20 ms·

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

405 points by geoka9 10y ago

burntrelish1273 10y ago
"Monsanto Advocate Says Roundup Is Safe Enough To Drink, Then Refuses To Drink It" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/27/monsanto-roundup-patrick-moore_n_6956034.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/27/monsanto-roundup-pa...
- jnordwick 10y ago
  I wouldnt drink a glass somebody with a clear agenda gave me. Who knows what else they would have laced it with. Man throws up after ingesting glyphosate is a great title too if they put anything in it to make me vomit. Or it might just not be wise to drink so much so quickly: man refuse to drink 20 gallons of water, could it be cancerous?
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    I have been told that urine is perfectly safe to drink by many people, yet not a single one of them agreed to drink a glass of it that I provided.
    - jnordwick 10y ago
      What'd you have for lunch? I might know a guy who's into that.
- gcheong 10y ago
  But this guy did: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8sgEhpHM4k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8sgEhpHM4k
  - jnordwick 10y ago
    Not going to click... Not going to click... <click> Oh wait. It's exactly what you said it was. He made the exact same arguments I did. Pretty cool. LOL: glyphosate, fracking fluid, artificial sweetener, salt and a red bull chaser. And what I'm pretty sure was an unorganic lemon.
  - samangan 10y ago
    And this guy drinks cyanide: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bWNpO5vvhpk https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bWNpO5vvhpk My point is that being able to drink one glass of the stuff doesn't really tell me much.
    - taurath 10y ago
      Its not the single cigarette that kills you :P
    - darken 10y ago
      That's an acutely toxic simple anion (CN-), in random things like e.g. apple or peach seeds (#evolution) and commonly byproduct of breaking down more complex atoms. Versus C3H8NO5P (with additives to multiply the effectiveness), which sounds less inherently safe...
    - fernandotakai 10y ago
      btw cody's lab is an really fun scientific youtube channel. his series on extracting metals is really fun.
  - ino 10y ago
    It was another glass. It's stupid either way.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- taneq 10y ago
  Lithium ion batteries are pretty much 'safe to eat'^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H non-toxic (Edit: NOT safe to eat, as discussed below) (compared with lead-acid or nickel-cadmium batteries)... but I still wouldn't actually eat one.
  - sien 10y ago
    Lithium in your stomach? Seriously? Button batteries are a real risk for kids. They have died eating them. For any parent out there it's scary, button batteries are pretty common and look like a sweet or something. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/two-year-old-girl-dies-after-swallowing-button-battery-over-christmas-in-us-a6793846.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/two-year-ol...
    - taneq 10y ago
      That's a terrible story. :( And a timely reminder that 'non-toxic' doesn't mean 'edible'. It seems like a heartless nitpick but the reason button cells are dangerous is because they're batteries, not because of their constituent chemicals. The electric current they generate electrolyzes water producing highly corrosive hydroxide. A running blender isn't poisonous either, but you wouldn't eat one.
    - ClassyJacket 10y ago
      SOME Lithium in your stomach is safe, and in some circumstances is arguably safer than none, as it's an effective, prescribed antidepressant. But I don't advocate eating batteries. Just saying that Lithium isn't poison in certain quantities.
  - larsiusprime 10y ago
    Then don't brag about how you'd be happy to actually eat one and expect to hold on to your credibility.
- adrr 10y ago
  Eating your feces is safe to eat but i wouldn't eat it. Same with drinking urine.
- pkaye 10y ago
  Caffeine is a part of many drinks yet its LD50 is lower than that of Roundup. The dosage matters too.
  - jerven 10y ago
    Neem OIL is an biological pesticide that is organic approved. Vastly more likely to kill you than roundup use. Neem OIL LD50 = 31.95g/kg Caffeine LD50 = 175 g/kg (150-200 estimate in humans) Glycosate LD50 = > 2000 g/kg i.e. the "Biological&organic and traditional" alternative used is two orders magnitude more dangerous.
    - lorenzhs 10y ago
      Except two of those numbers are off by three orders of magnitude. Caffeine's LD50 is 150-200 milligram/kg, Glyphosate is at 2-5.6g/kg (in rats). These numbers are completely meaningless, though, because LD50 is not the correct measure of toxicity unless you plan on drinking the stuff. The concerns are about the effects of pesticides on the body, not literally dying from the poisonous effects of pesticide. Salt is at around 3g/kg.
      - jerven 10y ago
        Thanks you are correct, I messed up my numbers.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- Houshalter 10y ago
  So if I remember the discussion on this article when it was going around, the roundup they had wasn't pure glyphosate. They sometimes mix it with other stuff, especially the off the shelf stuff for lawns. You can drink pure glyphosate and survive (I wouldn't recommend it, though.) It's been tested on animals many times. It's not like some mystery substance that's never been tested.
jnordwick 10y ago
I think the proper comparison is Roundup verses other herbicides. It that comparative analysis, it definitely wins.
- sjg007 10y ago
  I think you mean "vs other herbicides."
- mohaine 10y ago
  Especially vs other broad spectrum herbicides. We used this one year as a no till knock down: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraquat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraquat The skull and cross bones on the label was bad enough but seeing what even the smallest of drops did to plants was an eye opener. A droplet small enough to blow 30 feet in the air was enough to make a yellow spot on any plant it landed on. It is also linked to Parkinson's disease.
  - jnordwick 10y ago
    I would not drink that.
  - arthurfm 10y ago
    > The skull and cross bones on the label was bad enough but seeing what even the smallest of drops did to plants was an eye opener. VX (and VG) nerve agents were originally intended for use as pesticides so this isn't surprising. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VX_(nerve_agent)#Discovery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VX_(nerve_agent)#Discovery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VG_(nerve_agent) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VG_(nerve_agent)
- ionised 10y ago
  being the best of a bad bunch (if it does in fact have these health risks) won't somehow make it good.
gcheong 10y ago
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/does-glyphosate-cause-cancer/ http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/does-glyphosate...
- emmelaich 10y ago
  Great website! Thanks.
  - 0xcde4c3db 10y ago
    You might also be interested in Science-Based Medicine [1], another blog where Steven Novella posts. [1] https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ (in case you're wondering about the name: in a nutshell, "science-based medicine" is the position that "evidence-based medicine" is an insufficient rejection of quackery because it leads to a lot of effort being misspent on finding "evidence" to support scientifically implausible and already-debunked treatments and theories)
    - slazaro 10y ago
      > (in case you're wondering about the name: in a nutshell, "science-based medicine" is the position that "evidence-based medicine" is an insufficient rejection of quackery because it leads to a lot of effort being misspent on finding "evidence" to support scientifically implausible and already-debunked treatments and theories) Sorry if this is a common objection, but my first reaction to this is, there's lots of people that reject the word "science" (today's anti-intellectualism), but they're okay with the word "evidence". So even if "science-based" is better, on the surface a lot of people will instantly have a negative reaction to the name.
      - Elrac 10y ago
        Related topic: In the eternal and tiresome dispute between religious Creationists and modern science, a favorite talking point is that "it's only a theory!" As a result, some science-minded people are proposing that scientists adopt a different word to substitute for the "tainted" word "theory," whose colloquial meaning differs from that in a professional scientific context. Me, I think this is a terrible idea. I fiercely resist having my (or anyone's) use of vocabulary directed to accommodate ignorant people. I can see only losing battles in that direction.
baldfat 10y ago
The funny thing is we have less herbicides because of Roundup. The option is we starve the world, because we will not be able to product enough wheat etc. or we use stronger herbicides. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/organic-farming-yields-and-feeding-the-world-under-climate-change/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/organic-farming-y...
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  The issue is not the existence of Roundup but Monsanto's apparent failure to inform people of its known dangers.
  - cholantesh 10y ago
    /s/apparent/alleged
  - nicksergeant 10y ago
    "known" dangers is debatable, that's what the issue is. As posted elsewhere in these comments: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/does-glyphosate-cause-cancer/ http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/does-glyphosate...
    - baldfat 10y ago
      I would think if this was an issue wouldn't we see epidemic health issues already its been going strong for over 20 years.
    - beautifulfreak 10y ago
      http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/ITX_2013_06_04_Seneff.pdf http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/ITX_2013_06_04_Seneff.pdf
      - drakonandor 10y ago
        Is Seneff an expert on whatever sub-field of biology this is?
5706906c06c 10y ago
This is beginning to look like Michael Clayton.
najajomo 10y ago
"Weeds Your Way" – Organic Farmers Share Secrets of Herbicide-Free Farming http://www.ofrf.org/news/weeds-your-way-%E2%80%93-organic-farmers-share-secrets-herbicide-free-farming http://www.ofrf.org/news/weeds-your-way-%E2%80%93-organic-fa...
- spraak 10y ago
  A great book as well is One Straw Revolution
finid 10y ago
“We would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to speak,” Mr. Heydens wrote, citing a previous instance in which he said the company had done this. Science for sale. Shouldn't that Mr. Rowland guy be in jail?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- crumchunks 10y ago
  he will likely head a regulatory agency soon instead
- hammock 10y ago
  What sockpuppets are downvoting this? Not your typical downvoted HN comment, yet, here it is at the bottom.
- AstralStorm 10y ago
  Unfortunately it is legal. Not even fraud. At most major corporate negligence.
- fil_a_del_fee_a 10y ago
  I was going to post this exact same quote. It is in my clipboard. Controversial note: When politicians talk about defunding the EPA, people get upset. When the EPA pulls stunts like this, it makes you question their purpose. Seriously, why have regulators that "tip off" the very companies that they are supposed to be regulating?
- cholantesh 10y ago
  When approached by a company to provide time and expertise dealing with a business problem, do you provide it for free?
  - finid 10y ago
    This is like a judge (or a jury member) accepting a bribe from a prosecutor or a defense attorney. That's illegal.
luckydude 10y ago
My dad died because of roundup. He was a physics prof, smart guy, fought hard for wetland issues. Was on the board of Wisconsin Wetlands. He didn't drink, didn't smoke, he was very active, very fit, and yet he got cancer. I can feel the down votes coming, but he was a guy that just should not have gotten cancer. Roundup gave him cancer. I could tell you stories about him dieing that would be not so fun. Fuck cancer and fuck roundup hard. Edit: he and my mom fought invasive species and they used roundup. So maybe that's on them. That's why he got cancer.
- alevskaya 10y ago
  I'm very sorry for your loss. But as a cancer researcher, I can fairly confidently say that glyphosate had nothing to do with your father's death. There just isn't any evidence showing that it has direct mutagenic activity or even other indirect biological influences on the probability of developing cancer. I've also lost several fit, active nonsmoking friends and family to cancer. Our cells copy themselves imperfectly, and sometimes our inborn regulatory mechanisms go awry. There's not always a "cause", beyond the fact that our bodies aren't built to a perfect spec. There's a massive amount of work going on these days to develop entirely new classes of treatments, so I hope the clinical situation in a few decades will be brighter by far. Again, sorry for your loss.
  - alphonsegaston 10y ago
    It was my understanding that while the IARC classification of glyphosate as a carcinogen has been disputed, exposure has been shown to increase the risk of melanoma, especially in occupational contexts: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/27058477/?i=15&from=glyphosate%20cancer https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/27058477/?i=15&from=gl...
    - alevskaya 10y ago
      That's a terrible paper. This is a small epidemiological study where they're looking both at 1. exposure to sun and 2. occupational exposure to -any- herbicides/pesticides/fungacides/insecticides (not just glyphosate) and trying to pull out odds ratios of melanoma risk. Outdoor work definitely increases melanoma risk, but I wouldn't try to pull out much more than that from this paper!
djsumdog 10y ago
It's difficult to judge long term toxicity in humans. You don't immediately keel over and die when you smoke a cigarette, and the correlation between lung cancer and cigarettes needs a fully understandable cause. That's how the industry slipped by for years. Likewise, most European countries do not fluoridate their water and the correlation doesn't seem to show any significant difference in dental health. The anti-fluoride people state these numbers, and then go and use the same bad logical to attribute fluoride to a host of ailments that are loosely correlated without any causation links. Can fluoride in water lead to osteoporosis in older adults? Well we don't know, and these types of studies are very difficult to conduct because there are tons of variables. Many people drink from a combination of fluoridated and non-fluoridated water supplies and beverages throughout their lives. People move in and out of municipalities with different water treatment techniques. People have different intakes for calcium, iron, fibre, carbs throughout their entire lives. People have different genetics. When it comes to long term toxicity, it's really difficult to narrow down factors because you can't control for everything (ethically) and humans can live a long time. It would make sense for at least some percentage of the population to have adverse reaction to Glyphosate. We all have slight genetic differences and reactions. Can it lead to specific cancers in humans consistently? Do we understand the mechanism by which it does this chemically? Can we replicate this in other animals where we control for other factors. Just like the tobacco industry, I wouldn't put it past Monsanto to both bury and make up studies to suit their interests.
- joering2 10y ago
  > You don't immediately keel over and die when you smoke a cigarette, My all-time favorite: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpwcF3Malj8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpwcF3Malj8 To play devils advocate.. we will never prove if smoking truly cause cancer, unless we go back in time and look at the same person in the same circumstances only that he/she never smoked. And in all seriousness, my grandmother smoked all her life, from age of 16 all the way till she died at 103 due to Alzheimer. Her lungs were as gold as it gets!
  - grogenaut 10y ago
    Did they autopsy her lungs? Also gold lung sounds like a pretty bad condition. You sure that didn't kill her?
abandonliberty 10y ago
I've been researching this. 1. Glyphosate (roundup) use is two orders of magnitude higher than originally approved. 2. Due to the emergence of glyphosate-resistant weeds, the dosage has been increased substantially. 3. It is now also usually combined with other compounds to increase effectiveness, which affects how it breaks down and affects both the food and environment. 4. It is now also used for 'green burndown'. To help dessicate the crop. AKA they use it to kills crops to speed harvest, resulting in significantly elevated levels in your food. Start with the wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate Go on to a letter of concern published in the journal of Environmental Health signed by 14 experts in the field. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26883814 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26883814 Realize that little to gain from raising these concerns, while there are many wealthy parties with vested interests in not finding these results. There's little funding behind this. Governing bodies (e.g. in Germany) are still relying on findings from labs with clear conflicts of interest.
- blacksmith_tb 10y ago
  Without claiming RoundUp is good for you, I would point to this with regards to your point #4: http://www.snopes.com/food/tainted/roundupwheat.asp http://www.snopes.com/food/tainted/roundupwheat.asp
  - CodeWriter23 10y ago
    Gotta love how Snopes dismisses anecdotal claims of allergies, then goes on to use anecdotal stories from farmers on a discussion forum to support their assertion that RoundUp isn't used as a crop dessicant.
    - gadders 10y ago
      Pretty sure they use it on Rape Seed in the UK. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_desiccation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_desiccation
    - randomdata 10y ago
crumchunks 10y ago
This is why people eat organic food.
- kirrent 10y ago
  Wilful misunderstanding of the research in the field? Or is it a gut reaction that spurs them into alternatives, based on a pretty meaningless label, which have no real proven health benefit? Perhaps it's the easy narrative of painting an entirely normal company as evil because they're messing with forces best left alone.
  - crumchunks 10y ago
    Someone didn't read the article.
  - snowpanda 10y ago
    All the arguments you used can be applied on both sides of the argument actually.
- jpttsn 10y ago
  That's great news! Let's tell the organic brands so they can stop spending money on advertising.
  - crumchunks 10y ago
    There are brand name vegetables?
crumchunks 10y ago
This is why people eat organic food. Now if you want some other curious links to pesticides and weedkillers, look at Stephanie Seneffs research.
- a_bonobo 10y ago
  It's a common misconception that organic food doesn't use pesticides - the USDA's list of allowed pesticides has quite a few pesticides that are dangerous to humans, such as various coppers, elemental sulfur, boric acid, the list is here: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9874504b6f1025eb0e6b67cadf9d3b40&rgn=div6&view=text&node=7:3.1.1.9.32.7&idno=7#se7.3.205_1601 https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9874504b6f1...
  - crumchunks 10y ago
    Did you even read your own link?
    - DannyBee 10y ago
      Did you? Things like copper sulfate, etc are not exactly on the "great for humans" list.
      - crumchunks 10y ago
        So you also scanned and didn't read. They're not pesticides and more importantly they are not poured on the crops. Read it.
  - HillaryBriss 10y ago
    boric acid is an interesting one. it has a significant level of toxicity for kidneys. they use a lot of boric acid in that common residential attic insulation made from shredded post-consumer paper.
Vadoff 10y ago
I wonder if non-GMO foods have a higher likelihood to cause cancer because of Roundup.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
gumby 10y ago
One important reasons for robotics is to reduce/eliminate the use of pesticides. After all we use weed killed because it's cheaper than weeding by hand. Regardless of whether Glyphosate is toxic to humans or not, it kills the rhizome (fungi and other ecology around the roots), drying the soil and making it less productive. Robots will not only avoid this problem but support the planting of complementary crops.
- cies 10y ago
  While I'm not against robots per se, I do wonder why "working the fields" cannot be made a good job for humans? Without this job I foresee several potential problems: large unemployment, people leaving the countryside, many low paying jobs that feel meaningless to the workers.
  - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
    > I do wonder why "working the fields" cannot be made a good job for humans It would make food expensive again. As of 2010, 1.6% of American and 14% of the world's workers worked in agriculture [1]. As recently as 1870, that figure for the United States was almost 50% [2]. Most of us prefer today's standard of living. [1] http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.AGR.EMPL.ZS http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.AGR.EMPL.ZS [2] https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1981/11/art2full.pdf https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1981/11/art2full.pdf page 12
    - cies 10y ago
      > It would make food expensive again. Yes. Expensive compared to other things. > Most of us prefer today's standard of living. Yet we've never been more depressed as a population...
  - slazaro 10y ago
    This is why there's been lots of talk about basic income in relation to fears about unemployment because of automation.
  - pjc50 10y ago
macandcheese 10y ago
It's not legal for sale in New York, mostly because of false advertising the company previously did touting it's biodegradability, even going so far as to say that it's "practically non-toxic". In fact, they continue to be the subject of a class action lawsuit in NY: https://www.law360.com/articles/849367/monsanto-trims-but-can-t-escape-ny-roundup-cancer-suit https://www.law360.com/articles/849367/monsanto-trims-but-ca... Unfortunately all that may come of that lawsuit is a small label change... It pains me to see so many people here supporting the company, especially from a group usually so ready to expose the faults of big corporations. You know, being a "hacker" and caring about the environment and the health of our planet and it's inhabitants are not mutually exclusive.
- sametmax 10y ago
  It's a recent trend in many niche (but maybe somehow influential ?) social networks like HN or some subreddits. Controversial big players are having more and more supportive comments, despite previously being famous for dubious proven activities. It wasn't like that at the beginning. I tend to put my tinfoil hat on when I think about what could have caused it.
  - kamih 10y ago
    No tinfoil required, there are now companies you can pay that will "manage" social network comment sections in your favor.
    - jpttsn 10y ago
      There are also private detectives for hire. Even so, you individually are probably not being stalked. I'd hold on to the tinfoil just in case.
      - sametmax 10y ago
        Well, tinfoil new spring collection aside, you can't really compare: - the value of one average joe data; - against the value of a well orchestrated PR campaign on a site that experts, investors and intellectuals use as an information hub. If you are skilled enough to maintain a good reputation of a client on HN, this is quite a good thing to manage IMO. And here I am, posting comments for upvotes while maybe I could pay for it. I should step up my game.
pfarnsworth 10y ago
I just doused my yard with Roundup to get rid of the vast amounts of weeds and vegetation. I have to say, it did a fantastic job. What does this mean about the soil though, is it totally fucked now?
- Obi_Juan_Kenobi 10y ago
  Glyphosate breaks down pretty quickly. One of the debates about it is how quickly this actually happens, namely in the context of over-application, but in any case it's pretty quick. The low environmental persistence is one of the major selling points. After a couple months, chances are even a very sensitive assay wouldn't be able to detect it in your lawn. As a one-off use, I don't think there's even a marginally compelling argument that it's dangerous.
  - pfarnsworth 10y ago
    Thank you.
djyaz1200 10y ago
Having held my mothers hand as she received chemo for her Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma I can tell you this... if there is a even a tiny chance using Roundup increases the risk of the disease it isn't worth it.
- hcurtiss 10y ago
  This is a difficult position to maintain when we promote many activities that kill many people every day (e.g., driving). Sometimes the profound benefits of certain activities are worth the the "tiny chance" of downside risk. Whether this is one of those is up for debate, but it doesn't seem you're attributing any value to using glyphosate, which there doubtless is some.
- duncan_bayne 10y ago
  I'm sorry for your loss. But what if the alternatives are generations trapped in back breaking manual labour, or impoverished people starving? Cost benefit calculations are rarely as obvious as they seem to those grieving the cost.
- ptaipale 10y ago
  There are lots of other things that have much higher chance of causing cancer. Almost everything is carcinogenic, so if you start living by that argument, Roundup is not high on the list at all. For instance, drinking beer or wine. Alcohol is known to be carcinogenic for certain whereas with Roundup we're still talking about that tiny chance. There's always a tiny chance that a molecule from car exhaust or microparticle from a rail increases the risk of cancer, so will you say that the risk of being in a proximity of a car or a bus or a train isn't worth it? It is important to be able to put things into context and assess the orders of magnitude. Things like beer are for certain a much bigger cancer risk than Roundup, not to mention tobacco. Still, there is much more talk about banning Roundup than beer.
bootload 10y ago
As a youngster I used to work PT while I was at Uni back in the 80's, taking care of a semi-rural parkland spread over 200 square miles. Every Spring, our workload would increase, slashing, clearing of weeds and blackberries. So Round-up was used. I told the boss no and refused to use it. The pesticide would be measured then added to the spray packs and the blokes would hand spray what ever needed to be knocked down. When they would slightly bend over, the air-relief valve would spit the spray out over their bare necks. After work was done they'd complain of dizziness. Whenever I read about Monsanto now, I also think about Michael White and his fight to sell seed, [0] after a neighbour accidentally contaminating it with ^round-up ready^ seed. [1],[2] So, F. Monsanto. Reference [0] "Why does Monsanto sue farmers who save seeds?" http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/why-does-monsanto-sue-farmers-who-save-seeds.aspx http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/why-does-monsanto-su... [1] Seeding Fear: https://youtube.com/watch?v=YZGueeao0tE https://youtube.com/watch?v=YZGueeao0tE [2] http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/see-neil-youngs-monsanto-themed-mini-documentary-seeding-fear-20150723 http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/see-neil-youngs-monsa...
- cies 10y ago
  I honestly do not understand that a company with such a track record is widely considered to be an legit business. They're a public enemy!
  - joatmon-snoo 10y ago
    Maybe because most of their track record is just really bad PR and most people just fall for the big evil corporation line without ever fact checking claims?
    - agroot12 10y ago
      You mean we should fact check the unsealed emails? Let me quote one of the more explicit parts of the article: > Court records show that Monsanto was tipped off to the determination by a deputy division director at the E.P.A., Jess Rowland, months beforehand. That led the company to prepare a public relations assault on the finding well in advance of its publication. Monsanto executives, in their internal email traffic, also said Mr. Rowland had promised to beat back an effort by the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct its own review. > Dan Jenkins, a Monsanto executive, said in an email in 2015 that Mr. Rowland, referring to the other agency’s potential review, had told him, “If I can kill this, I should get a medal.” The review never took place. In another email, Mr. Jenkins noted to a colleague that Mr. Rowland was planning to retire and said he “could be useful as we move forward with ongoing glyphosate defense.” For me, this qualifies as 'big evil corporation' behavior. [edited: formatting]
unlmtd 10y ago
Duh!
acd 10y ago
Pesticide is killing gut bacteria in Bees which has led to Bee death. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0070182#authcontrib http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.... Pesticide also increases the risk of getting Diabetics. Here is a meta study "After reviewing 21 previous studies, researchers found exposure to any type of pesticide was associated with a 61 percent increased risk for any type of diabetes. The increased risk for type 2 diabetes -- the most common type -- was 64 percent, the investigators found." http://www.webmd.com/diabetes/news/20150916/pesticide-exposure-tied-to-diabetes-risk http://www.webmd.com/diabetes/news/20150916/pesticide-exposu...
- tynpeddler 10y ago
  The article you linked isn't very descriptive. Can you find the actual publication? The article also seems a little contradictory. It opens with the line, "After reviewing 21 previous studies, researchers found exposure to any type of pesticide was associated with a 61 percent increased risk for any type of diabetes", then later states, "The following chemicals were linked to an increased risk of diabetes, according to the researchers: chlordane, oxychlordane, trans-nonachlor, DDT, DDE, dieldrin, heptachlor and HCB." There are lots of pesticides not in that list, including glyphosate. In addition, HCB and DDT are already banned in most places, and the others are considered toxic. The original research might shed some light on this.
faragon 10y ago
"New doubts", "people who claim"? That's FUD. Also, glyphosate patents are expired, and can be manufactured without Monsanto permission, e.g. [1]. [1] http://www.made-in-china.com/products-search/hot-china-products/Glyphosate.html http://www.made-in-china.com/products-search/hot-china-produ...
Dowwie 10y ago
Roundup has to be treated as if it were radioactive. I carefully sprayed only one dandelion in my lawn with roundup. Over a few weeks, the roundup spread and destroyed about a 5 foot radius of lawn.
GrumpyNl 10y ago
The bees, they are killing the bees.
nthcolumn 10y ago
Roundup usage has been so ubiquitous for decades now so this is very worrying. I am much more concerned with Monsanto's GM food patents/diminishing biodiversity/pollution threat than this. I have no issue with GM science btw. NONE. (re:'GMO safety /mutant food nonsense') I wonder if this is a sly segway from Monsanto. Given a choice between Monsanto Roundup everywhere and Monsanto GM everywhere I'll take the former.
ryanalam 10y ago
In the US, the alternative to this would be to consume organic produce. However, most people don't realize that organic produce still uses plenty of, if not more pesticides than traditional production methods; they just use organic pesticides. I wonder which is worse: highly mechanized, high efficiency, and low volume synthetic pesticides in traditional production methods - or low efficiency, high volume natural pesticides in organic production methods.
- enimodas 10y ago
  Organic isn't all that either, for example https://www.facebook.com/newscientist/videos/10154875976739589 https://www.facebook.com/newscientist/videos/101548759767395...
- Blahah 10y ago
  Organic makes a totally unscientific distinction between synthetic and naturally-occurring substances. It's also a huge, and hugely profitable industry that lobbies effectively to prevent research funding into the safety of the substances it allows, and essentially exploits food privilege and scientific illiteracy. Organic-permitted pesticides tend to be massively over-applied, and can be unbelievably toxic to a degree that would never be allowed for modern synthetic pesticides. Rotenone for example is horrenously toxic to aquatic life, but permitted in organic agriculture with litte regard for the ecological outcomes. Simple copper and sulphur compounds that are broadly toxic are permitted as fungicides in organic agriculture, but can also persist for a long time in the environment and cause serious ecological damage. I'd take roundup over anything organic any day.
- josefresco 10y ago
  Where's your source that indicates organic pesticides are "low efficiency, high volume" Would love to read more about this as it may effect my purchasing decisions. Also this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Conyza https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Conyza Which seemingly contradicts the "high efficiency" claim (at least moving forward)
enibundo 10y ago
If you really are concerned about this : buy organic. If organic food gets more interest, more and more people will start growing it, and more and more people will have access to good healthy food. These poisons wouldn't be abused if they wouldn't be profitable...
- davexunit 10y ago
  Also, try growing a vegetable or two for yourself and don't use synthetic fertilizer or weed killers when doing so. Nothing can beat something you grew yourself! Growing herbs on a window sill is an easy way to start.
  - enibundo 10y ago
    Yes:)
MrFantastic 10y ago
I see little chance or Glyphosate being banned while Trump and Pruit are gangbanging the EPA. We are such a short sighted species.
cholantesh 10y ago
Notably, it doesn't seem like anyone in this thread has bothered looking up the court documents or the emails in question. Here they are, along with lots of background reading: http://skeptiforum.org/t/monsanto-and-the-case-of-unsealed-documents-on-glyphosate/51 http://skeptiforum.org/t/monsanto-and-the-case-of-unsealed-d... The 'ghostwriting' refers to a position paper that Monsanto had a choice to either outsource to a number of outside experts at significant cost, or to write themselves, acknowledging the contributions of academics who wrote source material and/or would edit and review the document. And they only intended to do this for sections of the paper that were considered uncontroversial in the scientific community, with direct authorship in sections dealing with matters of contention. It generally seems to be the case that most all stories of this nature are overreaching considerably by taking juicy sounding quotes out of context. It's remarkably analogous to the Climategate 'scandal' on close examination.
tgb29 10y ago
More advancements in computational biology and genetics will allow us to more precisely determine the effects of glyphosate on public health. Until we have better tools, there isn't enough evidence to make a judgment against Monsanto. However, the moment we are able to make the connection between poor agricultural practices and damages to health, a multi-billion dollar industry will be created for lawyers, and they will hold these companies acccountable.

405 points by geoka9 10y ago

"Monsanto Advocate Says Roundup Is Safe Enough To Drink, Then Refuses To Drink It" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/27/monsanto-roundup-patrick-moore_n_6956034.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/27/monsanto-roundup-pa...

jnordwick 10y ago
I wouldnt drink a glass somebody with a clear agenda gave me. Who knows what else they would have laced it with. Man throws up after ingesting glyphosate is a great title too if they put anything in it to make me vomit. Or it might just not be wise to drink so much so quickly: man refuse to drink 20 gallons of water, could it be cancerous?
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  I have been told that urine is perfectly safe to drink by many people, yet not a single one of them agreed to drink a glass of it that I provided.
  - jnordwick 10y ago
    What'd you have for lunch? I might know a guy who's into that.
gcheong 10y ago
But this guy did: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8sgEhpHM4k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8sgEhpHM4k
- jnordwick 10y ago
  Not going to click... Not going to click... <click> Oh wait. It's exactly what you said it was. He made the exact same arguments I did. Pretty cool. LOL: glyphosate, fracking fluid, artificial sweetener, salt and a red bull chaser. And what I'm pretty sure was an unorganic lemon.
- samangan 10y ago
  And this guy drinks cyanide: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bWNpO5vvhpk https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bWNpO5vvhpk My point is that being able to drink one glass of the stuff doesn't really tell me much.
  - taurath 10y ago
    Its not the single cigarette that kills you :P
  - darken 10y ago
    That's an acutely toxic simple anion (CN-), in random things like e.g. apple or peach seeds (#evolution) and commonly byproduct of breaking down more complex atoms. Versus C3H8NO5P (with additives to multiply the effectiveness), which sounds less inherently safe...
  - fernandotakai 10y ago
    btw cody's lab is an really fun scientific youtube channel. his series on extracting metals is really fun.
- ino 10y ago
  It was another glass. It's stupid either way.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
taneq 10y ago
Lithium ion batteries are pretty much 'safe to eat'^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H non-toxic (Edit: NOT safe to eat, as discussed below) (compared with lead-acid or nickel-cadmium batteries)... but I still wouldn't actually eat one.
- sien 10y ago
  Lithium in your stomach? Seriously? Button batteries are a real risk for kids. They have died eating them. For any parent out there it's scary, button batteries are pretty common and look like a sweet or something. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/two-year-old-girl-dies-after-swallowing-button-battery-over-christmas-in-us-a6793846.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/two-year-ol...
  - taneq 10y ago
    That's a terrible story. :( And a timely reminder that 'non-toxic' doesn't mean 'edible'. It seems like a heartless nitpick but the reason button cells are dangerous is because they're batteries, not because of their constituent chemicals. The electric current they generate electrolyzes water producing highly corrosive hydroxide. A running blender isn't poisonous either, but you wouldn't eat one.
  - ClassyJacket 10y ago
    SOME Lithium in your stomach is safe, and in some circumstances is arguably safer than none, as it's an effective, prescribed antidepressant. But I don't advocate eating batteries. Just saying that Lithium isn't poison in certain quantities.
- larsiusprime 10y ago
  Then don't brag about how you'd be happy to actually eat one and expect to hold on to your credibility.
adrr 10y ago
Eating your feces is safe to eat but i wouldn't eat it. Same with drinking urine.
pkaye 10y ago
Caffeine is a part of many drinks yet its LD50 is lower than that of Roundup. The dosage matters too.
- jerven 10y ago
  Neem OIL is an biological pesticide that is organic approved. Vastly more likely to kill you than roundup use. Neem OIL LD50 = 31.95g/kg Caffeine LD50 = 175 g/kg (150-200 estimate in humans) Glycosate LD50 = > 2000 g/kg i.e. the "Biological&organic and traditional" alternative used is two orders magnitude more dangerous.
  - lorenzhs 10y ago
    Except two of those numbers are off by three orders of magnitude. Caffeine's LD50 is 150-200 milligram/kg, Glyphosate is at 2-5.6g/kg (in rats). These numbers are completely meaningless, though, because LD50 is not the correct measure of toxicity unless you plan on drinking the stuff. The concerns are about the effects of pesticides on the body, not literally dying from the poisonous effects of pesticide. Salt is at around 3g/kg.
    - jerven 10y ago
      Thanks you are correct, I messed up my numbers.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Houshalter 10y ago
So if I remember the discussion on this article when it was going around, the roundup they had wasn't pure glyphosate. They sometimes mix it with other stuff, especially the off the shelf stuff for lawns. You can drink pure glyphosate and survive (I wouldn't recommend it, though.) It's been tested on animals many times. It's not like some mystery substance that's never been tested.

jnordwick 10y ago

I think the proper comparison is Roundup verses other herbicides. It that comparative analysis, it definitely wins.

sjg007 10y ago
I think you mean "vs other herbicides."
mohaine 10y ago
Especially vs other broad spectrum herbicides. We used this one year as a no till knock down: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraquat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraquat The skull and cross bones on the label was bad enough but seeing what even the smallest of drops did to plants was an eye opener. A droplet small enough to blow 30 feet in the air was enough to make a yellow spot on any plant it landed on. It is also linked to Parkinson's disease.
- jnordwick 10y ago
  I would not drink that.
- arthurfm 10y ago
  > The skull and cross bones on the label was bad enough but seeing what even the smallest of drops did to plants was an eye opener. VX (and VG) nerve agents were originally intended for use as pesticides so this isn't surprising. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VX_(nerve_agent)#Discovery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VX_(nerve_agent)#Discovery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VG_(nerve_agent) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VG_(nerve_agent)
ionised 10y ago
being the best of a bad bunch (if it does in fact have these health risks) won't somehow make it good.

gcheong 10y ago

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/does-glyphosate-cause-cancer/ http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/does-glyphosate...

emmelaich 10y ago
Great website! Thanks.
- 0xcde4c3db 10y ago
  You might also be interested in Science-Based Medicine [1], another blog where Steven Novella posts. [1] https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ (in case you're wondering about the name: in a nutshell, "science-based medicine" is the position that "evidence-based medicine" is an insufficient rejection of quackery because it leads to a lot of effort being misspent on finding "evidence" to support scientifically implausible and already-debunked treatments and theories)
  - slazaro 10y ago
    > (in case you're wondering about the name: in a nutshell, "science-based medicine" is the position that "evidence-based medicine" is an insufficient rejection of quackery because it leads to a lot of effort being misspent on finding "evidence" to support scientifically implausible and already-debunked treatments and theories) Sorry if this is a common objection, but my first reaction to this is, there's lots of people that reject the word "science" (today's anti-intellectualism), but they're okay with the word "evidence". So even if "science-based" is better, on the surface a lot of people will instantly have a negative reaction to the name.
    - Elrac 10y ago
      Related topic: In the eternal and tiresome dispute between religious Creationists and modern science, a favorite talking point is that "it's only a theory!" As a result, some science-minded people are proposing that scientists adopt a different word to substitute for the "tainted" word "theory," whose colloquial meaning differs from that in a professional scientific context. Me, I think this is a terrible idea. I fiercely resist having my (or anyone's) use of vocabulary directed to accommodate ignorant people. I can see only losing battles in that direction.

baldfat 10y ago

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

anigbrowl 10y ago
The issue is not the existence of Roundup but Monsanto's apparent failure to inform people of its known dangers.
- cholantesh 10y ago
  /s/apparent/alleged
- nicksergeant 10y ago
  "known" dangers is debatable, that's what the issue is. As posted elsewhere in these comments: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/does-glyphosate-cause-cancer/ http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/does-glyphosate...
  - baldfat 10y ago
    I would think if this was an issue wouldn't we see epidemic health issues already its been going strong for over 20 years.
  - beautifulfreak 10y ago
    http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/ITX_2013_06_04_Seneff.pdf http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/ITX_2013_06_04_Seneff.pdf
    - drakonandor 10y ago
      Is Seneff an expert on whatever sub-field of biology this is?

5706906c06c 10y ago

This is beginning to look like Michael Clayton.

najajomo 10y ago

"Weeds Your Way" – Organic Farmers Share Secrets of Herbicide-Free Farming http://www.ofrf.org/news/weeds-your-way-%E2%80%93-organic-farmers-share-secrets-herbicide-free-farming http://www.ofrf.org/news/weeds-your-way-%E2%80%93-organic-fa...

spraak 10y ago
A great book as well is One Straw Revolution

finid 10y ago

“We would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to speak,” Mr. Heydens wrote, citing a previous instance in which he said the company had done this. Science for sale. Shouldn't that Mr. Rowland guy be in jail?

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
crumchunks 10y ago
he will likely head a regulatory agency soon instead
hammock 10y ago
What sockpuppets are downvoting this? Not your typical downvoted HN comment, yet, here it is at the bottom.
AstralStorm 10y ago
Unfortunately it is legal. Not even fraud. At most major corporate negligence.
fil_a_del_fee_a 10y ago
I was going to post this exact same quote. It is in my clipboard. Controversial note: When politicians talk about defunding the EPA, people get upset. When the EPA pulls stunts like this, it makes you question their purpose. Seriously, why have regulators that "tip off" the very companies that they are supposed to be regulating?
cholantesh 10y ago
When approached by a company to provide time and expertise dealing with a business problem, do you provide it for free?
- finid 10y ago
  This is like a judge (or a jury member) accepting a bribe from a prosecutor or a defense attorney. That's illegal.

luckydude 10y ago

My dad died because of roundup. He was a physics prof, smart guy, fought hard for wetland issues. Was on the board of Wisconsin Wetlands. He didn't drink, didn't smoke, he was very active, very fit, and yet he got cancer. I can feel the down votes coming, but he was a guy that just should not have gotten cancer. Roundup gave him cancer. I could tell you stories about him dieing that would be not so fun. Fuck cancer and fuck roundup hard. Edit: he and my mom fought invasive species and they used roundup. So maybe that's on them. That's why he got cancer.

alevskaya 10y ago
I'm very sorry for your loss. But as a cancer researcher, I can fairly confidently say that glyphosate had nothing to do with your father's death. There just isn't any evidence showing that it has direct mutagenic activity or even other indirect biological influences on the probability of developing cancer. I've also lost several fit, active nonsmoking friends and family to cancer. Our cells copy themselves imperfectly, and sometimes our inborn regulatory mechanisms go awry. There's not always a "cause", beyond the fact that our bodies aren't built to a perfect spec. There's a massive amount of work going on these days to develop entirely new classes of treatments, so I hope the clinical situation in a few decades will be brighter by far. Again, sorry for your loss.
- alphonsegaston 10y ago
  It was my understanding that while the IARC classification of glyphosate as a carcinogen has been disputed, exposure has been shown to increase the risk of melanoma, especially in occupational contexts: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/27058477/?i=15&from=glyphosate%20cancer https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/27058477/?i=15&from=gl...
  - alevskaya 10y ago
    That's a terrible paper. This is a small epidemiological study where they're looking both at 1. exposure to sun and 2. occupational exposure to -any- herbicides/pesticides/fungacides/insecticides (not just glyphosate) and trying to pull out odds ratios of melanoma risk. Outdoor work definitely increases melanoma risk, but I wouldn't try to pull out much more than that from this paper!

djsumdog 10y ago

It's difficult to judge long term toxicity in humans. You don't immediately keel over and die when you smoke a cigarette, and the correlation between lung cancer and cigarettes needs a fully understandable cause. That's how the industry slipped by for years. Likewise, most European countries do not fluoridate their water and the correlation doesn't seem to show any significant difference in dental health. The anti-fluoride people state these numbers, and then go and use the same bad logical to attribute fluoride to a host of ailments that are loosely correlated without any causation links. Can fluoride in water lead to osteoporosis in older adults? Well we don't know, and these types of studies are very difficult to conduct because there are tons of variables. Many people drink from a combination of fluoridated and non-fluoridated water supplies and beverages throughout their lives. People move in and out of municipalities with different water treatment techniques. People have different intakes for calcium, iron, fibre, carbs throughout their entire lives. People have different genetics. When it comes to long term toxicity, it's really difficult to narrow down factors because you can't control for everything (ethically) and humans can live a long time. It would make sense for at least some percentage of the population to have adverse reaction to Glyphosate. We all have slight genetic differences and reactions. Can it lead to specific cancers in humans consistently? Do we understand the mechanism by which it does this chemically? Can we replicate this in other animals where we control for other factors. Just like the tobacco industry, I wouldn't put it past Monsanto to both bury and make up studies to suit their interests.

joering2 10y ago
> You don't immediately keel over and die when you smoke a cigarette, My all-time favorite: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpwcF3Malj8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpwcF3Malj8 To play devils advocate.. we will never prove if smoking truly cause cancer, unless we go back in time and look at the same person in the same circumstances only that he/she never smoked. And in all seriousness, my grandmother smoked all her life, from age of 16 all the way till she died at 103 due to Alzheimer. Her lungs were as gold as it gets!
- grogenaut 10y ago
  Did they autopsy her lungs? Also gold lung sounds like a pretty bad condition. You sure that didn't kill her?

abandonliberty 10y ago

I've been researching this. 1. Glyphosate (roundup) use is two orders of magnitude higher than originally approved. 2. Due to the emergence of glyphosate-resistant weeds, the dosage has been increased substantially. 3. It is now also usually combined with other compounds to increase effectiveness, which affects how it breaks down and affects both the food and environment. 4. It is now also used for 'green burndown'. To help dessicate the crop. AKA they use it to kills crops to speed harvest, resulting in significantly elevated levels in your food. Start with the wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate Go on to a letter of concern published in the journal of Environmental Health signed by 14 experts in the field. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26883814 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26883814 Realize that little to gain from raising these concerns, while there are many wealthy parties with vested interests in not finding these results. There's little funding behind this. Governing bodies (e.g. in Germany) are still relying on findings from labs with clear conflicts of interest.

blacksmith_tb 10y ago
Without claiming RoundUp is good for you, I would point to this with regards to your point #4: http://www.snopes.com/food/tainted/roundupwheat.asp http://www.snopes.com/food/tainted/roundupwheat.asp
- CodeWriter23 10y ago
  Gotta love how Snopes dismisses anecdotal claims of allergies, then goes on to use anecdotal stories from farmers on a discussion forum to support their assertion that RoundUp isn't used as a crop dessicant.
  - gadders 10y ago
    Pretty sure they use it on Rape Seed in the UK. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_desiccation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_desiccation
  - randomdata 10y ago

crumchunks 10y ago

This is why people eat organic food.

kirrent 10y ago
Wilful misunderstanding of the research in the field? Or is it a gut reaction that spurs them into alternatives, based on a pretty meaningless label, which have no real proven health benefit? Perhaps it's the easy narrative of painting an entirely normal company as evil because they're messing with forces best left alone.
- crumchunks 10y ago
  Someone didn't read the article.
- snowpanda 10y ago
  All the arguments you used can be applied on both sides of the argument actually.
jpttsn 10y ago
That's great news! Let's tell the organic brands so they can stop spending money on advertising.
- crumchunks 10y ago
  There are brand name vegetables?

crumchunks 10y ago

This is why people eat organic food. Now if you want some other curious links to pesticides and weedkillers, look at Stephanie Seneffs research.

a_bonobo 10y ago
It's a common misconception that organic food doesn't use pesticides - the USDA's list of allowed pesticides has quite a few pesticides that are dangerous to humans, such as various coppers, elemental sulfur, boric acid, the list is here: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9874504b6f1025eb0e6b67cadf9d3b40&rgn=div6&view=text&node=7:3.1.1.9.32.7&idno=7#se7.3.205_1601 https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9874504b6f1...
- crumchunks 10y ago
  Did you even read your own link?
  - DannyBee 10y ago
    Did you? Things like copper sulfate, etc are not exactly on the "great for humans" list.
    - crumchunks 10y ago
      So you also scanned and didn't read. They're not pesticides and more importantly they are not poured on the crops. Read it.
- HillaryBriss 10y ago
  boric acid is an interesting one. it has a significant level of toxicity for kidneys. they use a lot of boric acid in that common residential attic insulation made from shredded post-consumer paper.

Vadoff 10y ago

I wonder if non-GMO foods have a higher likelihood to cause cancer because of Roundup.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

gumby 10y ago

One important reasons for robotics is to reduce/eliminate the use of pesticides. After all we use weed killed because it's cheaper than weeding by hand. Regardless of whether Glyphosate is toxic to humans or not, it kills the rhizome (fungi and other ecology around the roots), drying the soil and making it less productive. Robots will not only avoid this problem but support the planting of complementary crops.

cies 10y ago
While I'm not against robots per se, I do wonder why "working the fields" cannot be made a good job for humans? Without this job I foresee several potential problems: large unemployment, people leaving the countryside, many low paying jobs that feel meaningless to the workers.
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago
  > I do wonder why "working the fields" cannot be made a good job for humans It would make food expensive again. As of 2010, 1.6% of American and 14% of the world's workers worked in agriculture [1]. As recently as 1870, that figure for the United States was almost 50% [2]. Most of us prefer today's standard of living. [1] http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.AGR.EMPL.ZS http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.AGR.EMPL.ZS [2] https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1981/11/art2full.pdf https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1981/11/art2full.pdf page 12
  - cies 10y ago
    > It would make food expensive again. Yes. Expensive compared to other things. > Most of us prefer today's standard of living. Yet we've never been more depressed as a population...
- slazaro 10y ago
  This is why there's been lots of talk about basic income in relation to fears about unemployment because of automation.
- pjc50 10y ago

macandcheese 10y ago

It's not legal for sale in New York, mostly because of false advertising the company previously did touting it's biodegradability, even going so far as to say that it's "practically non-toxic". In fact, they continue to be the subject of a class action lawsuit in NY: https://www.law360.com/articles/849367/monsanto-trims-but-can-t-escape-ny-roundup-cancer-suit https://www.law360.com/articles/849367/monsanto-trims-but-ca... Unfortunately all that may come of that lawsuit is a small label change... It pains me to see so many people here supporting the company, especially from a group usually so ready to expose the faults of big corporations. You know, being a "hacker" and caring about the environment and the health of our planet and it's inhabitants are not mutually exclusive.

sametmax 10y ago
It's a recent trend in many niche (but maybe somehow influential ?) social networks like HN or some subreddits. Controversial big players are having more and more supportive comments, despite previously being famous for dubious proven activities. It wasn't like that at the beginning. I tend to put my tinfoil hat on when I think about what could have caused it.
- kamih 10y ago
  No tinfoil required, there are now companies you can pay that will "manage" social network comment sections in your favor.
  - jpttsn 10y ago
    There are also private detectives for hire. Even so, you individually are probably not being stalked. I'd hold on to the tinfoil just in case.
    - sametmax 10y ago
      Well, tinfoil new spring collection aside, you can't really compare: - the value of one average joe data; - against the value of a well orchestrated PR campaign on a site that experts, investors and intellectuals use as an information hub. If you are skilled enough to maintain a good reputation of a client on HN, this is quite a good thing to manage IMO. And here I am, posting comments for upvotes while maybe I could pay for it. I should step up my game.

pfarnsworth 10y ago

I just doused my yard with Roundup to get rid of the vast amounts of weeds and vegetation. I have to say, it did a fantastic job. What does this mean about the soil though, is it totally fucked now?

Obi_Juan_Kenobi 10y ago
Glyphosate breaks down pretty quickly. One of the debates about it is how quickly this actually happens, namely in the context of over-application, but in any case it's pretty quick. The low environmental persistence is one of the major selling points. After a couple months, chances are even a very sensitive assay wouldn't be able to detect it in your lawn. As a one-off use, I don't think there's even a marginally compelling argument that it's dangerous.
- pfarnsworth 10y ago
  Thank you.

djyaz1200 10y ago

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

hcurtiss 10y ago
This is a difficult position to maintain when we promote many activities that kill many people every day (e.g., driving). Sometimes the profound benefits of certain activities are worth the the "tiny chance" of downside risk. Whether this is one of those is up for debate, but it doesn't seem you're attributing any value to using glyphosate, which there doubtless is some.
duncan_bayne 10y ago
I'm sorry for your loss. But what if the alternatives are generations trapped in back breaking manual labour, or impoverished people starving? Cost benefit calculations are rarely as obvious as they seem to those grieving the cost.
ptaipale 10y ago
There are lots of other things that have much higher chance of causing cancer. Almost everything is carcinogenic, so if you start living by that argument, Roundup is not high on the list at all. For instance, drinking beer or wine. Alcohol is known to be carcinogenic for certain whereas with Roundup we're still talking about that tiny chance. There's always a tiny chance that a molecule from car exhaust or microparticle from a rail increases the risk of cancer, so will you say that the risk of being in a proximity of a car or a bus or a train isn't worth it? It is important to be able to put things into context and assess the orders of magnitude. Things like beer are for certain a much bigger cancer risk than Roundup, not to mention tobacco. Still, there is much more talk about banning Roundup than beer.

bootload 10y ago

As a youngster I used to work PT while I was at Uni back in the 80's, taking care of a semi-rural parkland spread over 200 square miles. Every Spring, our workload would increase, slashing, clearing of weeds and blackberries. So Round-up was used. I told the boss no and refused to use it. The pesticide would be measured then added to the spray packs and the blokes would hand spray what ever needed to be knocked down. When they would slightly bend over, the air-relief valve would spit the spray out over their bare necks. After work was done they'd complain of dizziness. Whenever I read about Monsanto now, I also think about Michael White and his fight to sell seed, [0] after a neighbour accidentally contaminating it with ^round-up ready^ seed. [1],[2] So, F. Monsanto. Reference [0] "Why does Monsanto sue farmers who save seeds?" http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/why-does-monsanto-sue-farmers-who-save-seeds.aspx http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/why-does-monsanto-su... [1] Seeding Fear: https://youtube.com/watch?v=YZGueeao0tE https://youtube.com/watch?v=YZGueeao0tE [2] http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/see-neil-youngs-monsanto-themed-mini-documentary-seeding-fear-20150723 http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/see-neil-youngs-monsa...

cies 10y ago
I honestly do not understand that a company with such a track record is widely considered to be an legit business. They're a public enemy!
- joatmon-snoo 10y ago
  Maybe because most of their track record is just really bad PR and most people just fall for the big evil corporation line without ever fact checking claims?
  - agroot12 10y ago
    You mean we should fact check the unsealed emails? Let me quote one of the more explicit parts of the article: > Court records show that Monsanto was tipped off to the determination by a deputy division director at the E.P.A., Jess Rowland, months beforehand. That led the company to prepare a public relations assault on the finding well in advance of its publication. Monsanto executives, in their internal email traffic, also said Mr. Rowland had promised to beat back an effort by the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct its own review. > Dan Jenkins, a Monsanto executive, said in an email in 2015 that Mr. Rowland, referring to the other agency’s potential review, had told him, “If I can kill this, I should get a medal.” The review never took place. In another email, Mr. Jenkins noted to a colleague that Mr. Rowland was planning to retire and said he “could be useful as we move forward with ongoing glyphosate defense.” For me, this qualifies as 'big evil corporation' behavior. [edited: formatting]

unlmtd 10y ago

Duh!

acd 10y ago

Pesticide is killing gut bacteria in Bees which has led to Bee death. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0070182#authcontrib http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.... Pesticide also increases the risk of getting Diabetics. Here is a meta study "After reviewing 21 previous studies, researchers found exposure to any type of pesticide was associated with a 61 percent increased risk for any type of diabetes. The increased risk for type 2 diabetes -- the most common type -- was 64 percent, the investigators found." http://www.webmd.com/diabetes/news/20150916/pesticide-exposure-tied-to-diabetes-risk http://www.webmd.com/diabetes/news/20150916/pesticide-exposu...

tynpeddler 10y ago
The article you linked isn't very descriptive. Can you find the actual publication? The article also seems a little contradictory. It opens with the line, "After reviewing 21 previous studies, researchers found exposure to any type of pesticide was associated with a 61 percent increased risk for any type of diabetes", then later states, "The following chemicals were linked to an increased risk of diabetes, according to the researchers: chlordane, oxychlordane, trans-nonachlor, DDT, DDE, dieldrin, heptachlor and HCB." There are lots of pesticides not in that list, including glyphosate. In addition, HCB and DDT are already banned in most places, and the others are considered toxic. The original research might shed some light on this.

faragon 10y ago

"New doubts", "people who claim"? That's FUD. Also, glyphosate patents are expired, and can be manufactured without Monsanto permission, e.g. [1]. [1] http://www.made-in-china.com/products-search/hot-china-products/Glyphosate.html http://www.made-in-china.com/products-search/hot-china-produ...

Dowwie 10y ago

Roundup has to be treated as if it were radioactive. I carefully sprayed only one dandelion in my lawn with roundup. Over a few weeks, the roundup spread and destroyed about a 5 foot radius of lawn.

GrumpyNl 10y ago

The bees, they are killing the bees.

nthcolumn 10y ago

Roundup usage has been so ubiquitous for decades now so this is very worrying. I am much more concerned with Monsanto's GM food patents/diminishing biodiversity/pollution threat than this. I have no issue with GM science btw. NONE. (re:'GMO safety /mutant food nonsense') I wonder if this is a sly segway from Monsanto. Given a choice between Monsanto Roundup everywhere and Monsanto GM everywhere I'll take the former.

ryanalam 10y ago

In the US, the alternative to this would be to consume organic produce. However, most people don't realize that organic produce still uses plenty of, if not more pesticides than traditional production methods; they just use organic pesticides. I wonder which is worse: highly mechanized, high efficiency, and low volume synthetic pesticides in traditional production methods - or low efficiency, high volume natural pesticides in organic production methods.

enimodas 10y ago
Organic isn't all that either, for example https://www.facebook.com/newscientist/videos/10154875976739589 https://www.facebook.com/newscientist/videos/101548759767395...
Blahah 10y ago
Organic makes a totally unscientific distinction between synthetic and naturally-occurring substances. It's also a huge, and hugely profitable industry that lobbies effectively to prevent research funding into the safety of the substances it allows, and essentially exploits food privilege and scientific illiteracy. Organic-permitted pesticides tend to be massively over-applied, and can be unbelievably toxic to a degree that would never be allowed for modern synthetic pesticides. Rotenone for example is horrenously toxic to aquatic life, but permitted in organic agriculture with litte regard for the ecological outcomes. Simple copper and sulphur compounds that are broadly toxic are permitted as fungicides in organic agriculture, but can also persist for a long time in the environment and cause serious ecological damage. I'd take roundup over anything organic any day.
josefresco 10y ago
Where's your source that indicates organic pesticides are "low efficiency, high volume" Would love to read more about this as it may effect my purchasing decisions. Also this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Conyza https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Conyza Which seemingly contradicts the "high efficiency" claim (at least moving forward)

enibundo 10y ago

If you really are concerned about this : buy organic. If organic food gets more interest, more and more people will start growing it, and more and more people will have access to good healthy food. These poisons wouldn't be abused if they wouldn't be profitable...

davexunit 10y ago
Also, try growing a vegetable or two for yourself and don't use synthetic fertilizer or weed killers when doing so. Nothing can beat something you grew yourself! Growing herbs on a window sill is an easy way to start.
- enibundo 10y ago
  Yes:)

MrFantastic 10y ago

I see little chance or Glyphosate being banned while Trump and Pruit are gangbanging the EPA. We are such a short sighted species.

cholantesh 10y ago

Notably, it doesn't seem like anyone in this thread has bothered looking up the court documents or the emails in question. Here they are, along with lots of background reading: http://skeptiforum.org/t/monsanto-and-the-case-of-unsealed-documents-on-glyphosate/51 http://skeptiforum.org/t/monsanto-and-the-case-of-unsealed-d... The 'ghostwriting' refers to a position paper that Monsanto had a choice to either outsource to a number of outside experts at significant cost, or to write themselves, acknowledging the contributions of academics who wrote source material and/or would edit and review the document. And they only intended to do this for sections of the paper that were considered uncontroversial in the scientific community, with direct authorship in sections dealing with matters of contention. It generally seems to be the case that most all stories of this nature are overreaching considerably by taking juicy sounding quotes out of context. It's remarkably analogous to the Climategate 'scandal' on close examination.

tgb29 10y ago

More advancements in computational biology and genetics will allow us to more precisely determine the effects of glyphosate on public health. Until we have better tools, there isn't enough evidence to make a judgment against Monsanto. However, the moment we are able to make the connection between poor agricultural practices and damages to health, a multi-billion dollar industry will be created for lawyers, and they will hold these companies acccountable.