18 ms·

Bayer to Pull Glyphosate Products, from U.S. Home and Garden Market

73 points by grawprog 5y ago

samstave 5y ago
Sadly the damage from this stuff is already done. Glyphosate should be banned, destroyed and removed from the planet. Its impact will last generations.
- worker767424 5y ago
  > Its impact will last generations. According to Wikipedia, > The half-life of glyphosate in soil ranges between 2 and 197 days; a typical field half-life of 47 days has been suggested. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Environmental_fate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Environmental_fate As far as herbicides go, it's relatively safe and short-lived. It's nothing compared to DDT.
  - trdtaylor1 5y ago
    I can confirm from personal experience dumping glyco on my yard, this isn't the same as DDT / PFAS.
  - penultimatebro 5y ago
    Hey maybe the next one won’t give cancer to whoever’s exposed to it. I’m just psyched the soil will able to be grown in eventually.
- Nicksil 5y ago
  >Sadly the damage from this stuff is already done. What is the damage that has been done? >Glyphosate should be banned, destroyed and removed from the planet. Why, though? You haven't stated any reason why you feel this way. > Its impact will last generations. What, specifically, is the impact to which you refer?
  - forgotmypw17 5y ago
    >What is the damage that has been done? For one thing, huge impacts on native insects, which has domino effects across ecosystems which rely on them for pollination and food.
  - samstave 5y ago
    Impact to fish waterlife, the direct affect of creating cancer in humans in short order, the impact to the insect food life cycle which affect the entire chain. Its a killer. There is no arguing that - and seriously ALL of it ends up in the water. The most important resource on the planet. I am surprised I have to even say this. --- >>>>the direct affect of creating cancer in humans in short order >>>>Where does this come from? There have been no recorded cases to support this claim. Jeasus christ, before you try to shut something down, know your facts: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-monsanto-cancer-lawsuit-idUSKBN1KV2HB https://www.reuters.com/article/us-monsanto-cancer-lawsuit-i... Its one of the reasons Monsanto merged with Bayer - to "cleanse" the name of the fact that glyphosate is liquid cancer in a bottle.
    - Nicksil 5y ago
      >Impact to fish waterlife, the direct affect of creating cancer in humans in short order, the impact to the insect food life cycle which affect the entire chain. >Its a killer. There is no arguing that - and seriously ALL of it ends up in the water. The most important resource on the planet. I'm sorry but the research just doesn't agree. >Impact to fish waterlife What is the impact you are referring to? An impact can be anywhere from barely observable to catastrophic. There have been many studies on the impact of glyphosate on water life. Nothing so far has conclusively ascertained a significant threat. >the direct affect of creating cancer in humans in short order Where does this come from? There have been no recorded cases to support this claim. >the impact to the insect food life cycle which affect the entire chain. Again, what is the magnitude of impact to which you refer? Saying something has impact, without further context, is almost meaningless. >Its a killer. There is no arguing that Killer of what? >I am surprised I have to even say this. Not much has been said short of broad claims and generalizations without any supporting information.
    - 5y ago
giantg2 5y ago
Well, I guess we just have to wait and see if the other ingredient will be an improvement. It could end up like BPA being replaced by BPS, or the specific PFAS on nonstick pans being replaced by a largely untested different PFAS.
didjathinkmess 5y ago
Up until the landmark ruling against Monsanto in 2018, there would be pro-glyphosate shills polluting forums like Hacker News with misleading statements and outright lies. After the initial court case that ruled in favor of a grounds keeper that got Lymphoma, they magically disappeared. Its been pretty nice. Guess the PR budget got cut! This is an amazing development but the job isn't done yet. This poison needs to be banned in all agriculture applications worldwide immediately. This is our FOOD WE ALL EAT for crying out loud.
- atatatat 5y ago
  Reddit, as well. Sharpened my bullshit detector — cheers Monsanto.
- zug_zug 5y ago
  Not sure why this is downvoted, it is a documented fact that monsanto was paying people to engage on social media forums while pretending to have no affiliation. [1] You can read the court testimony here [scroll down about half-way]: https://usrtk.org/tag/let-nothing-go/ https://usrtk.org/tag/let-nothing-go/
  - fingerlocks 5y ago
    I don’t see that claim anywhere in that article, despite how hard it’s reaching to be a hit piece.
    - zug_zug 5y ago
      Okay, here's the actual court document with a direct quote "Monsanto even started the aptly-named “Let Nothing Go” program to leave nothing, not even facebook comments, unanswered; through a series of third parties, it employs individuals who appear to have no connection to the industry, who in turn post positive comments on news articles and Facebook posts, defending Monsanto, its chemicals, and GMOs." [1] https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/MDLLetNothingGomotion.pdf https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/MDLLetNothingGo...
kup0 5y ago
This is one of those controversial topics that really tends to go off the rails because of all the Monsanto history and polarizing beliefs concerning the substance. Also, notably, this is only being pulled from the market to "manage litigation risk" according to Bayer I am no Monsanto/Bayer fan or defender, necessarily, and as much as I've found it easy to jump on the anti-glyphosate bandwagon in the past - glyphosate doesn't seem to have any strong evidence for risk for low-exposure uses like home gardening? Doesn't the (weak, but present) evidence so far mostly point to the risk really only being when exposed to large amounts of glyphosate? Or does the personal risk come from it being present in agricultural products it is sprayed on, that we then consume? The key thing (even in the lymphoma studies) seems to be "high cumulative exposure" I lean towards "this seems like it's potentially hazardous for all uses" but does the evidence really bear that out? I want to block out the noise of opinion on this issue and purely look at evidence- something that seems to be coming increasingly rare- but something we need to be willing to do, even if it's painful to our ego and bias to do so
- forgotmypw17 5y ago
  How many "low-level" exposures does it take before it graduates to a "risky" exposure? The other major effect is wide-range poisoning of insects that just happen to be passing through the garden.
  - likpok 5y ago
    Does glyphosate poison insects at all? It targets a pathway specific to plants, and generally is non-toxic to everything else. Farmers (and gardeners and homeowners) use a whole lot of other pesticides to kill insects, which will affect non-targeted species. Slug baits sometimes are mixed with other broad-spectrum insectisides, and Raid is persistent (part of it's design is to kill the wasps that return to the nest later!)
    - pkaye 5y ago
      Roundup is glyphosate plus a surfactant. The surfactant is use to strip the waxy coating on plant leaves so the glyphosate can act. I've read the surfactant is the bigger issue for insects.
penultimatebro 5y ago
Remember when people were called cranks and tin foil hatters for suggesting Roundup might contribute to health problems? Unfortunately Monsanto will just wheel out their next toxic poison right after Roundup is banned completely.
- sschueller 5y ago
  They already got away with it. They sold to Bayer and like Chevron they will claim they are not responsible for what the previous company did.
acheron 5y ago
Guess I better stock up then. Stuff works great.
- creamytaco 5y ago
  And then you get cancer..
tynpeddler 5y ago
The key words that oversight organizations keep repeating are basically "There's no evidence of long term health effects when used as directed." The problem with glyphosate is that even if it does turn out to cause some kind of cancer, it's acute toxicity is incredibly low, lower than table salt. As as a result, people can easily ignore the directions for years with minimal, if any, health effects. However, the anti-glyphosate crowd has completely failed for the last 40 years to provide any definitive proof that it causes cancer, what cancers it might cause, any kind of dose-response curve, or any other evidence that what we're seeing is anything else that chance. Non-hodgkin's lymphoma is relatively rare, but glyphosate usage is not. Take any popular product, nail polish, Nike shoes, Cheeze-its, and with enough scrutiny you will be able to correlate the population of heavy users with some rare and critical health condition. It's inevitable. You can tell such a claim is likely spurious by weak and contradictory findings, alongside frequent goalpost moving and changing claims from the product's critics. This is exactly what we see with glyphosate. So why is glyphosate so criticised? Why did Greenpeace fight nuclear power so hard in the 60's and 70's, even though fossil fuels were far worse for their claimed cause? Why are there so many anti-vaxers? Why was golden rice destroyed? People don't need a rational reason to fervently take up a cause. Especially if they think they're fighting an evil empire. The craziest thing is that even if glyphosate is as carcinogenic as its detractors claim, it's still far less toxic than most, if not all, of the other less controversial herbicides. In other words, anti-glyphosate campaigners are not choosing targets based on harm, they're choosing targets based on popularity.
- theknocker 5y ago
  Maybe they're choosing targets based on who has millions of dollars to pay social media shills to tell us what to think.
- Alkhwarizmi 5y ago
  It’s clearly obvious you have some bias. Glysophate has been established to be extremely toxic and carcinogenic. Furthermore, the alternatives to glysophate such as insects, special flowers and etc are FAR MORE effective and safer! The other disastrous outcome of these pesticides has been the destruction of water supply, insect population, flowers and plenty of other eco systems. Face the facts, Glysophate and other pesticides are DANGEROUS both to us and the eco system around you.
sparker72678 5y ago
Great deal for lawn & garden companies who will still be able to get it forever and charge us a fortune to kill weeds we could kill ourselves today for pennies. And it's those exact sort of workers who are the ones most likely to be exposed to harmful amounts and experience health effects.
xyzzy21 5y ago
Glyphosate doesn't kill humans like it does plants but it does alter human physiology. It causes cell walls to become permeably all over the body. That includes intestines (some suspect IBS and may be linked to it), the blood-brain barrier (suspected of possible links to brain cancers, mental illness, etc.), and many, many others. Membranes that are never supposed to be impermeable become leaky.
- anonymouswacker 5y ago
  There’s a theory that glyphosate is the cause of many deaths from Covid…
  - smbv 5y ago
    Do you have a source?
    - anonymouswacker 5y ago
      Just from Stephanie Seneff, whom a lot from the pro-vax & pharma industry label a quack and discard. Her points are pretty controversial but not without a lot of data and reasoning, but I am no expert in this. https://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/2021/HealthFreedom2021.pdf https://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/2021/HealthFreedom2021.p...
- yc-kraln 5y ago
  Animal cells do not have cell walls.
zug_zug 5y ago
Not saying this is happening here, but good to know about - https://usrtk.org/tag/let-nothing-go/ https://usrtk.org/tag/let-nothing-go/
hedora 5y ago
I wonder if this means General Mills will stop adding it to Cheerios. Search for “roundup oat drying” if you don’t know what I’m talking about. They spray roundup on crops immediately before harvest to kill them and dry them out. It (slightly) increases crop yields, but contaminates the crop.
- voakbasda 5y ago
  Source?
tablespoon 5y ago
So what am I supposed to use as a non-selective herbicide now?
- King-Aaron 5y ago
  Sump oil
- mizzack 5y ago
  Compare 'n' Save glyphosate concentrate with your choice of surfactant added.
chaz6 5y ago
Glyphosate is the only way I can deal with the marestail weeds infesting my garden. They are highly resilient and grow very deep allowing them to spread through the soil to neighbouring gardens. I mix it with wallpaper paste then brush it onto the shoots, and it starts dying within 24 hours.

73 points by grawprog 5y ago

Sadly the damage from this stuff is already done. Glyphosate should be banned, destroyed and removed from the planet. Its impact will last generations.

worker767424 5y ago
> Its impact will last generations. According to Wikipedia, > The half-life of glyphosate in soil ranges between 2 and 197 days; a typical field half-life of 47 days has been suggested. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Environmental_fate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Environmental_fate As far as herbicides go, it's relatively safe and short-lived. It's nothing compared to DDT.
- trdtaylor1 5y ago
  I can confirm from personal experience dumping glyco on my yard, this isn't the same as DDT / PFAS.
- penultimatebro 5y ago
  Hey maybe the next one won’t give cancer to whoever’s exposed to it. I’m just psyched the soil will able to be grown in eventually.
Nicksil 5y ago
>Sadly the damage from this stuff is already done. What is the damage that has been done? >Glyphosate should be banned, destroyed and removed from the planet. Why, though? You haven't stated any reason why you feel this way. > Its impact will last generations. What, specifically, is the impact to which you refer?
- forgotmypw17 5y ago
  >What is the damage that has been done? For one thing, huge impacts on native insects, which has domino effects across ecosystems which rely on them for pollination and food.
- samstave 5y ago
  Impact to fish waterlife, the direct affect of creating cancer in humans in short order, the impact to the insect food life cycle which affect the entire chain. Its a killer. There is no arguing that - and seriously ALL of it ends up in the water. The most important resource on the planet. I am surprised I have to even say this. --- >>>>the direct affect of creating cancer in humans in short order >>>>Where does this come from? There have been no recorded cases to support this claim. Jeasus christ, before you try to shut something down, know your facts: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-monsanto-cancer-lawsuit-idUSKBN1KV2HB https://www.reuters.com/article/us-monsanto-cancer-lawsuit-i... Its one of the reasons Monsanto merged with Bayer - to "cleanse" the name of the fact that glyphosate is liquid cancer in a bottle.
  - Nicksil 5y ago
    >Impact to fish waterlife, the direct affect of creating cancer in humans in short order, the impact to the insect food life cycle which affect the entire chain. >Its a killer. There is no arguing that - and seriously ALL of it ends up in the water. The most important resource on the planet. I'm sorry but the research just doesn't agree. >Impact to fish waterlife What is the impact you are referring to? An impact can be anywhere from barely observable to catastrophic. There have been many studies on the impact of glyphosate on water life. Nothing so far has conclusively ascertained a significant threat. >the direct affect of creating cancer in humans in short order Where does this come from? There have been no recorded cases to support this claim. >the impact to the insect food life cycle which affect the entire chain. Again, what is the magnitude of impact to which you refer? Saying something has impact, without further context, is almost meaningless. >Its a killer. There is no arguing that Killer of what? >I am surprised I have to even say this. Not much has been said short of broad claims and generalizations without any supporting information.
  - 5y ago

giantg2 5y ago

Well, I guess we just have to wait and see if the other ingredient will be an improvement. It could end up like BPA being replaced by BPS, or the specific PFAS on nonstick pans being replaced by a largely untested different PFAS.

didjathinkmess 5y ago

Up until the landmark ruling against Monsanto in 2018, there would be pro-glyphosate shills polluting forums like Hacker News with misleading statements and outright lies. After the initial court case that ruled in favor of a grounds keeper that got Lymphoma, they magically disappeared. Its been pretty nice. Guess the PR budget got cut! This is an amazing development but the job isn't done yet. This poison needs to be banned in all agriculture applications worldwide immediately. This is our FOOD WE ALL EAT for crying out loud.

atatatat 5y ago
Reddit, as well. Sharpened my bullshit detector — cheers Monsanto.
zug_zug 5y ago
Not sure why this is downvoted, it is a documented fact that monsanto was paying people to engage on social media forums while pretending to have no affiliation. [1] You can read the court testimony here [scroll down about half-way]: https://usrtk.org/tag/let-nothing-go/ https://usrtk.org/tag/let-nothing-go/
- fingerlocks 5y ago
  I don’t see that claim anywhere in that article, despite how hard it’s reaching to be a hit piece.
  - zug_zug 5y ago
    Okay, here's the actual court document with a direct quote "Monsanto even started the aptly-named “Let Nothing Go” program to leave nothing, not even facebook comments, unanswered; through a series of third parties, it employs individuals who appear to have no connection to the industry, who in turn post positive comments on news articles and Facebook posts, defending Monsanto, its chemicals, and GMOs." [1] https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/MDLLetNothingGomotion.pdf https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/MDLLetNothingGo...

kup0 5y ago

This is one of those controversial topics that really tends to go off the rails because of all the Monsanto history and polarizing beliefs concerning the substance. Also, notably, this is only being pulled from the market to "manage litigation risk" according to Bayer I am no Monsanto/Bayer fan or defender, necessarily, and as much as I've found it easy to jump on the anti-glyphosate bandwagon in the past - glyphosate doesn't seem to have any strong evidence for risk for low-exposure uses like home gardening? Doesn't the (weak, but present) evidence so far mostly point to the risk really only being when exposed to large amounts of glyphosate? Or does the personal risk come from it being present in agricultural products it is sprayed on, that we then consume? The key thing (even in the lymphoma studies) seems to be "high cumulative exposure" I lean towards "this seems like it's potentially hazardous for all uses" but does the evidence really bear that out? I want to block out the noise of opinion on this issue and purely look at evidence- something that seems to be coming increasingly rare- but something we need to be willing to do, even if it's painful to our ego and bias to do so

forgotmypw17 5y ago
How many "low-level" exposures does it take before it graduates to a "risky" exposure? The other major effect is wide-range poisoning of insects that just happen to be passing through the garden.
- likpok 5y ago
  Does glyphosate poison insects at all? It targets a pathway specific to plants, and generally is non-toxic to everything else. Farmers (and gardeners and homeowners) use a whole lot of other pesticides to kill insects, which will affect non-targeted species. Slug baits sometimes are mixed with other broad-spectrum insectisides, and Raid is persistent (part of it's design is to kill the wasps that return to the nest later!)
  - pkaye 5y ago
    Roundup is glyphosate plus a surfactant. The surfactant is use to strip the waxy coating on plant leaves so the glyphosate can act. I've read the surfactant is the bigger issue for insects.

penultimatebro 5y ago

Remember when people were called cranks and tin foil hatters for suggesting Roundup might contribute to health problems? Unfortunately Monsanto will just wheel out their next toxic poison right after Roundup is banned completely.

sschueller 5y ago
They already got away with it. They sold to Bayer and like Chevron they will claim they are not responsible for what the previous company did.

acheron 5y ago

Guess I better stock up then. Stuff works great.

creamytaco 5y ago
And then you get cancer..

tynpeddler 5y ago

The key words that oversight organizations keep repeating are basically "There's no evidence of long term health effects when used as directed." The problem with glyphosate is that even if it does turn out to cause some kind of cancer, it's acute toxicity is incredibly low, lower than table salt. As as a result, people can easily ignore the directions for years with minimal, if any, health effects. However, the anti-glyphosate crowd has completely failed for the last 40 years to provide any definitive proof that it causes cancer, what cancers it might cause, any kind of dose-response curve, or any other evidence that what we're seeing is anything else that chance. Non-hodgkin's lymphoma is relatively rare, but glyphosate usage is not. Take any popular product, nail polish, Nike shoes, Cheeze-its, and with enough scrutiny you will be able to correlate the population of heavy users with some rare and critical health condition. It's inevitable. You can tell such a claim is likely spurious by weak and contradictory findings, alongside frequent goalpost moving and changing claims from the product's critics. This is exactly what we see with glyphosate. So why is glyphosate so criticised? Why did Greenpeace fight nuclear power so hard in the 60's and 70's, even though fossil fuels were far worse for their claimed cause? Why are there so many anti-vaxers? Why was golden rice destroyed? People don't need a rational reason to fervently take up a cause. Especially if they think they're fighting an evil empire. The craziest thing is that even if glyphosate is as carcinogenic as its detractors claim, it's still far less toxic than most, if not all, of the other less controversial herbicides. In other words, anti-glyphosate campaigners are not choosing targets based on harm, they're choosing targets based on popularity.

theknocker 5y ago
Maybe they're choosing targets based on who has millions of dollars to pay social media shills to tell us what to think.
Alkhwarizmi 5y ago
It’s clearly obvious you have some bias. Glysophate has been established to be extremely toxic and carcinogenic. Furthermore, the alternatives to glysophate such as insects, special flowers and etc are FAR MORE effective and safer! The other disastrous outcome of these pesticides has been the destruction of water supply, insect population, flowers and plenty of other eco systems. Face the facts, Glysophate and other pesticides are DANGEROUS both to us and the eco system around you.

sparker72678 5y ago

Great deal for lawn & garden companies who will still be able to get it forever and charge us a fortune to kill weeds we could kill ourselves today for pennies. And it's those exact sort of workers who are the ones most likely to be exposed to harmful amounts and experience health effects.

xyzzy21 5y ago

Glyphosate doesn't kill humans like it does plants but it does alter human physiology. It causes cell walls to become permeably all over the body. That includes intestines (some suspect IBS and may be linked to it), the blood-brain barrier (suspected of possible links to brain cancers, mental illness, etc.), and many, many others. Membranes that are never supposed to be impermeable become leaky.

anonymouswacker 5y ago
There’s a theory that glyphosate is the cause of many deaths from Covid…
- smbv 5y ago
  Do you have a source?
  - anonymouswacker 5y ago
    Just from Stephanie Seneff, whom a lot from the pro-vax & pharma industry label a quack and discard. Her points are pretty controversial but not without a lot of data and reasoning, but I am no expert in this. https://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/2021/HealthFreedom2021.pdf https://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/2021/HealthFreedom2021.p...
yc-kraln 5y ago
Animal cells do not have cell walls.

zug_zug 5y ago

Not saying this is happening here, but good to know about - https://usrtk.org/tag/let-nothing-go/ https://usrtk.org/tag/let-nothing-go/

hedora 5y ago

I wonder if this means General Mills will stop adding it to Cheerios. Search for “roundup oat drying” if you don’t know what I’m talking about. They spray roundup on crops immediately before harvest to kill them and dry them out. It (slightly) increases crop yields, but contaminates the crop.

voakbasda 5y ago
Source?

tablespoon 5y ago

So what am I supposed to use as a non-selective herbicide now?

King-Aaron 5y ago
Sump oil
mizzack 5y ago
Compare 'n' Save glyphosate concentrate with your choice of surfactant added.

chaz6 5y ago

Glyphosate is the only way I can deal with the marestail weeds infesting my garden. They are highly resilient and grow very deep allowing them to spread through the soil to neighbouring gardens. I mix it with wallpaper paste then brush it onto the shoots, and it starts dying within 24 hours.