37 ms·

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

by 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.
- epgui 4y ago
  > what are you doing to drive awareness of the problem to the rest of us? I'm not specifically a specialist of herbicides (I know much more about biomedical stuff), but my experience during the pandemic has completely put me off trying to educate others. I've become extremely cynical and de-energized: the people who need help don't want it.
orwin 4y ago
Yeah, we know, paraquat is 30 times more toxic than glyphosate, and have actual peer-reviewed studies with significant enough numbers to link it to an increase on Parkinson disease. I think there was a preliminary study on its effect on other neurodegenerative sickness, but i can't find it, so i guess it was scrapped. Glyphosate at most could maybe increase by 30% the risks of a quite rare cancer for farmers who use it in high dosage (so glyphosate in conservation agriculture is likely to be harmless). [edit] TFA talk about paraquat anyway :P
- epgui 4y ago
  I know TFA talks about paraquat, but other competing compounds are extremely relevant, because realistically if you stop using a herbicide you're probably going to be looking for some alternative. If one herbicide is not completely replaced by another (some may try going completely herbicide-free, which has its own very different set of risks), it will certainly be partially replaced by another. I don't support the "ban glyphosate" movement (for imo it is one of the lesser evils), but I would more easily support a "ban all herbicides" movement... Though I would be somewhat skeptical of the feasibility of going completely herbicide-free.
  - sooheon 4y ago
    > I would more easily support a "ban all herbicides" movement... Though I would be somewhat skeptical of the feasibility of going completely herbicide-free. This is my view as well. If your skepticism of a herbicide free system stems from the meme that we need industrialized agriculture to feed the world, you can rest assured that small agriculture and local permaculture is more than capable of feeding the world: https://grain.org/article/entries/4929-hungry-for-land-small-farmers-feed-the-world-with-less-than-a-quarter-of-all-farmland https://grain.org/article/entries/4929-hungry-for-land-small...
    - epgui 4y ago
      I don't think it would be technically impossible, but I do think it's a very very non-trivial problem that would require a lot of changes, some of which would be expensive and inflationary. It's a hard problem, and a lot of very smart academics (some of which I know personally and admire) are very interested in it.
ErikCorry 4y ago
For those of us who are not biochemists, he's talking about Roundup (glyphosate).
- guelo 4y ago
  Which is not what the article is about
  - ErikCorry 4y ago
    True, but there are probably many situations where Roundup is an alternative to Paraquat, and if one of them is much less dangerous than the other, then that's relevant information, (that could have been presented in a less confusing way).
  - epgui 4y ago
    The public's attention is a scarce resource (however plentiful it might seem). My comment's relevance can be explained as a call to change how this resource (public attention/outrage/fear/etc) is distributed. Barring regulation, herbicides all compete with each other.
- sampo 4y ago
  > Roundup (glyphosate) You can buy glyphosate from different manufacturers, under different brand names. Roundup is just one of many.
  - dwaite 4y ago
    I love when someone is applying in a commercial space, has a concerned person angrily demand to know whether it is Roundup, and says 'its not Roundup, it's glyphosate'. With the concerned person perfectly happy with that explanation.
    - tuatoru 4y ago
      Similar thing in NZ with sodium fluoroacetate, big brand name 1080, "ten-eighty". Used to kill bird predators in NZ's forest parks. "Nah, we don't use 1080. This is sodium fluoroacetate." "Oh." Edit: NZ also permits use of glyphosate. It is starting to be discouraged because of the effects of long-term use on soil ecology, rather than health. There are no good (non-labor-intensive) alternatives, though. To grow grass we have to use it, pretty much. At least until all-weather autonomous solar-powered weed-grubbing robots arrive.
rb229 4y ago
I do not really buy this reasoning. Glyphosate has been proven to be harmful [ source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate ]. Other things might be worse, sure, but that does not mean we can allow Glyohosate to be used without thinking about the risks.
- epgui 4y ago
  Risk is not all-or-nothing, and I am not saying glyphosate should be used without worrying about the risks. I am saying people have their relative risk assessment all wrong. There are different degrees of risk, and believe it or not, the known risks of glyphosate are dwarfed by the known risks of other alternatives. Show me someone who can come up with a better herbicide, and I will show you a wealthy person.
  - higgins 4y ago
    Shortlist of those other herbicides?
    - epgui 4y ago
      I personally don't know of any that we know is better than glyphosate, so literally any herbicide. I admit that there very well could be better options that I don't know about (especially if there are new ones that emerged in the last 10-20 years), but I think it's no exaggeration to say that almost anything else is worse.
      - deelowe 4y ago
        They’re asking for a list of the more concerning ones.
        epgui 4y ago
        I understand that. I responded with "essentially the list of all other herbicides". I don't know where you could find a complete list, but let me google that for you... this might be a place to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Herbicides https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Herbicides
imglorp 4y ago
Roundup is also available at your home center in a big flashy display. This seems like criminal deception and disregard for public safety.
- epgui 4y ago
  I'm inclined to agree with you, possibly. However the risk to human health is (in my honest opinion and according to my best professional judgment) very minimal, and the greater risk is environmental. In part for this reason, I would think industrial application to be orders of magnitude more concerning than some old lady applying it in her patch of tomatoes.
- dekhn 4y ago
  It would be if there was unambiguous proof that roundup was unsafe and that the manufacturer knew it. The health risks of glyphosate are ... not well determined and nobody has made a conclusive case. There was a lot of noise in the past done by scientists operating not in good faith.
  - epgui 4y ago
    1. Agreed on risks to human health (which is closer to my expertise), but; 2. I do believe there are serious environmental concerns (which unfortunately is not really my expertise-- I rely on my colleagues and on what I see in journals for this judgment).
  - imglorp 4y ago
    That's interesting. Bayer settled some $10 billion in lawsuits: yes agree, class action shystering is not necessarily evidence of anything. But that's a LOT of go-away money which might indicate the risk at trial with actual evidence would be even more than 10B. Given so much suspicion about this substance, homeowners are probably not equipped to handle it safely in a spray bottle with a mile of fine print on it. Professional farmers might be if well informed.
Ekaros 4y ago
They are literally stuff meant to kill other stuff. As such they will be deadly for some stuff and likely also others. So I agree that we have to evaluate which of them is least worse. Or presents acceptable risk levels in comparative scenarios. And we cannot farm successfully on scale we need without them.
- epgui 4y ago
  Everything you said is technically correct, but I would add something: > They are literally stuff meant to kill other stuff, with varying degrees of specificity and effectiveness. The effectiveness bit is obvious, but I think the public thinks much less about specificity, especially in cases where there is a component of fear.
- redprince 4y ago
  > And we cannot farm successfully on scale we need without them. The following study states that organic farming on average is 25% less productive than conventional farming. The major difference being the use of plant protection products (herbicides, pesticides, etc.). https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2019/634416/EPRS_IDA(2019)634416_EN.pdf https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2019/6344... That additional land use could be satisfied if the consumption of meat would be drastically reduced. Currently 33% of cropland are used for feed production. (https://www.fao.org/3/ar591e/ar591e.pdf https://www.fao.org/3/ar591e/ar591e.pdf) So yes, we could farm successfully without them. But not at the current prices for produce and not with the current meat consumption.
  - refurb 4y ago
    Organic farms just use “organic pesticides”, which certainly aren’t non-toxic. https://www.agdaily.com/technology/the-list-of-pesticides-approved-for-organic-production/amp/ https://www.agdaily.com/technology/the-list-of-pesticides-ap...
  - Ekaros 4y ago
    Could we organically farm on 100% of that 33%?
throwoutway 4y ago
If you were forced to pick an herbicide to use at your house, which would you choose?
- warble 4y ago
  Roundup.
  - epgui 4y ago
    Yep. Not because I think it's great, just because I think it's probably the least-bad.
    - throwoutway 4y ago
      Even around children?
      - epgui 4y ago
        Yes, and even around my mother.

by epgui 4y ago

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.

epgui 4y ago
> what are you doing to drive awareness of the problem to the rest of us? I'm not specifically a specialist of herbicides (I know much more about biomedical stuff), but my experience during the pandemic has completely put me off trying to educate others. I've become extremely cynical and de-energized: the people who need help don't want it.

orwin 4y ago

Yeah, we know, paraquat is 30 times more toxic than glyphosate, and have actual peer-reviewed studies with significant enough numbers to link it to an increase on Parkinson disease. I think there was a preliminary study on its effect on other neurodegenerative sickness, but i can't find it, so i guess it was scrapped. Glyphosate at most could maybe increase by 30% the risks of a quite rare cancer for farmers who use it in high dosage (so glyphosate in conservation agriculture is likely to be harmless). [edit] TFA talk about paraquat anyway :P

epgui 4y ago
I know TFA talks about paraquat, but other competing compounds are extremely relevant, because realistically if you stop using a herbicide you're probably going to be looking for some alternative. If one herbicide is not completely replaced by another (some may try going completely herbicide-free, which has its own very different set of risks), it will certainly be partially replaced by another. I don't support the "ban glyphosate" movement (for imo it is one of the lesser evils), but I would more easily support a "ban all herbicides" movement... Though I would be somewhat skeptical of the feasibility of going completely herbicide-free.
- sooheon 4y ago
  > I would more easily support a "ban all herbicides" movement... Though I would be somewhat skeptical of the feasibility of going completely herbicide-free. This is my view as well. If your skepticism of a herbicide free system stems from the meme that we need industrialized agriculture to feed the world, you can rest assured that small agriculture and local permaculture is more than capable of feeding the world: https://grain.org/article/entries/4929-hungry-for-land-small-farmers-feed-the-world-with-less-than-a-quarter-of-all-farmland https://grain.org/article/entries/4929-hungry-for-land-small...
  - epgui 4y ago
    I don't think it would be technically impossible, but I do think it's a very very non-trivial problem that would require a lot of changes, some of which would be expensive and inflationary. It's a hard problem, and a lot of very smart academics (some of which I know personally and admire) are very interested in it.

ErikCorry 4y ago

For those of us who are not biochemists, he's talking about Roundup (glyphosate).

guelo 4y ago
Which is not what the article is about
- ErikCorry 4y ago
  True, but there are probably many situations where Roundup is an alternative to Paraquat, and if one of them is much less dangerous than the other, then that's relevant information, (that could have been presented in a less confusing way).
- epgui 4y ago
  The public's attention is a scarce resource (however plentiful it might seem). My comment's relevance can be explained as a call to change how this resource (public attention/outrage/fear/etc) is distributed. Barring regulation, herbicides all compete with each other.
sampo 4y ago
> Roundup (glyphosate) You can buy glyphosate from different manufacturers, under different brand names. Roundup is just one of many.
- dwaite 4y ago
  I love when someone is applying in a commercial space, has a concerned person angrily demand to know whether it is Roundup, and says 'its not Roundup, it's glyphosate'. With the concerned person perfectly happy with that explanation.
  - tuatoru 4y ago
    Similar thing in NZ with sodium fluoroacetate, big brand name 1080, "ten-eighty". Used to kill bird predators in NZ's forest parks. "Nah, we don't use 1080. This is sodium fluoroacetate." "Oh." Edit: NZ also permits use of glyphosate. It is starting to be discouraged because of the effects of long-term use on soil ecology, rather than health. There are no good (non-labor-intensive) alternatives, though. To grow grass we have to use it, pretty much. At least until all-weather autonomous solar-powered weed-grubbing robots arrive.

rb229 4y ago

I do not really buy this reasoning. Glyphosate has been proven to be harmful [ source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate ]. Other things might be worse, sure, but that does not mean we can allow Glyohosate to be used without thinking about the risks.

epgui 4y ago
Risk is not all-or-nothing, and I am not saying glyphosate should be used without worrying about the risks. I am saying people have their relative risk assessment all wrong. There are different degrees of risk, and believe it or not, the known risks of glyphosate are dwarfed by the known risks of other alternatives. Show me someone who can come up with a better herbicide, and I will show you a wealthy person.
- higgins 4y ago
  Shortlist of those other herbicides?
  - epgui 4y ago
    I personally don't know of any that we know is better than glyphosate, so literally any herbicide. I admit that there very well could be better options that I don't know about (especially if there are new ones that emerged in the last 10-20 years), but I think it's no exaggeration to say that almost anything else is worse.
    - deelowe 4y ago
      They’re asking for a list of the more concerning ones.
      - epgui 4y ago
        I understand that. I responded with "essentially the list of all other herbicides". I don't know where you could find a complete list, but let me google that for you... this might be a place to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Herbicides https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Herbicides

imglorp 4y ago

Roundup is also available at your home center in a big flashy display. This seems like criminal deception and disregard for public safety.

epgui 4y ago
I'm inclined to agree with you, possibly. However the risk to human health is (in my honest opinion and according to my best professional judgment) very minimal, and the greater risk is environmental. In part for this reason, I would think industrial application to be orders of magnitude more concerning than some old lady applying it in her patch of tomatoes.
dekhn 4y ago
It would be if there was unambiguous proof that roundup was unsafe and that the manufacturer knew it. The health risks of glyphosate are ... not well determined and nobody has made a conclusive case. There was a lot of noise in the past done by scientists operating not in good faith.
- epgui 4y ago
  1. Agreed on risks to human health (which is closer to my expertise), but; 2. I do believe there are serious environmental concerns (which unfortunately is not really my expertise-- I rely on my colleagues and on what I see in journals for this judgment).
- imglorp 4y ago
  That's interesting. Bayer settled some $10 billion in lawsuits: yes agree, class action shystering is not necessarily evidence of anything. But that's a LOT of go-away money which might indicate the risk at trial with actual evidence would be even more than 10B. Given so much suspicion about this substance, homeowners are probably not equipped to handle it safely in a spray bottle with a mile of fine print on it. Professional farmers might be if well informed.

Ekaros 4y ago

They are literally stuff meant to kill other stuff. As such they will be deadly for some stuff and likely also others. So I agree that we have to evaluate which of them is least worse. Or presents acceptable risk levels in comparative scenarios. And we cannot farm successfully on scale we need without them.

epgui 4y ago
Everything you said is technically correct, but I would add something: > They are literally stuff meant to kill other stuff, with varying degrees of specificity and effectiveness. The effectiveness bit is obvious, but I think the public thinks much less about specificity, especially in cases where there is a component of fear.
redprince 4y ago
> And we cannot farm successfully on scale we need without them. The following study states that organic farming on average is 25% less productive than conventional farming. The major difference being the use of plant protection products (herbicides, pesticides, etc.). https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2019/634416/EPRS_IDA(2019)634416_EN.pdf https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2019/6344... That additional land use could be satisfied if the consumption of meat would be drastically reduced. Currently 33% of cropland are used for feed production. (https://www.fao.org/3/ar591e/ar591e.pdf https://www.fao.org/3/ar591e/ar591e.pdf) So yes, we could farm successfully without them. But not at the current prices for produce and not with the current meat consumption.
- refurb 4y ago
  Organic farms just use “organic pesticides”, which certainly aren’t non-toxic. https://www.agdaily.com/technology/the-list-of-pesticides-approved-for-organic-production/amp/ https://www.agdaily.com/technology/the-list-of-pesticides-ap...
- Ekaros 4y ago
  Could we organically farm on 100% of that 33%?

throwoutway 4y ago

If you were forced to pick an herbicide to use at your house, which would you choose?

warble 4y ago
Roundup.
- epgui 4y ago
  Yep. Not because I think it's great, just because I think it's probably the least-bad.
  - throwoutway 4y ago
    Even around children?
    - epgui 4y ago
      Yes, and even around my mother.