3 ms·

I've been anti-glyphosate for awhile. But first, my point of view: A lot of crops require "Roundup Ready" varieties, and Monsanto (ab)uses patent law to enforc

I've been anti-glyphosate for awhile. But first, my point of view: A lot of crops require "Roundup Ready" varieties, and Monsanto (ab)uses patent law to enforce licenses on their RR seeds, even in situations where it is clear Monsanto crops contaminated someone else's field. Worse yet, due to horizontal gene transfer in some grasses and weeds, we now have RR weeds, and that is a one way process. Due to this, Glyphosate-based products are no longer useful for new weed eradication solutions, only for existing solutions until their last users are overtaken by RR weeds. Roundup had its time, and now it is essentially a commercial failure after the fact. All of that said, I'm anti-glyphosate because, frankly, it should have never been cleared for use. It kills valuable crops that have not been supplied with the RR gene (which has happened repeatedly due to overspray effecting neighboring fields), they've known since day one that horizontal gene transfer could produce RR weeds, and now we've lost an important tool in weed control due to the overuse and abuse of glyphosate. Due to this overuse and abuse, the American public has been unwittingly used as guinea pigs due to bad science stating that it doesn't harm us, but very little (until recently) was done to see how it interacts with our gut flora. We now know that in at least some of the population, glyphosate exposure has side effects. Maybe it screws with our gut bacteria (most likely not the pathway described in Glyphosate II (Samsel 2013)), maybe it is because of APMA (a metabolite of glyphosate) which mimics glutamate toxicity (and want some extra fun? Look at the relationship between autism and glutamate). I don't know. I don't need to know the exact mechanism (although I'd like to us to know, to prevent future mistakes from harming people due to accidentally using the same pathway), I just need to know that there is enough science to link glyphosate exposure to modern diseases and disorders. Well, that, and it doesn't really work anymore in a lot of crops, especially RR ones.

jakewins 9y ago
Not to be a Monsanto shill, but: > [forces patent compliance] even in situations where it is clear Monsanto crops contaminated someone else's field Can you provide any example of this? The only cases I'm aware of are the likes of Bowman. The supreme court finding in that case makes it pretty clear Monsanto was in the right: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-796_c07d.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-796_c07d.pdf > we now have RR weeds, and that is a one way process No, it is not. This is the same nonsense as people touting antibiotics resistance as a dead-end street. It costs energy for these organisms to maintain resistance. Once you remove the antibiotic, or glyphosate, from the environment, the biologically ideal thing to do is to lose resistance, redirecting that energy to other things that actually serve a purpose. > I don't need to know the exact mechanism If you are going to be implying glyphosate causes autism, for some "extra fun" as you say, then you should perhaps reconsider this. Pointing out they've both followed the curve of modern industrial chemistry expansion and implying that correlation to be causative is irresponsible.
- saalweachter 9y ago
  Comparing glyphosate-resistant weeds to antibiotic-resistant bacteria is also just hilarious. Are there some really bad weeds out there you want to save the glyphosate for?
  - bryanlarsen 9y ago
    Poison Ivy is one of the only approved uses for glyphosate in urban Ottawa, Canada.
- DiabloD3 9y ago
  The only cases I can find with a cursory Google search is where they have sued over seed saving, such as the story of Michael White. There are many farmers like him that Monsanto has trampled. As for antibiotics, it is interesting you bring that up because it is a good example: people do not take their antibiotics as per manufacturer's guidelines, and Doctors over-prescribe antibiotics. In people, antibiotic resistance kills patients, but we can limit the spread. In farming, RR resistant weeds can spread miles away, or to places that aren't farms (thus we aren't looking for them there). What these both share is misuse and overuse of the product, and the manufacturer complicit in this by continuing to sell the product in ways that allow (or even encourage) the misuse and overuse. HN has certainly gotten stories to the front page about antibiotic resistance being an ongoing issue, and how some antibiotics have fallen to the wayside due to people not strictly following the label (where, if everyone had followed the label, we'd still be using it). I have also seen stories on HN's front page about how bacteria has done horizontal gene transfer to trade antibiotic resistances. This, too, is similar to RR weed's existence.
  - jakewins 9y ago
    > they have sued over seed saving, such as the story of Michael White. Here is the case with Mr. White: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-alnd-5_03-cv-02804/pdf/USCOURTS-alnd-5_03-cv-02804-0.pdf https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-alnd-5_03-cv-02804/pd... As you can see by reading it, it is not over seed saving for his own farm. It is over him intentionally growing 120 acres of roundup-ready crops for the purpose of producing his own RR seeds to sell commercially. "Yeah. I took advantage of it.", is a quote from Mr. White on page 7. The court found this in violation of the agreement he'd signed when he bought the seeds, and he lost the case. I think your example of Mr. White is illustrating exactly my point, that these cases have been misrepresented by anti-GMO groups to further their agenda. > What these both share is misuse and overuse of the product Yes. But this is not what you said or what I addressed. You said RR resistance was a "one way process". This is incorrect. I agree with the point that you are making here about misuse and manufacturers like Monsanto being complicit in that misuse.

jakewins 9y ago

Not to be a Monsanto shill, but: > [forces patent compliance] even in situations where it is clear Monsanto crops contaminated someone else's field Can you provide any example of this? The only cases I'm aware of are the likes of Bowman. The supreme court finding in that case makes it pretty clear Monsanto was in the right: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-796_c07d.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-796_c07d.pdf > we now have RR weeds, and that is a one way process No, it is not. This is the same nonsense as people touting antibiotics resistance as a dead-end street. It costs energy for these organisms to maintain resistance. Once you remove the antibiotic, or glyphosate, from the environment, the biologically ideal thing to do is to lose resistance, redirecting that energy to other things that actually serve a purpose. > I don't need to know the exact mechanism If you are going to be implying glyphosate causes autism, for some "extra fun" as you say, then you should perhaps reconsider this. Pointing out they've both followed the curve of modern industrial chemistry expansion and implying that correlation to be causative is irresponsible.

saalweachter 9y ago
Comparing glyphosate-resistant weeds to antibiotic-resistant bacteria is also just hilarious. Are there some really bad weeds out there you want to save the glyphosate for?
- bryanlarsen 9y ago
  Poison Ivy is one of the only approved uses for glyphosate in urban Ottawa, Canada.
DiabloD3 9y ago
The only cases I can find with a cursory Google search is where they have sued over seed saving, such as the story of Michael White. There are many farmers like him that Monsanto has trampled. As for antibiotics, it is interesting you bring that up because it is a good example: people do not take their antibiotics as per manufacturer's guidelines, and Doctors over-prescribe antibiotics. In people, antibiotic resistance kills patients, but we can limit the spread. In farming, RR resistant weeds can spread miles away, or to places that aren't farms (thus we aren't looking for them there). What these both share is misuse and overuse of the product, and the manufacturer complicit in this by continuing to sell the product in ways that allow (or even encourage) the misuse and overuse. HN has certainly gotten stories to the front page about antibiotic resistance being an ongoing issue, and how some antibiotics have fallen to the wayside due to people not strictly following the label (where, if everyone had followed the label, we'd still be using it). I have also seen stories on HN's front page about how bacteria has done horizontal gene transfer to trade antibiotic resistances. This, too, is similar to RR weed's existence.
- jakewins 9y ago
  > they have sued over seed saving, such as the story of Michael White. Here is the case with Mr. White: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-alnd-5_03-cv-02804/pdf/USCOURTS-alnd-5_03-cv-02804-0.pdf https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-alnd-5_03-cv-02804/pd... As you can see by reading it, it is not over seed saving for his own farm. It is over him intentionally growing 120 acres of roundup-ready crops for the purpose of producing his own RR seeds to sell commercially. "Yeah. I took advantage of it.", is a quote from Mr. White on page 7. The court found this in violation of the agreement he'd signed when he bought the seeds, and he lost the case. I think your example of Mr. White is illustrating exactly my point, that these cases have been misrepresented by anti-GMO groups to further their agenda. > What these both share is misuse and overuse of the product Yes. But this is not what you said or what I addressed. You said RR resistance was a "one way process". This is incorrect. I agree with the point that you are making here about misuse and manufacturers like Monsanto being complicit in that misuse.