2 ms·

This makes no logical sense. If a heavy penalty is established for the use of roundup, an even more prohibitive one would be appropriate for anything more harmf

by vGPU 3y ago

This makes no logical sense. If a heavy penalty is established for the use of roundup, an even more prohibitive one would be appropriate for anything more harmful, making it extremely cost-inefficient to use them. This would drive the development of new farming methods and research into different classes of chemicals.

dathinab 3y ago
I think there might be a few problematic ideas in you comment 1. that the people using it [the more harmful roundup] pay the price 2. that the people making the decision to provide more harmful roundup for a high "short" term profits will be penalized in any way 3. that it wouldn't take many years before the more harmful roundup is banned/court rule it to be dangerous 4. that it would increase the development of new farming methods and research into different classes of chemicals I think given how messed up things are there is a realistic choice a company would push a (under the hand) know more harmful alternative to gain huge short term profit in hope that when court ruling come in they still made a net benefit or at least the people which did the decision back then and now have left the company do. I mean best example for this would be Teflon pans, long term known to be harmful in many ways but still pushed en mass because they know even with any penalties or damages they might pay it's likely still a huge profit (it was). Then once things went to bad the replaced it with a different chemical composition which supposedly is safe now but is in practice way less researched then what Teflon was made from (or glyphosat). In the end the made a huge profit became marked dominant and the harm done is just a food note forgotten in history.
RoyalHenOil 3y ago
But we aren't discussing penalties for harsher chemicals. RoundUp is getting undue legal attention relative to the risk it carries, and farmers are already under enormous pressure to switch to more harmful herbicides. (There are no less harmful broad-spectrum herbicides. Glyphosate is the safest we've got.)

by vGPU 3y ago

dathinab 3y ago

I think there might be a few problematic ideas in you comment 1. that the people using it [the more harmful roundup] pay the price 2. that the people making the decision to provide more harmful roundup for a high "short" term profits will be penalized in any way 3. that it wouldn't take many years before the more harmful roundup is banned/court rule it to be dangerous 4. that it would increase the development of new farming methods and research into different classes of chemicals I think given how messed up things are there is a realistic choice a company would push a (under the hand) know more harmful alternative to gain huge short term profit in hope that when court ruling come in they still made a net benefit or at least the people which did the decision back then and now have left the company do. I mean best example for this would be Teflon pans, long term known to be harmful in many ways but still pushed en mass because they know even with any penalties or damages they might pay it's likely still a huge profit (it was). Then once things went to bad the replaced it with a different chemical composition which supposedly is safe now but is in practice way less researched then what Teflon was made from (or glyphosat). In the end the made a huge profit became marked dominant and the harm done is just a food note forgotten in history.

RoyalHenOil 3y ago

But we aren't discussing penalties for harsher chemicals. RoundUp is getting undue legal attention relative to the risk it carries, and farmers are already under enormous pressure to switch to more harmful herbicides. (There are no less harmful broad-spectrum herbicides. Glyphosate is the safest we've got.)