9 ms·

Herbicide glyphosate under fire worldwide, gets banned by Austria

56 points by Ultramanoid 7y ago

willustration 7y ago
So safe you can drink it!! suuuuuuure.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM
jitl 7y ago
I couldn’t agree more. This is “Roundup”, primarily marketed by the most despicable rent-seeking companies that try their hardest to exploit asymmetric markets and push risk - including health risk - onto farmers.
- i_am_nomad 7y ago
  What risk from glyphosate are you talking about, exactly?
  - jitl 7y ago
    Physical risk, economic risk of farming. Extremely unfair power dynamic between farmers and big agribusiness that sell to them. Just read the first paragraph of the Wikipedia page on this chemical.
  - la_fayette 7y ago
    https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/11/4/4449 https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/11/4/4449
    - lettergram 7y ago
      For reference.. that’s pretty weak, they just suggest there is a positive correlation with a whole bunch herbicides in uncontrolled and unknown vectors. I agree with the authors assessment that research should be done, but this is very far from conclusive.
ryanmarsh 7y ago
Is Glyphosate a herbicide, or a desiccant? They are different.
- zeofig 7y ago
  Por que no los dos!
- sitharus 7y ago
  It's both. It's applied just before harvest to non-glyphosphate-resistant food crops as a desiccant, and directly to unwanted plants as a weedkiller.
- jelliclesfarm 7y ago
  its both. that's why so called organic breakfast cereals have traces of glyphosate. i am keen about automated farms and it will never be realised as long as we have 1000 acre farms that feed us. food has to be local to a certain extent and supply chains should be shorter. of course, not everything can be local. we have created a very efficient way of delivering food to 7+ billion people but commoditising food has destroyed our canvas that is the basis of all life. we need a paradigm shift and this is only possible through automation, robotics as we localise most of our food needs. i also believe..in my heart..that we will have to transform and tinker with our DNA rather than tinker with our environment which has proved to be costly and rather inefficient.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
>Glyphosate, which was totally banned by Austria’s parliament on Tuesday, is the world’s most widely used herbicide but there have been growing attempts around the world to stop its use. There is no ideal “all natural” world. The truth is, you will not be able to feed 7 billion people without using pesticides. With glyphosate, we have a chemical that has seen use for decades in large amounts and even now the case for it actually being harmful to humans is pretty weak. What will happen is that because you need pesticides to support the crop yields necessary for 7 billion people, you will end up with a less well tested pesticide that will end up causing even more problems.
- devoply 7y ago
  Truth is 7 billion people are an exponential bacterial like growth which under natural circumstances should collapse and is instead collapsing the entire planet and the rest of its living population with its tech to sustain its unsustainable growth... and arguments to humanism and capitalism are used to justify its ludicrous behaviour which is completely unnecessary and easily controlled through birth control. Bring food supply in line with carrying capacity or destroy the planet, scientifically the options are simple, politically while espousing humanist rhetoric like how do we feed the hungry it's impossible.
  - pkaye 7y ago
    > Truth is 7 billion people are an exponential bacterial like growth Quite a few countries are under replacement fertility rate. China is below. India is almost there.
    - devoply 7y ago
      Economic growth is the same as population growth. When the population increases consumption increase. Economic growth is increase in number of goods and services produced which leads to more consumption per person, which in most cases leads to greater use of natural resources per person. Hence countries in the West who have smaller populations consume much more than poorer countries with less economic development. Most of those countries claiming to have replacement level fertility are still growing either through immigration or through economics. This is the case across the board... If they are not then they are considered in trouble as is the case with Japan.
Sophistifunk 7y ago
Is there actually any consensus as to whether it does cause cancer, or how much you have to use it for ill effects? All I ever see in these stories are a list of lawsuits in CA (which doesn't count for much, TBH), various places it's been banned "as a precaution", and much rejoicing in the peanut gallery because bad things are happening to Monsanto.
- sschueller 7y ago
  Is it logical to use something before it has been proven save? My router has a whitelist, not a blacklist. Which is safer?
  - lettergram 7y ago
    Pretty much impossible to prove something has no harm generally. Proving non-existence is a fallacy[1] You can however say that “today there is little evidence”, then offset it by potential costs (in this case food supply). [1] https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/145/Proving-Non-Existence https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFalla...
  - EpicEng 7y ago
    Prove to me that typing on a keyboard doesn't cause cancer. I'll wait.
    - sschueller 7y ago
      Smoking cigarettes didn't cause cancer until 1964...
      - orwin 7y ago
        This is false. Sufficient evidence was found in the 40s, but tobacco was seen as a threat by some scientists/doctors way before. And today we have a much better understanding of epidemiology, so any cancer glyphosate enhance would have been discovered already. And we did: NHL.
lettergram 7y ago
Strange.. > The final assessment of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority in 2017 was that "glyphosate does not pose a carcinogenic risk to humans". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_%28herbicide%29 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_%28herbicide%29
- striking 7y ago
  The headline is about Austria banning it (not Australia).
  - Ultramanoid 7y ago
    Slovenia / Slovakia ... Even diplomats mistake that one pretty often.
  - agumonkey 7y ago
    The thing is, many different bodies have different conclusion about glyphosate.
    - senectus1 7y ago
      yeah but the coalition in Australia (which is in power atm) can hardly be trusted to do the right thing here. They're bought and owned by agri-farming and big business.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
hcrisp 7y ago
The patent for Roundup has expired, which is why there are a lot of generic versions of glyphosate also now available. So this isn't really just about Monsanto / Bayer?
smilliken 7y ago
Its presence in food should require labeling so that consumers can make an informed decision and the market can reach consensus. The world is big enough for everyone to disagree about what's safe to be in our food, and for everyone to still get what they want, but it only works with transparency. For example, US PIRG tested 20 beer and wine brands and found that 19 contained glyphosate, but how does the consumer know? https://www.ecowatch.com/glyphosate-beer-wine-2630077686.html https://www.ecowatch.com/glyphosate-beer-wine-2630077686.htm... Here's a page with citations to relevant research: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945755/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945755/
londons_explore 7y ago
The patent on it (and the roundup-ready crops) has expired, so there is a strong financial incentive for the company behind it to ban it's own product.

56 points by Ultramanoid 7y ago

So safe you can drink it!! suuuuuuure.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM

jitl 7y ago

I couldn’t agree more. This is “Roundup”, primarily marketed by the most despicable rent-seeking companies that try their hardest to exploit asymmetric markets and push risk - including health risk - onto farmers.

i_am_nomad 7y ago
What risk from glyphosate are you talking about, exactly?
- jitl 7y ago
  Physical risk, economic risk of farming. Extremely unfair power dynamic between farmers and big agribusiness that sell to them. Just read the first paragraph of the Wikipedia page on this chemical.
- la_fayette 7y ago
  https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/11/4/4449 https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/11/4/4449
  - lettergram 7y ago
    For reference.. that’s pretty weak, they just suggest there is a positive correlation with a whole bunch herbicides in uncontrolled and unknown vectors. I agree with the authors assessment that research should be done, but this is very far from conclusive.

ryanmarsh 7y ago

Is Glyphosate a herbicide, or a desiccant? They are different.

zeofig 7y ago
Por que no los dos!
sitharus 7y ago
It's both. It's applied just before harvest to non-glyphosphate-resistant food crops as a desiccant, and directly to unwanted plants as a weedkiller.
jelliclesfarm 7y ago
its both. that's why so called organic breakfast cereals have traces of glyphosate. i am keen about automated farms and it will never be realised as long as we have 1000 acre farms that feed us. food has to be local to a certain extent and supply chains should be shorter. of course, not everything can be local. we have created a very efficient way of delivering food to 7+ billion people but commoditising food has destroyed our canvas that is the basis of all life. we need a paradigm shift and this is only possible through automation, robotics as we localise most of our food needs. i also believe..in my heart..that we will have to transform and tinker with our DNA rather than tinker with our environment which has proved to be costly and rather inefficient.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago

>Glyphosate, which was totally banned by Austria’s parliament on Tuesday, is the world’s most widely used herbicide but there have been growing attempts around the world to stop its use. There is no ideal “all natural” world. The truth is, you will not be able to feed 7 billion people without using pesticides. With glyphosate, we have a chemical that has seen use for decades in large amounts and even now the case for it actually being harmful to humans is pretty weak. What will happen is that because you need pesticides to support the crop yields necessary for 7 billion people, you will end up with a less well tested pesticide that will end up causing even more problems.

devoply 7y ago
Truth is 7 billion people are an exponential bacterial like growth which under natural circumstances should collapse and is instead collapsing the entire planet and the rest of its living population with its tech to sustain its unsustainable growth... and arguments to humanism and capitalism are used to justify its ludicrous behaviour which is completely unnecessary and easily controlled through birth control. Bring food supply in line with carrying capacity or destroy the planet, scientifically the options are simple, politically while espousing humanist rhetoric like how do we feed the hungry it's impossible.
- pkaye 7y ago
  > Truth is 7 billion people are an exponential bacterial like growth Quite a few countries are under replacement fertility rate. China is below. India is almost there.
  - devoply 7y ago
    Economic growth is the same as population growth. When the population increases consumption increase. Economic growth is increase in number of goods and services produced which leads to more consumption per person, which in most cases leads to greater use of natural resources per person. Hence countries in the West who have smaller populations consume much more than poorer countries with less economic development. Most of those countries claiming to have replacement level fertility are still growing either through immigration or through economics. This is the case across the board... If they are not then they are considered in trouble as is the case with Japan.

Sophistifunk 7y ago

Is there actually any consensus as to whether it does cause cancer, or how much you have to use it for ill effects? All I ever see in these stories are a list of lawsuits in CA (which doesn't count for much, TBH), various places it's been banned "as a precaution", and much rejoicing in the peanut gallery because bad things are happening to Monsanto.

sschueller 7y ago
Is it logical to use something before it has been proven save? My router has a whitelist, not a blacklist. Which is safer?
- lettergram 7y ago
  Pretty much impossible to prove something has no harm generally. Proving non-existence is a fallacy[1] You can however say that “today there is little evidence”, then offset it by potential costs (in this case food supply). [1] https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/145/Proving-Non-Existence https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFalla...
- EpicEng 7y ago
  Prove to me that typing on a keyboard doesn't cause cancer. I'll wait.
  - sschueller 7y ago
    Smoking cigarettes didn't cause cancer until 1964...
    - orwin 7y ago
      This is false. Sufficient evidence was found in the 40s, but tobacco was seen as a threat by some scientists/doctors way before. And today we have a much better understanding of epidemiology, so any cancer glyphosate enhance would have been discovered already. And we did: NHL.

lettergram 7y ago

Strange.. > The final assessment of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority in 2017 was that "glyphosate does not pose a carcinogenic risk to humans". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_%28herbicide%29 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_%28herbicide%29

striking 7y ago
The headline is about Austria banning it (not Australia).
- Ultramanoid 7y ago
  Slovenia / Slovakia ... Even diplomats mistake that one pretty often.
- agumonkey 7y ago
  The thing is, many different bodies have different conclusion about glyphosate.
  - senectus1 7y ago
    yeah but the coalition in Australia (which is in power atm) can hardly be trusted to do the right thing here. They're bought and owned by agri-farming and big business.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

hcrisp 7y ago

The patent for Roundup has expired, which is why there are a lot of generic versions of glyphosate also now available. So this isn't really just about Monsanto / Bayer?

smilliken 7y ago

Its presence in food should require labeling so that consumers can make an informed decision and the market can reach consensus. The world is big enough for everyone to disagree about what's safe to be in our food, and for everyone to still get what they want, but it only works with transparency. For example, US PIRG tested 20 beer and wine brands and found that 19 contained glyphosate, but how does the consumer know? https://www.ecowatch.com/glyphosate-beer-wine-2630077686.html https://www.ecowatch.com/glyphosate-beer-wine-2630077686.htm... Here's a page with citations to relevant research: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945755/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945755/

londons_explore 7y ago

The patent on it (and the roundup-ready crops) has expired, so there is a strong financial incentive for the company behind it to ban it's own product.