4 ms·

I can't find any reputable source on this. The linked site is terrible and on the same plane as "natural news" or "Infowars." Can we please try to do a little b

I can't find any reputable source on this. The linked site is terrible and on the same plane as "natural news" or "Infowars." Can we please try to do a little better?

elliekelly 8y ago
I agree the site isn't the best but it's based in fact. I'm a regulatory attorney in the investment industry but moonlight as a legal journalist for a publication about environmental regulations. This isn't news to most of the industry. China filed notice of their intention to revise the limits with the WTO in April without specifying an effective date. This "article" just says China might announce the effective date of the regulation soon and the effective date might be before year-end. I would be surprised if the new limits go into effect in the next 2.5 weeks but given the politics of the U.S.-Chinese trade war I won't say it's impossible. Here's the WTO filing but the attached schedule of MRL's isn't translated: https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S009-DP.aspx?language=E&CatalogueIdList=243831,243830,243827,243826,243217,241490,241497,241496,241019,240195&CurrentCatalogueIdIndex=4&FullTextHash=1&HasEnglishRecord=True&HasFrenchRecord=True&HasSpanishRecord=True https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S009-DP.asp... Edit - Here's the fully-translated filing from the USDA's site[1] though the MRLs are expressed as mg/kg. I believe 2 mg/kg is approximately equivalent to 2000 parts per billion which is significantly higher than the 200 parts per million reported in OP's article. [1]https://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/China%20Notifies%20Draft%20Maximum%20Residue%20Limits%20for%20Pesticides%20in%20Food%20_Beijing_China%20-%20Peoples%20Republic%20of_3-20-2018.pdf https://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/China...
- paraditedc 8y ago
  NH is weird again with the downvotes. I see nothing wrong with your comment or linked source.
  - elliekelly 8y ago
    Some anecdata: my work computer is logged into HN with a username thats gender-neutral. I'm about 3 times more likely to be downvoted on this account. I've also noticed a lot more replies on this account tend to flat out tell me I'm wrong or don't know what I'm talking about (my favorite was the time someone told me it's against HN's rules to be dumb in the comments) while replies on my other account tend to be more constructive ("have you considered XYZ..."). I've been thinking about getting both sets of comment replies and running them through Watson's tone analyzer or something but I'm not sure any good would come of it. And of course, it's entirely possible I'm just a complete moron when I'm on this computer.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - seattle_spring 8y ago
      You defended a NaturalNews / Infowars offspring site, but think you were downvoted because your username is female?
      - detaro 8y ago
        What? Because the original site is "bad" providing a better source is somehow not acceptable? After you've complained you can't find a better source?
        seattle_spring 8y ago
        Uh no, saying a pseudoscience site is "based in fact" is not acceptable, champ.
        detaro 8y ago
        So which of the facts from the sources do you disagree with? You do not get to say "this site is pseudoscience" and then ignore claims that it got a specific thing more or less right if people provide sources, or downvote people for doing so. So, what's your evidence that the claim "China set to introduce low glyphosate residue limits in food imports" is not based in fact?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

I can't find any reputable source on this. The linked site is terrible and on the same plane as "natural news" or "Infowars." Can we please try to do a little better?

elliekelly 8y ago

I agree the site isn't the best but it's based in fact. I'm a regulatory attorney in the investment industry but moonlight as a legal journalist for a publication about environmental regulations. This isn't news to most of the industry. China filed notice of their intention to revise the limits with the WTO in April without specifying an effective date. This "article" just says China might announce the effective date of the regulation soon and the effective date might be before year-end. I would be surprised if the new limits go into effect in the next 2.5 weeks but given the politics of the U.S.-Chinese trade war I won't say it's impossible. Here's the WTO filing but the attached schedule of MRL's isn't translated: https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S009-DP.aspx?language=E&CatalogueIdList=243831,243830,243827,243826,243217,241490,241497,241496,241019,240195&CurrentCatalogueIdIndex=4&FullTextHash=1&HasEnglishRecord=True&HasFrenchRecord=True&HasSpanishRecord=True https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S009-DP.asp... Edit - Here's the fully-translated filing from the USDA's site[1] though the MRLs are expressed as mg/kg. I believe 2 mg/kg is approximately equivalent to 2000 parts per billion which is significantly higher than the 200 parts per million reported in OP's article. [1]https://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/China%20Notifies%20Draft%20Maximum%20Residue%20Limits%20for%20Pesticides%20in%20Food%20_Beijing_China%20-%20Peoples%20Republic%20of_3-20-2018.pdf https://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/China...

paraditedc 8y ago
NH is weird again with the downvotes. I see nothing wrong with your comment or linked source.
- elliekelly 8y ago
  Some anecdata: my work computer is logged into HN with a username thats gender-neutral. I'm about 3 times more likely to be downvoted on this account. I've also noticed a lot more replies on this account tend to flat out tell me I'm wrong or don't know what I'm talking about (my favorite was the time someone told me it's against HN's rules to be dumb in the comments) while replies on my other account tend to be more constructive ("have you considered XYZ..."). I've been thinking about getting both sets of comment replies and running them through Watson's tone analyzer or something but I'm not sure any good would come of it. And of course, it's entirely possible I'm just a complete moron when I'm on this computer.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - seattle_spring 8y ago
    You defended a NaturalNews / Infowars offspring site, but think you were downvoted because your username is female?
    - detaro 8y ago
      What? Because the original site is "bad" providing a better source is somehow not acceptable? After you've complained you can't find a better source?
      - seattle_spring 8y ago
        Uh no, saying a pseudoscience site is "based in fact" is not acceptable, champ.
        detaro 8y ago
        So which of the facts from the sources do you disagree with? You do not get to say "this site is pseudoscience" and then ignore claims that it got a specific thing more or less right if people provide sources, or downvote people for doing so. So, what's your evidence that the claim "China set to introduce low glyphosate residue limits in food imports" is not based in fact?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]