations than anything humans have contact with. Which tells us it's probably a bad idea to drink a glass of round up.
Here is a critique by an actual researcher in the field. http://www.ultimateglutenfree.com/2014/02/does-glyphosate-ca...
The people who show some kind of doubt are, as always, the ones to actually listen to.
The more you really learn, the less ignorant and more nuanced you become.
These other folks say “know” when they mean “have confidence in” and they are looking for you to similarly say “know” meaning that. Your internal meaning of knowledge can be much stronger, but they are just asking for you to give your reasons why you think that would be the case. You can feel free to hedge as well.
“I think we can resolve all of these things if we just make a UserInteractions table on our end, rather than proxying all of this to the upstream API. We will still proxy the interactions, but our source of truth can be our table.”
“How do you know that will work?”
“Well, it involves taking on some risks, like when they update things and never tell our source of truth about them, then our two systems are out-of-sync. I think that probably the problem of synchronizing our table with their system is simpler and more tractable than getting their system to behave in a normal way where we don't get successful responses until we're sure that the interaction has happened. It would be different if everything was changing every second of course, but that isn’t what we’ve been seeing happen on our staging server. The rest of it is not too bad, there are three API endpoints which generate these UserInteractions and they all touch it but rewriting them can’t be more than a day’s work, so the only hard problem is populating this UserInteractions table in the first place, but that’s not an ongoing risk, just a one-time cost for a developer to pay. That’s why I’m confident that this is a good choice moving forward.”
“How do you know that interaction times won’t suffer?”
“Well, I cannot say 100% for sure but usually requests over the local network to the local database are going to be faster than general network requests, unless things are really unusually smooth between the two. But at our present number of users and our projected go-live numbers, I have seen MySQL setups handle that with no problem and if it is a problem then we’ll have to face that scaling difficulty either way, as MySQL is not just used for these UserInteractions but also for X, Y, and Z.”
You see? I don’t need to claim absolute knowledge here, I just need to express:
1. There is some sort of cost-benefit analysis of trade-offs happening here,
2. someone has done this analysis, and,
3. more info can become available and I can be held accountable for this trade-off if this choice later becomes problematic.
It’s sort of a part of negotiation rather than part of technical responsibility. If you can appeal to an outside authority (“The OWASP security guidelines clearly state...”) or at least an unbiased one (“I ran this by Susan, who is a developer at our contractor that we work with, and she agreed it was worth a shot and gave me some good feedback about a potential pitfall that I should avoid...”) or otherwise communicate that some sort of expertise has peeked in to a problem, then people feel naturally more confident and trusting about it. If you don’t do that then it starts to sound more like “we should do this because I say so” even when the problem is legitimate and painful.
I guess I’m saying, think of yourself as a doctor talking to a patient about an upcoming surgery. They are right to have nebulous general concerns and they talk in funny ways that technically do not have much scientific value, but it is important to reassure them when needed, provide them options when needed, and just trust that if they lose trust of you and want to get second opinions, they are acting in good faith and have every right to be concerned about these things that are probably innocuous but have a tiny probability to kill them.
(Some add “and off-by-one errors” but arguably that is the same problem of some ‘cache’ being ‘invalid’ and never suitably repopulated…)
With that said downstream caches are often solid, if one treats them as the source of truth. “We just pretend this has not happened until we see it.” Same thing with denormalized data in a database, sometimes that's the only way to build the appropriate index which speeds things up.
People who are well-versed with statistics have studied vaccines, gmo, and glyphosate the overwhelming majority all came to the same conclusion and they're confident in that conclusion. Maybe these things are dangerous but there isn't any good evidence they are.
I count at least 6 links to prominent journals and 2 links to publications by the WHO and the EPA/EFSA. The author is a physicist and former editor of Nature.
And to make matters worse, companies were able to suppress evidence of its danger for decades. We never know what evidence is being withheld from us, so I feel like a little irrational paranoia is actually rational.
Edit: Oh, and how about Exxon withholding all that information about climate change for 40 years? That's another good one.
Also, many medications have under reported side effects. I myself have experienced insane side effects from an antibiotic. Doctors I have seen fail to report to the FDA and claim it is something else. I have talked to many people with the same symptoms and again they encountered the same issue with the medical community. While the FDA actually has been adding more and more serious side effects to the medications label, due to people self-reporting because doctors fail to do so.
The 'science' side is perfectly prepared to accept any compelling data about risks or hazards. In many cases, these are the same people that have raised the alarm on various pollutants or environmental risks. But they don't say that about glyphosate because .. there's no evidence. It's just not there. All the terrible evils that this compound is supposed to have, such powerful effects, would be easy to see in controlled studies. Even small effects that are nonetheless epidemiologically relevant are well within what is detectable.
Instead, what you get is a bunch of certifiable bullshit like Seralini, that Samsel guy linked above, etc. Stuff that is objectively bad science, so far beyond what is on the margin that it beggars belief.
It's crap.
The 'science' folk may seem a little defensive, and that's because we absolutely are. We care deeply about science and epistemology. We don't take kindly to liars, and there are an awful lot of them who take up this torch for whatever reason.
When I was a kid growing up in central Illinois in the 1970s, before Roundup, "walking beans" was a common summer job for kids. You'd go out into soybean fields with some tools and rip out everything that wasn't a soybean plant. Of course, spraying chemicals is cheaper than hiring a busload of kids, so that's just a memory now.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
https://farm.bot/
Keep in mind the bots don't have to be very large; certainly not human-sized. Something the size of a roller skate, maybe, with specialized weed-killing tools. And if it encounters something too big or weird to handle on its own, it can mark it on a map and send an alert for human intervention.
There's a danger these companies can make inroads though: I was in field few days back and there was an Agriculture University professor who quite paternalistically suggested to a farmer that he use this product to de-weed the field. Gosh, degrees and education aren't enough sometimes. I wasn't in the position to debate (as someone younger and a software engineer), it made my stomach growl.
We honestly need to have ethics trainings for Professors/Researchers across the globe.
https://www.amazon.com/Whitewash-Killer-Cancer-Corruption-Sc...
Pesticides inc. *cides in agriculture along with antibiotics in poultry, which helped address world hunger is becoming bane of humanity.
When there are chances of superbug arising from antibiotics abuse such as colistin from India becoming a pandemic, why treat these issues as local to the country?
It's entirely possible the occurrence wasn't elevated relative to populations she didn't work with or I didn't hear about... but I've long suspected that there's a story hiding in plain sight that's bigger than even the recent cancer-related damages. Especially given that many of the workers are Mixtec and so are incredibly isolated from society-at-large (many would pretend to understand Spanish and didn't realize they could request Mixtec-speaking translators).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic_acid
If they're using undocumented workers do you think they're going to prevent them from being exposed to a key ingredient in Agent Orange?
A prime example of why "organic" food is dangerous. We developed artificial herbicides and pesticides to be safer than organic counterparts. I'm not exactly sure how people are convinced that "organic" food = higher quality and safer
Well the obvious answer to "how are people convinced" is "advertising".
Ok, and...? I'm not well-versed in these things, but a quick google suggests the situation with 2,4-D is the same: anecdotal evidence of birth defects and cancers, lack of research into these topics and, miraculously, an EPA declaration that they're safe.
> If they're using undocumented workers do you think they're going to prevent them from being exposed to a key ingredient in Agent Orange?
No, of course I don't think the employers or regulators are protecting the workers. That's my entire point.
I'm sympathetic to concerns about our food chain but to the folks hoping for the downfall of Monsanto/Bayer: You are hereby invited over to pull weeds in 100 degree weather. I'll supply the beer.
I'm not familiar with starthistle in particular, but thistles can be controlled through timed cuts and/or burning the seed heads. Takes multiple years and a lot of work though.
[Vinegar] works as a contact or burn-down herbicide, which means that it only kills the portion of the plant it contacts. The thistle will re-grow from the roots, and you will have to make repeated applications until you exhaust the carbohydrate reserves in the roots. There is probably a lot of seed present in the soil, and new thistle plants will sprout that you will have to treat in future years.
Just picture yourself doing this on 90ac of hills!
When we talk about things like glysophate staying around in the soil or making it’s way into the water supply, what we really should be questioning is why so much is being used in the first place. And that’s because we grow fragile annual crops in enormous monocultures making the use of chemicals a necessity.
I’m for alternative methods of farming, like permaculture, but I’m not so ideological to be against chemicals in the absolute. Based on the evidence I’ve seen, pragmatic use of sprays isn’t terribly dangerous. I’m talking spot spraying as part of conservation and restoration work, etc.
The fixation on particular chemicals like glysophate is a distraction from the root issue, which is that industrial scale agriculture is — on the whole —damaging to the planet.
[1] https://www.ecorobotix.com/en/autonomous-robot-weeder/
There is no strong evidence of its harm yet. It may be an EDC, but we don't have the data to prove it.
The fearmongering has got to stop. Why wasn't Bayer/Monsanto allowed to provide expert witness testimony? Are we going to continue to throw scientific methods out the window?