6 ms·

This isn't helpful. I don't like use of pesticides and I think there's a reasonable controversy to be had about the dangers of Glyphosate. But the environmenta

by hannob 7y ago

This isn't helpful. I don't like use of pesticides and I think there's a reasonable controversy to be had about the dangers of Glyphosate. But the environmental impact of meat production is so enormous desastrous, we should welcome every possible alternative. Whatever the Glyphosate (and GMO) concerns are, they are tiny in comparison.

goda90 7y ago
Kind of like the conspiracy theory that some conspiracy theories are made up by governments to make theorists look ridiculous, sometimes I wonder if science-blind anti-GMO sentiment was manufactured by these big agriculture companies to draw legitimate attention away from truly studying the pesticides we're using.
- caust1c 7y ago
  That was the first thought I had when I saw the title of the organization "Moms Across America". Sounds like it was named by a corporate team of lawyers, PR and Marketing professionals for politically charged yet monetarily motivated attacks against "ankle biter" companies.
  - dbtx 7y ago
    That grocers' apostrophe isn't in the group's real name.
    - caust1c 7y ago
      Thanks. I'm terrible with apostrophes in grammar. Pretty sure it's just a muscle memory thing, haha.
      - dbtx 7y ago
        FWIW, I had to edit 'groups'... d'oh!
- happytoexplain 7y ago
  This comment really struck me. I've personally always found the anti-GMO crowd to be nonexistent by every metric I have available to me, but I've always assumed I'm just not seeing it wherever it is. The most extreme opinions I ever encounter on the subject are the occasional individual merely wondering out loud if GMOs are bad for you.
  - the_watcher 7y ago
    I'm curious as to where you live. I'm in SF, and a substantial number of my friends and acquaintances use "non-GMO" as a synonym for "healthier," in the same way some use "organic". Do you mean the more militant anti-GMO crowd? If so, I guess you're right that I've never met anyone who cares more than "I just think non-GMO is better and do my best to make choices supporting them."
  - Spooky23 7y ago
    Totally agree. The only strong opinions that I've heard are from farmers, and that's more about the economics than anything else. Let's face it, nobody gives a flying hoot about what farmers think.
- Spooky23 7y ago
  I feel the same way. If I were pushing the implication soy, potato and coconut oil as a healthy alternative to anything, I would make sure to have good opposition PR in place to cast people who question the product as crazy. Impossible is very careful to emphasize the environmental mumbo-jumbo and avoid any mention of health beyond the standard nutritional data on their website, while implying that it's better. It's similar to supermarkets that package chicken in white and green trays, empathize "hormone free" and merchandise it next to the organic chicken.
bad_user 7y ago
>> "the environmental impact of meat production is so enormous desastrous" Reference, please. In case you haven't seen what industrial plants agriculture looks like nowadays: https://www.ecowatch.com/europes-dirty-little-secret-moroccan-slaves-and-a-sea-of-plastic-1882131257.html https://www.ecowatch.com/europes-dirty-little-secret-morocca... The anti-meat propaganda is getting obnoxious. The most sustainable agriculture is one in which the soil is fertilised with manure and rotated livestock, because grazing animals keep the soil healthy and meat keeps us healthy, because we are omnivores. We might need to discourage CAFOs by cutting the corn subsidies and by raising their environmental taxes, which will raise the price of meat, but we also need to use less pesticides and artificial fertilisers, because we are heavily polluting the soil, the water supply and killing the bees, which should drive up the cost of fruits and vegetables too. And from ecological, to health and ethical considerations, most pro-vegan arguments (not all) are bullshit. The next time you're happy about not killing animals and being eco-friendly, see this: https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/songbirds-death-toll-millions-mediterranean-olive-harvesting-winter-a8916471.html https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/songbirds-death-to...
- SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
  I'm just glad I got to read this comment before r/vegan showed up and downvoted it into oblivion. Such is the current state of discourse around this subject on HN. We need to eat less meat, we need to look after animals better and we need to do it in a much more eco-friendly and sustainable manner. We don't all need to go vegan. Going from one extreme to another is never the answer.
  - ha99ja 7y ago
    If anything it is the exact opposite. Any mention of the negatives of eating meat will bring a hoard of anti-vegan pro-meat comments. Usually all pushing the same talking points. Most likely employed by the Center for Organizational Research and Education [1] which also astroturfs for pro-tobacco causes. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Organizational_Research_and_Education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Organizational_Rese...
  - 7y ago
derefr 7y ago
> I don't like use of pesticides and I think there's a reasonable controversy to be had about the dangers of Glyphosate. There's an important economic perspective to pesticide use: farmers are going to be doing whatever they can to kill enough pests to protect their crops and get a satisfactory yield/ROI. That means that, the more effective a pesticide is, the less of it they need to use; and the less effective a pesticide is, the more of it they need to use. Since the dangers to humans/other animals come from the amount of pesticide left on something after washing, the seemingly-equivalent "less, more-powerful" pesticide is actually much less dangerous than "more, less-powerful" pesticide, because it's more likely to be completely removed from the end product. If we ban the most effective pesticides, the alternative is using more of the less-effective pesticides to get an equivalent effect. Which means getting food that likely has more pesticide left over on it. This also applies to "organic" food: "organic" pesticides are less effective, so they use more of them, so "organic" food ends up having more pesticide left on it than non-"organic" food. So, if you're not a fan of pesticide in the sense that you're not a fan of eating pesticide, then you should want farmers to be equipped with as powerful a pesticide as possible.
- EForEndeavour 7y ago
  This assumes that all pesticides have the same effects at the same dosages in humans, which would be surprising if true. Sure, the more potent the pesticide, the less growers need to use, and the less residual pesticide ends up ingested by people. But it's impossible to say anything about the relative harm of a small residual amount of potent pesticide versus a larger residual amount of less potent (and chemically different) pesticide.
  - derefr 7y ago
    > This assumes that all pesticides have the same effects at the same dosages in humans Nah, my assumption was that the level of harm scales with the power of the pesticide in humans just as it does in, well, pests. (It's not true, but it's an interesting model to study.) If we assume that relationship, it should imply that, if your vegetables were never washed once from the farm to your mouth, you'd be getting equivalent levels of harm from more- and less-powerful pesticides, since the amount of them sprayed on the vegetable would be in inverse proportion to their toxicity. However, once you introduce washing, the amount of the pesticide you remove isn't constant, nor linear. In fact, some pesticides are non-"organic" precisely because they have chemicals in them that make them more easily washed off! So the better-engineered (less "natural") pesticides are both originally present in smaller quantities, and reduced in quantity more by washing. You might end up eating none of a synthetic pesticide, whereas an "organic" one might be all over your food even after washing. "None" is very different from even a little. (Further, there are synthetic pesticides that are entirely safe for humans—or are even considered food by humans—but which are considered non-"organic" because we can only create them via de novo synthesis rather than in a bioreactor. Consider some artificial sugar that the human liver can process but insects cannot metabolize. If we sprayed it on plants, it'd be a "synthetic pesticide." If "synthetic pesticide" looks like that, and "organic pesticide" looks like, say, nicotine, which would you prefer to miss some residue of?)

by hannob 7y ago

goda90 7y ago

Kind of like the conspiracy theory that some conspiracy theories are made up by governments to make theorists look ridiculous, sometimes I wonder if science-blind anti-GMO sentiment was manufactured by these big agriculture companies to draw legitimate attention away from truly studying the pesticides we're using.

caust1c 7y ago
That was the first thought I had when I saw the title of the organization "Moms Across America". Sounds like it was named by a corporate team of lawyers, PR and Marketing professionals for politically charged yet monetarily motivated attacks against "ankle biter" companies.
- dbtx 7y ago
  That grocers' apostrophe isn't in the group's real name.
  - caust1c 7y ago
    Thanks. I'm terrible with apostrophes in grammar. Pretty sure it's just a muscle memory thing, haha.
    - dbtx 7y ago
      FWIW, I had to edit 'groups'... d'oh!
happytoexplain 7y ago
This comment really struck me. I've personally always found the anti-GMO crowd to be nonexistent by every metric I have available to me, but I've always assumed I'm just not seeing it wherever it is. The most extreme opinions I ever encounter on the subject are the occasional individual merely wondering out loud if GMOs are bad for you.
- the_watcher 7y ago
  I'm curious as to where you live. I'm in SF, and a substantial number of my friends and acquaintances use "non-GMO" as a synonym for "healthier," in the same way some use "organic". Do you mean the more militant anti-GMO crowd? If so, I guess you're right that I've never met anyone who cares more than "I just think non-GMO is better and do my best to make choices supporting them."
- Spooky23 7y ago
  Totally agree. The only strong opinions that I've heard are from farmers, and that's more about the economics than anything else. Let's face it, nobody gives a flying hoot about what farmers think.
Spooky23 7y ago
I feel the same way. If I were pushing the implication soy, potato and coconut oil as a healthy alternative to anything, I would make sure to have good opposition PR in place to cast people who question the product as crazy. Impossible is very careful to emphasize the environmental mumbo-jumbo and avoid any mention of health beyond the standard nutritional data on their website, while implying that it's better. It's similar to supermarkets that package chicken in white and green trays, empathize "hormone free" and merchandise it next to the organic chicken.

bad_user 7y ago

>> "the environmental impact of meat production is so enormous desastrous" Reference, please. In case you haven't seen what industrial plants agriculture looks like nowadays: https://www.ecowatch.com/europes-dirty-little-secret-moroccan-slaves-and-a-sea-of-plastic-1882131257.html https://www.ecowatch.com/europes-dirty-little-secret-morocca... The anti-meat propaganda is getting obnoxious. The most sustainable agriculture is one in which the soil is fertilised with manure and rotated livestock, because grazing animals keep the soil healthy and meat keeps us healthy, because we are omnivores. We might need to discourage CAFOs by cutting the corn subsidies and by raising their environmental taxes, which will raise the price of meat, but we also need to use less pesticides and artificial fertilisers, because we are heavily polluting the soil, the water supply and killing the bees, which should drive up the cost of fruits and vegetables too. And from ecological, to health and ethical considerations, most pro-vegan arguments (not all) are bullshit. The next time you're happy about not killing animals and being eco-friendly, see this: https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/songbirds-death-toll-millions-mediterranean-olive-harvesting-winter-a8916471.html https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/songbirds-death-to...

SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
I'm just glad I got to read this comment before r/vegan showed up and downvoted it into oblivion. Such is the current state of discourse around this subject on HN. We need to eat less meat, we need to look after animals better and we need to do it in a much more eco-friendly and sustainable manner. We don't all need to go vegan. Going from one extreme to another is never the answer.
- ha99ja 7y ago
  If anything it is the exact opposite. Any mention of the negatives of eating meat will bring a hoard of anti-vegan pro-meat comments. Usually all pushing the same talking points. Most likely employed by the Center for Organizational Research and Education [1] which also astroturfs for pro-tobacco causes. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Organizational_Research_and_Education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Organizational_Rese...
- 7y ago

derefr 7y ago

> I don't like use of pesticides and I think there's a reasonable controversy to be had about the dangers of Glyphosate. There's an important economic perspective to pesticide use: farmers are going to be doing whatever they can to kill enough pests to protect their crops and get a satisfactory yield/ROI. That means that, the more effective a pesticide is, the less of it they need to use; and the less effective a pesticide is, the more of it they need to use. Since the dangers to humans/other animals come from the amount of pesticide left on something after washing, the seemingly-equivalent "less, more-powerful" pesticide is actually much less dangerous than "more, less-powerful" pesticide, because it's more likely to be completely removed from the end product. If we ban the most effective pesticides, the alternative is using more of the less-effective pesticides to get an equivalent effect. Which means getting food that likely has more pesticide left over on it. This also applies to "organic" food: "organic" pesticides are less effective, so they use more of them, so "organic" food ends up having more pesticide left on it than non-"organic" food. So, if you're not a fan of pesticide in the sense that you're not a fan of eating pesticide, then you should want farmers to be equipped with as powerful a pesticide as possible.

EForEndeavour 7y ago
This assumes that all pesticides have the same effects at the same dosages in humans, which would be surprising if true. Sure, the more potent the pesticide, the less growers need to use, and the less residual pesticide ends up ingested by people. But it's impossible to say anything about the relative harm of a small residual amount of potent pesticide versus a larger residual amount of less potent (and chemically different) pesticide.
- derefr 7y ago
  > This assumes that all pesticides have the same effects at the same dosages in humans Nah, my assumption was that the level of harm scales with the power of the pesticide in humans just as it does in, well, pests. (It's not true, but it's an interesting model to study.) If we assume that relationship, it should imply that, if your vegetables were never washed once from the farm to your mouth, you'd be getting equivalent levels of harm from more- and less-powerful pesticides, since the amount of them sprayed on the vegetable would be in inverse proportion to their toxicity. However, once you introduce washing, the amount of the pesticide you remove isn't constant, nor linear. In fact, some pesticides are non-"organic" precisely because they have chemicals in them that make them more easily washed off! So the better-engineered (less "natural") pesticides are both originally present in smaller quantities, and reduced in quantity more by washing. You might end up eating none of a synthetic pesticide, whereas an "organic" one might be all over your food even after washing. "None" is very different from even a little. (Further, there are synthetic pesticides that are entirely safe for humans—or are even considered food by humans—but which are considered non-"organic" because we can only create them via de novo synthesis rather than in a bioreactor. Consider some artificial sugar that the human liver can process but insects cannot metabolize. If we sprayed it on plants, it'd be a "synthetic pesticide." If "synthetic pesticide" looks like that, and "organic pesticide" looks like, say, nicotine, which would you prefer to miss some residue of?)