5 ms·

Let's just take a pause and consider some key information: -This is an association study -If we CTLR+F "cause", "causing", "causal", etc, the only mention of

Let's just take a pause and consider some key information: -This is an association study -If we CTLR+F "cause", "causing", "causal", etc, the only mention of causation is with extremely high levels of flouride and another mention with extremely high levels of glyphosate and zebrafish Now let's zoom way out, and consider the use of glyphosate in general. If you plot grain yields over time compared to herbicide use over time and fertilizer use over time, you can see one thing quite clearly. The use of synthetic inputs, along with plant breeding and genetic engineering, has saved humanity from starvation and allowed unhindered growth. Any experienced agriculturalist knows this. Any experienced commodity trader knows this. All this talk about commercial farming needing to be eradicated is fantasy talk. There are trade-offs to everything. When you consider cost/acre and calories/acre, it is also abundantly clear that for all its flaws, modern industrial farming is a technological marvel. When you look back into the history of herbicides, you can consider glyphosate to be way better than many of the past options. So things are definitely getting better. As for the demonization of glyphosate, I would say that most of this literature is just provocative headlines for the sake of grant funding. It's very trendy to claim that glyphosate is causing X,Y, and Z. We saw the same thing with MSG as a food additive, and are still dealing with the proliferation of bad science, bad messaging, and a sticky belief system within genpop.

xpe 3y ago
> When you consider cost/acre and calories/acre, it is also abundantly clear that for all its flaws, modern industrial farming is a technological marvel. Modern farming seems optimized for the wrong thing all too often: cheap calories. Calories are important (for basic metabolic needs) but not the whole story. Nutrient density and sustainable practices are worth promoting.
- mvdtnz 3y ago
  It's easy to be picky about nutrient density and sustainable farming when you have a full belly. Modern farming techniques have saved the lives of millions of people who would otherwise starve to death.
  - delfinom 3y ago
    In countries that need it sure. In the US, 40% of this food is wasted.
  - xpe 3y ago
    The only problem is (can’t tell if you intend it) an implied false dichotomy. Why do we have to pick abundant calories or nutritious food? This is a false choice. In the short term, it is a tradeoff given a particular set of technological and economic constraints. Over the medium and long-term, the constraints change. If people were wiser, {technological development, economics, and policy} could have led us to a better place. Perhaps one with a better mix of agricultural offerings: a range of calorie dense & nutrient dense & combinations of both. All at prices that people are willing to pay, which of course depends on subsidies, earning power, and personal values. Forgive me, but I’m going to preempt one kind of knee-jerk response someone might feel they need to write next: I’m describing a range of possible future outcomes, not a particular political philosophy. Remember, my point is to reject the false choice. The tiresome (but classic) “next move” for someone would be to move the goalposts and criticize some particular policy they think I’m recommending. I’m not recommending a particular policy. I’m simply saying there are other possible futures that are available to us. I challenge everyone on (and off) Hacker News to not fall into the obvious ‘debate’ patterns that add minimal value. I’m done with debate. I want to learn, and I want to teach. I’m not here to score points. Synthesize. Be curious. What do you all think are the most likely technological advancements that could revolutionize food?
  - xpe 3y ago
    > It's easy to be picky about X when you have a full belly. This is a cliché for a reason. Groan. See my other comment.
  - anon84873628 3y ago
    If there was no modern industrial agricultural, probably fewer people would have been born to be at risk of starving to death. When the synthetic inputs disappear (due to, say, war or supply chain disruption) or the soil is simply too exhausted & eroded altogether, lots of people starve. People want "sustainable" agriculture so that the system is resilient to shocks. It's possible to have this and feed the same amount of people. Maybe even for a lower percentage of GDP. But it requires a drastically different approach to the problem.
- Turing_Machine 3y ago
  Tell me you've never had trouble affording enough calories to survive without telling me you've never had trouble affording enough calories to survive. "Cheap calories" are what keeps the world from starving to death, and incidentally what allows some of us to be software engineers, novelists, and YouTube "influencers", rather than 95% of us being either agricultural serfs or foot soldiers.
  - xpe 3y ago
    Sort of, but you portray a false dichotomy. See my other lengthy comment.
    - tptacek 3y ago
      That comment doesn't really say anything other than that you believe cost vs. calories is a false dichotomy, but since that's an extraordinary claim, the onus is on you to provide evidence.
      - xpe 3y ago
        > That comment doesn't really say anything other than that you believe cost vs. calories is a false dichotomy, but since that's an extraordinary claim, the onus is on you to provide evidence. Let's start with this part: > That comment doesn't really say anything other than Three things. / First, this comes across as dismissive to many readers. I hope you are aware of this, and I hope you would choose different phrasing next time. / Second, it is a mischaracterization of my comment -- my comment isn't a mere statement of what I believe. There is considerable support for my claims about the _reality_ of how the world works (technological changes, economics, values, etc). / Third, writing one sentence in reply doesn't seem like a good way to make discussion more substantive as it progresses (per HN guidelines). Now on to this part: > but since that's an extraordinary claim, the onus is on you to provide evidence. I get your reference to Russell's tea pot; it is unfortunate you went there; I'm not foisting some made-up thing as real. Nor am I positing some vague extraordinary belief. Let's me flip this part of your comment on its head: > the onus is on you to provide evidence. My comment was lengthy and substantive. As such, it contains plenty of material to dig into. Have you dug into the area I discuss? If so, tell me what you've learned. In particular, why would there be a hard rule across all history and future states suggesting calories and cost are "at odds" with each other? When I state it this way, I think you can see your claim is the harder one to believe. Also, why is the onus on me to write more? Why is not the onus on you to research more? Or at least write more? I have one more thing to say about this pazt: > but since that's an extraordinary claim You've got it backward. Broadly, it is a much stronger claim to say "X and Y" are mutually exclusive than to say "over the long run, with technological changes, they don't have to be." That's what my comment said. Again, to drive the point home, I'll state it a slightly different way: given many possible universes with various configurations, consider two quantities X and Y, it would be _much_ less likely for "X and Y" to be mutually exclusive. Do you understand what I'm getting at? This is a fundamental thought experiment based on probabilities. If you can comment in detail and turn down the dismissiveness, I think a better discussion is possible. Can you vouch that you have no ulterior motive or conflict of interest on this topic? I have no conflict of interest. My primary goal is rational, high quality, substantive discussion. My ulterior motive, so to speak, is that I believe people don't have to agree, but at the very least we can try to share and maybe even learn from each other.
- tuatoru 3y ago
  Well, yes, nutrient density is worth promoting. But it seems to me that the populations of those who oppose herbicides like glyphosate, and those who oppose genetically modified crops with say extra niacin or vitamin D, overlap very heavily. We have a new mental illness, generalized antiscience disorder. Motto: "It is better that a hundred million die of famine or epidemic disease than one person die of cancer."
  - xpe 3y ago
    There are many other explanations for people that have these views that are not anti-scientific. The precautionary principle is one. Not wanting agribusiness to create patented crops is another. Recognizing that what we mean by nutrient-dense foods are more than just synthesizing more vitamin D or niacin in a plant. But sure, there is plenty of irrationality to go ‘round too. Just be rational yourself in understanding why people oppose some of these ideas.
    - tptacek 3y ago
      Why don't you want agribusiness to create patented crops? Nobody's making you plant them. The stories of people unwittingly or unwillingly planting Roundup-Ready crops are easily debunked.
      - xpe 3y ago
        > Why don't you want agribusiness to create patented crops? I didn’t say that. Please reply to my comment in the context it was offered if you want to discuss.
    - RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
      These principles are the exact same principles as the anti-vax people. Precautionary principle is also used by them a lot. Glyphosate has been used for a long time with massive benefits to humanity. I would guess it would compare pretty favorable in terms of percent exposed having issues to vaccines.
Podgajski 3y ago
[flagged]
- algoatecorn 3y ago
  Is this an AI-generated comment? Nothing about the article mentions herbicide
  - gruez 3y ago
    Yep. Seems like OP saw "roundup" in the title and thought it was related to roundup the product.
    - Podgajski 3y ago
      Ha! Sorry. I literally read that article I realize it wasn’t about round up, but my old copy was still in my clipboard Let me try that again. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0300483X13000322 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03004... Furthermore, evidence from recent studies shows a possible association between chronic pesticide exposure and an increased prevalence of dementia, including Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia.
hombre_fatal 3y ago
Nitpick: all studies only show associations. We draw causal inferences from associations. e.g. Duhem-Quine thesis. There’s a meme on social media where people think studies break down into association studies vs casual studies or something.
- Natsu 3y ago
  If you merely observe thermometers and which days feel hot, you'll see a link but won't be able to tell which way causality goes. If you set the thermometer to a high value in a cold room and notice that you don't get any warmer, you'll quickly realize which way causality flows. So I agree with the GP post, I want to see them modeling & testing causality here.
codingdave 3y ago
When I did a control-F in the study, I didn't find the word "cause" at all. Nor "zebrafish". What document are you looking at?
mbrochh 3y ago
Your argument falls apart when you realise that grains are not in any way shape or form part of a proper human diet. All those bellies that are filled with grains may feel full and therefore won't likely cause much trouble for the elites, but they are really just slowly rotting away and dying (and generating even more income streams for big pharma, owned by the... elites).
- Sammi 3y ago
  "proper". Meanwhile humans have been eating grains for millennia.

xpe 3y ago

> When you consider cost/acre and calories/acre, it is also abundantly clear that for all its flaws, modern industrial farming is a technological marvel. Modern farming seems optimized for the wrong thing all too often: cheap calories. Calories are important (for basic metabolic needs) but not the whole story. Nutrient density and sustainable practices are worth promoting.

mvdtnz 3y ago
It's easy to be picky about nutrient density and sustainable farming when you have a full belly. Modern farming techniques have saved the lives of millions of people who would otherwise starve to death.
- delfinom 3y ago
  In countries that need it sure. In the US, 40% of this food is wasted.
- xpe 3y ago
  The only problem is (can’t tell if you intend it) an implied false dichotomy. Why do we have to pick abundant calories or nutritious food? This is a false choice. In the short term, it is a tradeoff given a particular set of technological and economic constraints. Over the medium and long-term, the constraints change. If people were wiser, {technological development, economics, and policy} could have led us to a better place. Perhaps one with a better mix of agricultural offerings: a range of calorie dense & nutrient dense & combinations of both. All at prices that people are willing to pay, which of course depends on subsidies, earning power, and personal values. Forgive me, but I’m going to preempt one kind of knee-jerk response someone might feel they need to write next: I’m describing a range of possible future outcomes, not a particular political philosophy. Remember, my point is to reject the false choice. The tiresome (but classic) “next move” for someone would be to move the goalposts and criticize some particular policy they think I’m recommending. I’m not recommending a particular policy. I’m simply saying there are other possible futures that are available to us. I challenge everyone on (and off) Hacker News to not fall into the obvious ‘debate’ patterns that add minimal value. I’m done with debate. I want to learn, and I want to teach. I’m not here to score points. Synthesize. Be curious. What do you all think are the most likely technological advancements that could revolutionize food?
- xpe 3y ago
  > It's easy to be picky about X when you have a full belly. This is a cliché for a reason. Groan. See my other comment.
- anon84873628 3y ago
  If there was no modern industrial agricultural, probably fewer people would have been born to be at risk of starving to death. When the synthetic inputs disappear (due to, say, war or supply chain disruption) or the soil is simply too exhausted & eroded altogether, lots of people starve. People want "sustainable" agriculture so that the system is resilient to shocks. It's possible to have this and feed the same amount of people. Maybe even for a lower percentage of GDP. But it requires a drastically different approach to the problem.
Turing_Machine 3y ago
Tell me you've never had trouble affording enough calories to survive without telling me you've never had trouble affording enough calories to survive. "Cheap calories" are what keeps the world from starving to death, and incidentally what allows some of us to be software engineers, novelists, and YouTube "influencers", rather than 95% of us being either agricultural serfs or foot soldiers.
- xpe 3y ago
  Sort of, but you portray a false dichotomy. See my other lengthy comment.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    That comment doesn't really say anything other than that you believe cost vs. calories is a false dichotomy, but since that's an extraordinary claim, the onus is on you to provide evidence.
    - xpe 3y ago
      > That comment doesn't really say anything other than that you believe cost vs. calories is a false dichotomy, but since that's an extraordinary claim, the onus is on you to provide evidence. Let's start with this part: > That comment doesn't really say anything other than Three things. / First, this comes across as dismissive to many readers. I hope you are aware of this, and I hope you would choose different phrasing next time. / Second, it is a mischaracterization of my comment -- my comment isn't a mere statement of what I believe. There is considerable support for my claims about the _reality_ of how the world works (technological changes, economics, values, etc). / Third, writing one sentence in reply doesn't seem like a good way to make discussion more substantive as it progresses (per HN guidelines). Now on to this part: > but since that's an extraordinary claim, the onus is on you to provide evidence. I get your reference to Russell's tea pot; it is unfortunate you went there; I'm not foisting some made-up thing as real. Nor am I positing some vague extraordinary belief. Let's me flip this part of your comment on its head: > the onus is on you to provide evidence. My comment was lengthy and substantive. As such, it contains plenty of material to dig into. Have you dug into the area I discuss? If so, tell me what you've learned. In particular, why would there be a hard rule across all history and future states suggesting calories and cost are "at odds" with each other? When I state it this way, I think you can see your claim is the harder one to believe. Also, why is the onus on me to write more? Why is not the onus on you to research more? Or at least write more? I have one more thing to say about this pazt: > but since that's an extraordinary claim You've got it backward. Broadly, it is a much stronger claim to say "X and Y" are mutually exclusive than to say "over the long run, with technological changes, they don't have to be." That's what my comment said. Again, to drive the point home, I'll state it a slightly different way: given many possible universes with various configurations, consider two quantities X and Y, it would be _much_ less likely for "X and Y" to be mutually exclusive. Do you understand what I'm getting at? This is a fundamental thought experiment based on probabilities. If you can comment in detail and turn down the dismissiveness, I think a better discussion is possible. Can you vouch that you have no ulterior motive or conflict of interest on this topic? I have no conflict of interest. My primary goal is rational, high quality, substantive discussion. My ulterior motive, so to speak, is that I believe people don't have to agree, but at the very least we can try to share and maybe even learn from each other.
tuatoru 3y ago
Well, yes, nutrient density is worth promoting. But it seems to me that the populations of those who oppose herbicides like glyphosate, and those who oppose genetically modified crops with say extra niacin or vitamin D, overlap very heavily. We have a new mental illness, generalized antiscience disorder. Motto: "It is better that a hundred million die of famine or epidemic disease than one person die of cancer."
- xpe 3y ago
  There are many other explanations for people that have these views that are not anti-scientific. The precautionary principle is one. Not wanting agribusiness to create patented crops is another. Recognizing that what we mean by nutrient-dense foods are more than just synthesizing more vitamin D or niacin in a plant. But sure, there is plenty of irrationality to go ‘round too. Just be rational yourself in understanding why people oppose some of these ideas.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    Why don't you want agribusiness to create patented crops? Nobody's making you plant them. The stories of people unwittingly or unwillingly planting Roundup-Ready crops are easily debunked.
    - xpe 3y ago
      > Why don't you want agribusiness to create patented crops? I didn’t say that. Please reply to my comment in the context it was offered if you want to discuss.
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
    These principles are the exact same principles as the anti-vax people. Precautionary principle is also used by them a lot. Glyphosate has been used for a long time with massive benefits to humanity. I would guess it would compare pretty favorable in terms of percent exposed having issues to vaccines.

Podgajski 3y ago

[flagged]

algoatecorn 3y ago
Is this an AI-generated comment? Nothing about the article mentions herbicide
- gruez 3y ago
  Yep. Seems like OP saw "roundup" in the title and thought it was related to roundup the product.
  - Podgajski 3y ago
    Ha! Sorry. I literally read that article I realize it wasn’t about round up, but my old copy was still in my clipboard Let me try that again. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0300483X13000322 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03004... Furthermore, evidence from recent studies shows a possible association between chronic pesticide exposure and an increased prevalence of dementia, including Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia.

hombre_fatal 3y ago

Nitpick: all studies only show associations. We draw causal inferences from associations. e.g. Duhem-Quine thesis. There’s a meme on social media where people think studies break down into association studies vs casual studies or something.

Natsu 3y ago
If you merely observe thermometers and which days feel hot, you'll see a link but won't be able to tell which way causality goes. If you set the thermometer to a high value in a cold room and notice that you don't get any warmer, you'll quickly realize which way causality flows. So I agree with the GP post, I want to see them modeling & testing causality here.

codingdave 3y ago

When I did a control-F in the study, I didn't find the word "cause" at all. Nor "zebrafish". What document are you looking at?

mbrochh 3y ago

Your argument falls apart when you realise that grains are not in any way shape or form part of a proper human diet. All those bellies that are filled with grains may feel full and therefore won't likely cause much trouble for the elites, but they are really just slowly rotting away and dying (and generating even more income streams for big pharma, owned by the... elites).

Sammi 3y ago
"proper". Meanwhile humans have been eating grains for millennia.