10 ms·

Why does the US allow a controversial weedkiller banned across the world?

221 points by elorant 4y ago

jmclnx 4y ago
Really ? Every person in the US knows why. Reason, Campaign Contributions, or as what is known in all other Countries as Bribes.
- Scarblac 4y ago
  And they're allowed because contributing to a campaign is considered speech, I think? The US has the right to free bribing.
  - jmclnx 4y ago
    Correct, and any Companies, including Large Companies can "contribute" any amount they want because they are considered "people".
    - gruez 4y ago
      >including Large Companies can "contribute" any amount they want because they are considered "people". That's not an accurate representation of the court's opinion. Here's the summary given on wikipedia >The majority ruled that the Freedom of the Press clause of the First Amendment protects associations of individuals in addition to individual speakers, and further that the First Amendment does not allow prohibitions of speech based on the identity of the speaker. Corporations, as associations of individuals, therefore have free speech rights under the First Amendment. Because spending money is essential to disseminating speech, as established in Buckley v. Valeo, limiting a corporation's ability to spend money is unconstitutional, because it limits the ability of its members to associate effectively and to speak on political issues. Corporations being considered "people" (aka. corporate personhood) has nothing to do with it.
- gruez 4y ago
  >Campaign Contributions, or as what is known in all other Countries as Bribes. Other countries have limits on campaign contributions, but claiming that they're known as "bribes" is a massive hyperbole.
- refurb 4y ago
  Do they call it bribery in the EU too? https://www.appf.europa.eu/appf/en/donations-and-contributions https://www.appf.europa.eu/appf/en/donations-and-contributio...
boomskats 4y ago
SPOILER ALERT: the answer is 'lobbying'. That is, the free, democratic, and fully legal, bribery of government legislators and elected officials by profit-driven corporate bodies. I, for one, was not surprised.
- CharlesW 4y ago
  Is $1-2M/year all it takes? If so, that's a pretty great ROI. https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=2016&id=D000064447 https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary...
  - gruez 4y ago
    I doubt it. Sam Bankman-Fried sank 11 million into getting a biosecurity expert elected in a Democratic Primary, and got less than 20% of the votes.
    - pjc50 4y ago
      Who was that candidate?
      - gruez 4y ago
        Carrick Flynn
- Nanana909 4y ago
  > lobbying'. That is, the free, democratic, and fully legal, bribery of government legislators and elected officials by profit-driven corporate bodies. That’s not really the definition of lobbying though. We should try to avoid hyperboles. Additionally, bribery is not legal and that’s not even remotely the form that the vast majority of lobbying takes today.
  - sonofhans 4y ago
    Of course it’s bribery. Everyone involved knows it’s bribery. The money is given with expectation of reward. If the bribing entity didn’t expect a direct reward, they wouldn’t give the money. Now, everyone tries to hide behind levels of abstraction — “It’s just lobbying!” — but those are just fig leaves and reasonable people should see through them. E.g., “Exxon gave the money to my campaign committee, and I’m not involved with the finance end; my vote in favor of Exxon was just a coincidence.” That’s pure bullshit and everyone knows it. So yes it’s bribery. Calling it something else is disingenuous.
amelius 4y ago
If you show a map of the use of the weedkiller, at least also show a map of the prevalence of the disease.
- stefanfisk 4y ago
  Could you provide us with suitable maps to compare?
epgui 4y ago
I’m a biochemist, and it drives me nuts how much the public worries about glyphosate but not really any other herbicides. Glyphosate may not be perfect but I’d worry more about almost any other type of herbicide, most of which are absolutely nasty.
- CharlesW 4y ago
  Glyphosate isn't mentioned in TFA. Thoughts on paraquat?
  - kortex 4y ago
    Not GP but (former) chemist, and I share the same sentiment. Paraquat scares me. Note its direct chemical similarity to MPP+ [0], both sporting that methylpyridinium moeity (the CH3N+ in the ring). In fact the only real difference is paraquat is a two-for-one on neurotoxic functional group. Glyphosate gets a bad rap in large part due to similarity to organophosphates (P-O-C), which are usually quite toxic, but it is in fact a phosphonate, with a direct P-C bond. I forget the exact mechanism, but it makes a difference. Also glyphosate readily hydrolyzes, while paraquat is a "brick" that resists breakdown and is prone to bioaccumulation. The mechanism of action is identical: methylpyridinium promotes the production of reactive oxygen species which wreak havoc on cellular machinery. In fact MPP is a "quat" and was briefly used as an herbicide. The chloride of MPP+ was sold under the trade name Cyperquat. > As an herbicide, paraquat acts by inhibiting photosynthesis. In light-exposed plants, it accepts electrons from photosystem I (more specifically ferredoxin, which is presented with electrons from PS I) and transfers them to molecular oxygen. In this manner, destructive reactive oxygen species (ROS) are produced. > MPP+ exhibits its toxicity mainly by promoting the formation of reactive free radicals in the mitochondria of dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra.[9][10] MPP+ can siphon electrons from the mitochondrial electron transport chain at complex I and be reduced, in the process forming radical reactive oxygen species which go on to cause further, generalized cellular damage. [0] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPP%2B https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPP%2B
- propogandist 4y ago
  Given you are a specialist in your field, what are you doing to drive awareness of the problem to the rest of us? I have limited knowledge about glyphosate, and don’t know much about herbicides in general. Help me (us) understand what makes them nasty.
TimTheTinker 4y ago
I'm more worried about the GMO "roundup ready" seeds they sell, and the crops that result. Those contain alterations that (I hypothesize) are partially responsible for increased allergies in the US population.
- randomdata 4y ago
  Which “roundup ready”?
  - TimTheTinker 4y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_Ready https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_Ready
    - randomdata 4y ago
      Let me try to be more clear: Which RR technology are you referring to? There are variants.
- seattle_spring 4y ago
  Which scientific papers support your hypothesis?
- orwin 4y ago
  Exposure to leaded gasoline and diesel is way more likely to have caused this increase tbh. In France, the increased allergies isn't as noticeable in rural area as in cities. If it was caused by chemical we use on plant, the reverse would be true.
  - collegeburner 4y ago
    another hypothesis i heard was rural kids grew up with their immune systems exposed to more stuff and so better trained/less likely to overreact. personally, i always noticed kids with allergies tended to be weak and sickly much more often, so maybe that's related.
bastawhiz 4y ago
Herbicides aside, I worry a lot about the chemicals that we consider "normal". I signed up for a pest service after purchasing my home because we were getting ants and water bugs in the house. They have a package they they sell that includes a "full property" treatment, which I don't think I need. They list off a couple down "pests" that they kill, and go through a long script about how safe the chemicals are. But like, how safe are they really? If they're spraying a cocktail that kills dozens of kinds of insects of all sizes, how does that have no effect on humans? Even at small doses it would seem that the effect would still be measurable. Surely whatever biological process that kills all those bugs also does something to people? I don't let them apply chemicals inside the house, that's where I draw the line. And I'm probably not going to renew the extensive service. If nothing else, it's more chemicals around me that I can live without. But almost every one of my neighbors pays for something similar. How much are we inundating ourselves in this stuff? And what is it doing to the environment and ecosystem? This is one of those things that I feel like we'll look back on with deep regret in a few decades.
- kornhole 4y ago
  Your skepticism is warranted. Of course the negative affects of these chemicals is down played by those who sell them. Many leech into ecosystems, our homes, and our bodies causing obvious and latent issues. I personally love insects and plants considered weeds as they are critical to our biosphere. I have learned to live with and around them managing a balance both in my house and in my garden. Chemical warfare should be a last resort.
  - lostmsu 4y ago
    How do you deal with ant infestations inside your house?
    - kornhole 4y ago
      I suppose I have been lucky in location or keep some kind of good balance. Chemical warfare would be my last resort if I was ever faced with it.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
kornhole 4y ago
We Americans are against chemical warfare in other countries but not when it is done in our own homes or farms against other species.
euroderf 4y ago
Is this the same paraquat that damaged the lungs of US pot smokers in the 70s ?
elfchief 4y ago
I think the answer to literally every question that starts with "Why does the US..." is going to always be: profits Profits are the only yardstick by which anything in the US is measured. Everything else is secondary.
- epgui 4y ago
  That is, short-term, first-order profits!
jccalhoun 4y ago
money. the answer is always money.
lob_it 4y ago
I just read this article recently that said something similar with asbestos: https://www.propublica.org/article/asbestos-poisoning-chemical-plant-niagara-falls https://www.propublica.org/article/asbestos-poisoning-chemic... Its 2022. If you have inert ingredients and unpronounceable ingredients in your diet (untested junk science), known harmful chems external from that are just par for the course. Dead soil from herbicides and pesticides just mean that junk science is "busy as bees" :p
technovader 4y ago
The US allows guns at walmart You're worried about weedkillers?
gardenfelder 4y ago
The websearch using a clustering search engine [1] lands a cluster called "Parkinsons PD" which has 20 PubMed hits, some of which are suggestive of causal links between Paraquat and PD. [1] https://search.carrot2.org/#/search/pubmed/Paraquat/folders https://search.carrot2.org/#/search/pubmed/Paraquat/folders
ck2 4y ago
Same reason why cruise ships burn highly toxic "bunker fuel" daily. Same reason why toxic oil fracking exists and burn off millions of dollars of natural gas into atmosphere daily. Same reason why there are allowed toxic zones in populated areas https://projects.propublica.org/toxmap/ https://projects.propublica.org/toxmap/ Same reason why highly toxic leaded fuel is still used daily in aviation for decades despite banned everywhere else.

221 points by elorant 4y ago

Really ? Every person in the US knows why. Reason, Campaign Contributions, or as what is known in all other Countries as Bribes.

Scarblac 4y ago
And they're allowed because contributing to a campaign is considered speech, I think? The US has the right to free bribing.
- jmclnx 4y ago
  Correct, and any Companies, including Large Companies can "contribute" any amount they want because they are considered "people".
  - gruez 4y ago
    >including Large Companies can "contribute" any amount they want because they are considered "people". That's not an accurate representation of the court's opinion. Here's the summary given on wikipedia >The majority ruled that the Freedom of the Press clause of the First Amendment protects associations of individuals in addition to individual speakers, and further that the First Amendment does not allow prohibitions of speech based on the identity of the speaker. Corporations, as associations of individuals, therefore have free speech rights under the First Amendment. Because spending money is essential to disseminating speech, as established in Buckley v. Valeo, limiting a corporation's ability to spend money is unconstitutional, because it limits the ability of its members to associate effectively and to speak on political issues. Corporations being considered "people" (aka. corporate personhood) has nothing to do with it.
gruez 4y ago
>Campaign Contributions, or as what is known in all other Countries as Bribes. Other countries have limits on campaign contributions, but claiming that they're known as "bribes" is a massive hyperbole.
refurb 4y ago
Do they call it bribery in the EU too? https://www.appf.europa.eu/appf/en/donations-and-contributions https://www.appf.europa.eu/appf/en/donations-and-contributio...

boomskats 4y ago

SPOILER ALERT: the answer is 'lobbying'. That is, the free, democratic, and fully legal, bribery of government legislators and elected officials by profit-driven corporate bodies. I, for one, was not surprised.

CharlesW 4y ago
Is $1-2M/year all it takes? If so, that's a pretty great ROI. https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=2016&id=D000064447 https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary...
- gruez 4y ago
  I doubt it. Sam Bankman-Fried sank 11 million into getting a biosecurity expert elected in a Democratic Primary, and got less than 20% of the votes.
  - pjc50 4y ago
    Who was that candidate?
    - gruez 4y ago
      Carrick Flynn
Nanana909 4y ago
> lobbying'. That is, the free, democratic, and fully legal, bribery of government legislators and elected officials by profit-driven corporate bodies. That’s not really the definition of lobbying though. We should try to avoid hyperboles. Additionally, bribery is not legal and that’s not even remotely the form that the vast majority of lobbying takes today.
- sonofhans 4y ago
  Of course it’s bribery. Everyone involved knows it’s bribery. The money is given with expectation of reward. If the bribing entity didn’t expect a direct reward, they wouldn’t give the money. Now, everyone tries to hide behind levels of abstraction — “It’s just lobbying!” — but those are just fig leaves and reasonable people should see through them. E.g., “Exxon gave the money to my campaign committee, and I’m not involved with the finance end; my vote in favor of Exxon was just a coincidence.” That’s pure bullshit and everyone knows it. So yes it’s bribery. Calling it something else is disingenuous.

amelius 4y ago

If you show a map of the use of the weedkiller, at least also show a map of the prevalence of the disease.

stefanfisk 4y ago
Could you provide us with suitable maps to compare?

epgui 4y ago

I’m a biochemist, and it drives me nuts how much the public worries about glyphosate but not really any other herbicides. Glyphosate may not be perfect but I’d worry more about almost any other type of herbicide, most of which are absolutely nasty.

CharlesW 4y ago
Glyphosate isn't mentioned in TFA. Thoughts on paraquat?
- kortex 4y ago
  Not GP but (former) chemist, and I share the same sentiment. Paraquat scares me. Note its direct chemical similarity to MPP+ [0], both sporting that methylpyridinium moeity (the CH3N+ in the ring). In fact the only real difference is paraquat is a two-for-one on neurotoxic functional group. Glyphosate gets a bad rap in large part due to similarity to organophosphates (P-O-C), which are usually quite toxic, but it is in fact a phosphonate, with a direct P-C bond. I forget the exact mechanism, but it makes a difference. Also glyphosate readily hydrolyzes, while paraquat is a "brick" that resists breakdown and is prone to bioaccumulation. The mechanism of action is identical: methylpyridinium promotes the production of reactive oxygen species which wreak havoc on cellular machinery. In fact MPP is a "quat" and was briefly used as an herbicide. The chloride of MPP+ was sold under the trade name Cyperquat. > As an herbicide, paraquat acts by inhibiting photosynthesis. In light-exposed plants, it accepts electrons from photosystem I (more specifically ferredoxin, which is presented with electrons from PS I) and transfers them to molecular oxygen. In this manner, destructive reactive oxygen species (ROS) are produced. > MPP+ exhibits its toxicity mainly by promoting the formation of reactive free radicals in the mitochondria of dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra.[9][10] MPP+ can siphon electrons from the mitochondrial electron transport chain at complex I and be reduced, in the process forming radical reactive oxygen species which go on to cause further, generalized cellular damage. [0] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPP%2B https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPP%2B
propogandist 4y ago
Given you are a specialist in your field, what are you doing to drive awareness of the problem to the rest of us? I have limited knowledge about glyphosate, and don’t know much about herbicides in general. Help me (us) understand what makes them nasty.

TimTheTinker 4y ago

I'm more worried about the GMO "roundup ready" seeds they sell, and the crops that result. Those contain alterations that (I hypothesize) are partially responsible for increased allergies in the US population.

randomdata 4y ago
Which “roundup ready”?
- TimTheTinker 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_Ready https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_Ready
  - randomdata 4y ago
    Let me try to be more clear: Which RR technology are you referring to? There are variants.
seattle_spring 4y ago
Which scientific papers support your hypothesis?
orwin 4y ago
Exposure to leaded gasoline and diesel is way more likely to have caused this increase tbh. In France, the increased allergies isn't as noticeable in rural area as in cities. If it was caused by chemical we use on plant, the reverse would be true.
- collegeburner 4y ago
  another hypothesis i heard was rural kids grew up with their immune systems exposed to more stuff and so better trained/less likely to overreact. personally, i always noticed kids with allergies tended to be weak and sickly much more often, so maybe that's related.

bastawhiz 4y ago

Herbicides aside, I worry a lot about the chemicals that we consider "normal". I signed up for a pest service after purchasing my home because we were getting ants and water bugs in the house. They have a package they they sell that includes a "full property" treatment, which I don't think I need. They list off a couple down "pests" that they kill, and go through a long script about how safe the chemicals are. But like, how safe are they really? If they're spraying a cocktail that kills dozens of kinds of insects of all sizes, how does that have no effect on humans? Even at small doses it would seem that the effect would still be measurable. Surely whatever biological process that kills all those bugs also does something to people? I don't let them apply chemicals inside the house, that's where I draw the line. And I'm probably not going to renew the extensive service. If nothing else, it's more chemicals around me that I can live without. But almost every one of my neighbors pays for something similar. How much are we inundating ourselves in this stuff? And what is it doing to the environment and ecosystem? This is one of those things that I feel like we'll look back on with deep regret in a few decades.

kornhole 4y ago
Your skepticism is warranted. Of course the negative affects of these chemicals is down played by those who sell them. Many leech into ecosystems, our homes, and our bodies causing obvious and latent issues. I personally love insects and plants considered weeds as they are critical to our biosphere. I have learned to live with and around them managing a balance both in my house and in my garden. Chemical warfare should be a last resort.
- lostmsu 4y ago
  How do you deal with ant infestations inside your house?
  - kornhole 4y ago
    I suppose I have been lucky in location or keep some kind of good balance. Chemical warfare would be my last resort if I was ever faced with it.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

kornhole 4y ago

We Americans are against chemical warfare in other countries but not when it is done in our own homes or farms against other species.

euroderf 4y ago

Is this the same paraquat that damaged the lungs of US pot smokers in the 70s ?

elfchief 4y ago

I think the answer to literally every question that starts with "Why does the US..." is going to always be: profits Profits are the only yardstick by which anything in the US is measured. Everything else is secondary.

epgui 4y ago
That is, short-term, first-order profits!

jccalhoun 4y ago

money. the answer is always money.

lob_it 4y ago

I just read this article recently that said something similar with asbestos: https://www.propublica.org/article/asbestos-poisoning-chemical-plant-niagara-falls https://www.propublica.org/article/asbestos-poisoning-chemic... Its 2022. If you have inert ingredients and unpronounceable ingredients in your diet (untested junk science), known harmful chems external from that are just par for the course. Dead soil from herbicides and pesticides just mean that junk science is "busy as bees" :p

technovader 4y ago

The US allows guns at walmart You're worried about weedkillers?

gardenfelder 4y ago

The websearch using a clustering search engine [1] lands a cluster called "Parkinsons PD" which has 20 PubMed hits, some of which are suggestive of causal links between Paraquat and PD. [1] https://search.carrot2.org/#/search/pubmed/Paraquat/folders https://search.carrot2.org/#/search/pubmed/Paraquat/folders

ck2 4y ago

Same reason why cruise ships burn highly toxic "bunker fuel" daily. Same reason why toxic oil fracking exists and burn off millions of dollars of natural gas into atmosphere daily. Same reason why there are allowed toxic zones in populated areas https://projects.propublica.org/toxmap/ https://projects.propublica.org/toxmap/ Same reason why highly toxic leaded fuel is still used daily in aviation for decades despite banned everywhere else.