4 ms·

Peer-reviewed science is the best scale of measurement we have. When that standard is subverted with intent to deceive, there should be severe repercussions for

by quesera 10mo ago

Peer-reviewed science is the best scale of measurement we have. When that standard is subverted with intent to deceive, there should be severe repercussions for the beneficiaries. There have also been numerous, extremely confident and impassioned, defenses of Monsanto and glyphosate here on HN over the years. These might deserve some reexamination.

hombre_fatal 10mo ago
Imo, the best defense of glyphosate is that if occupational cohorts can't even be shown to have a strong, reproducible jump in effects like cancer at 100s of times the exposure than genpop, then we shouldn't go Kony 2012 on dietary exposure.
- quesera 10mo ago
  OK, but that is not how you properly test pesticides for safety.
  - hombre_fatal 10mo ago
    Well, don't leave me hanging. Though I didn't prescribe a test. I set a low bar of evidence that we should at least pass before we Kony up over our bowl of Cheerios.
    - quesera 10mo ago
      Are you asking me to describe modern pesticide safety testing protocols? I'm not qualified to do that authoritatively. But I'm certain that "spray it everywhere for 30 years and see if people die" is not the way. Bypassing the proper protocols, publishing dishonest research, is the issue under discussion today. Glyphosate might be safe, or safe enough. Proper research could reveal more subtle effects than mortality numbers.
      - hombre_fatal 10mo ago
        I still don't understand what you're responding to. Glyphosate is already out there. We have large papers that look into occupational and dietary exposures of real world cohorts, and they don't converge on much of anything that should make us concerned about our dietary exposure. Yet you have some sort of "testing protocol" in mind that would somehow be more robust than the analyses already being done on real world populations that were inconclusive? At least pitch a rough idea of what these experiments look like.
        quesera 10mo ago
        This is outside my field. If you tell me that EPA doesn't have a better process than "dunno, seems OK", then I'll humbly defer. Not holding EPA up as infallible, just asserting that intentionally-deceptive research should not be tolerated -- and should demand a higher degree of skepticism of other research from the same entities or with the same beneficiaries.
        hombre_fatal 10mo ago
        > This is out of my field. This is what I've come to expect from discussion on things like glyphosate, cholesterol, seed oils, etc. You supposedly are raising an issue, yet you can't even squeak out the smallest concrete claim. You're "in the field" enough to claim they didn't do the proper "testing protocols", but when simply asked what you mean by that or how it's different from the existing research, you're so "out of the field" that you can't even elaborate on the words you just used -- that's a task for the experts.
        quesera 10mo ago
        I never claimed to be "in the field" or anywhere adjacent. One does not need to be an expert to know that dishonest research is bad for the world. Why are you OK with this?? And I'm not raising an issue. The article is. For the record, I do not have an opinion on the safety profile of glyphosate at all. And I've spent zero time even wondering about cholesterol, seed oils, etc. You're dropping me into the middle of the wrong argument. I do have strong opinions about research integrity, and this story about Monsanto is unfavorable. Do you disagree with that?
  - phil21 10mo ago
    The public discourse on glyphosate is useless. As witnessed by calling it a pesticide, which is quite common among those most vocal against its use. Less is more when it comes to chemicals, which is why reasonable uses of glyphosate seems to be the best we have come up with so far as a species - regardless of abuses of the chemical. It’s probably the most studied herbicide on the planet at this point with very little evidence that it causes human health issues when used as intended. Doesn’t mean it’s zero risk, but we also feed an incredible number of people off a very small amount of landmass at this point in history.
    - quesera 10mo ago
      Herbicides are pesticides. Are you implying that I made a mistake with that word? I did not. Your other points are valid, but would you advocate for dishonest research to be acceptable as evidence that a pesticide is ready for widespread human field trials? Assuming you would not, then I think you'd agree that there should be repercussions. Monsanto is not Uber for agriculture.
      - chrisbrandow 10mo ago
        Herbicides kill plants, pesticides kill bugs, right?
        quesera 10mo ago
        Weeds are pests, as defined by the EPA at least. https://www.epa.gov/minimum-risk-pesticides/what-pesticide https://www.epa.gov/minimum-risk-pesticides/what-pesticide
      - phil21 10mo ago
        > Herbicides are pesticides. Are you implying that I made a mistake with that word? I did not. Fair, the word pesticide is technically accurate - simply not used where I am from to describe herbicides. > would you advocate for dishonest research to be acceptable as evidence that a pesticide is ready for widespread human field trials? I don't see where anyone is advocating this. I see a lot of attacks against the most tested and studied herbicide on the planet - many such studies and tests set about with a pre-determined agenda (by either side). If there was strong evidence of this chemical being widespread harmful to human health, I feel it'd have come out by now. What it means is that instead of using glysophate, agriculture simply switches to less tested and newer chemicals that may end up actually being more harmful. Certainly more expensive. Using nothing is not an option for modern agriculture if we're going to feed the number of humans on the planet. There are plenty of "bad actors" in this field (no pun intended) - but if used as directed and in conjunction with GMO crops engineered to reduce herbicide applications it's likely one of the best ag inventions of our lifetime. Why so many people are willing to die on this hill is beyond me. I see otherwise very intelligent people in my life who as they have aged went down the youtube conspiracy theory rabbit hole and now preach about how it's the devil. If Monsanto (or others) conducted research or scientific fraud they should absolutely be punished for it. To be blunt - especially the scientists - since it is absolutely deleterious to public trust.
red-iron-pine 10mo ago
HN is plagued by bots and shills. Arguably is one of the main selling points of the site -- it's a news aggregator run by Angel Investors Why would you expect anti-corporate narratives? If I'm F500 and am trying to sway opinion here is one of the places I'd direct my marketing drones to hit hard, as the tech-bro demographic would then parrot it everywhere else

by quesera 10mo ago

hombre_fatal 10mo ago

Imo, the best defense of glyphosate is that if occupational cohorts can't even be shown to have a strong, reproducible jump in effects like cancer at 100s of times the exposure than genpop, then we shouldn't go Kony 2012 on dietary exposure.

quesera 10mo ago
OK, but that is not how you properly test pesticides for safety.
- hombre_fatal 10mo ago
  Well, don't leave me hanging. Though I didn't prescribe a test. I set a low bar of evidence that we should at least pass before we Kony up over our bowl of Cheerios.
  - quesera 10mo ago
    Are you asking me to describe modern pesticide safety testing protocols? I'm not qualified to do that authoritatively. But I'm certain that "spray it everywhere for 30 years and see if people die" is not the way. Bypassing the proper protocols, publishing dishonest research, is the issue under discussion today. Glyphosate might be safe, or safe enough. Proper research could reveal more subtle effects than mortality numbers.
    - hombre_fatal 10mo ago
      I still don't understand what you're responding to. Glyphosate is already out there. We have large papers that look into occupational and dietary exposures of real world cohorts, and they don't converge on much of anything that should make us concerned about our dietary exposure. Yet you have some sort of "testing protocol" in mind that would somehow be more robust than the analyses already being done on real world populations that were inconclusive? At least pitch a rough idea of what these experiments look like.
      - quesera 10mo ago
        This is outside my field. If you tell me that EPA doesn't have a better process than "dunno, seems OK", then I'll humbly defer. Not holding EPA up as infallible, just asserting that intentionally-deceptive research should not be tolerated -- and should demand a higher degree of skepticism of other research from the same entities or with the same beneficiaries.
        hombre_fatal 10mo ago
        > This is out of my field. This is what I've come to expect from discussion on things like glyphosate, cholesterol, seed oils, etc. You supposedly are raising an issue, yet you can't even squeak out the smallest concrete claim. You're "in the field" enough to claim they didn't do the proper "testing protocols", but when simply asked what you mean by that or how it's different from the existing research, you're so "out of the field" that you can't even elaborate on the words you just used -- that's a task for the experts.
        quesera 10mo ago
        I never claimed to be "in the field" or anywhere adjacent. One does not need to be an expert to know that dishonest research is bad for the world. Why are you OK with this?? And I'm not raising an issue. The article is. For the record, I do not have an opinion on the safety profile of glyphosate at all. And I've spent zero time even wondering about cholesterol, seed oils, etc. You're dropping me into the middle of the wrong argument. I do have strong opinions about research integrity, and this story about Monsanto is unfavorable. Do you disagree with that?
- phil21 10mo ago
  The public discourse on glyphosate is useless. As witnessed by calling it a pesticide, which is quite common among those most vocal against its use. Less is more when it comes to chemicals, which is why reasonable uses of glyphosate seems to be the best we have come up with so far as a species - regardless of abuses of the chemical. It’s probably the most studied herbicide on the planet at this point with very little evidence that it causes human health issues when used as intended. Doesn’t mean it’s zero risk, but we also feed an incredible number of people off a very small amount of landmass at this point in history.
  - quesera 10mo ago
    Herbicides are pesticides. Are you implying that I made a mistake with that word? I did not. Your other points are valid, but would you advocate for dishonest research to be acceptable as evidence that a pesticide is ready for widespread human field trials? Assuming you would not, then I think you'd agree that there should be repercussions. Monsanto is not Uber for agriculture.
    - chrisbrandow 10mo ago
      Herbicides kill plants, pesticides kill bugs, right?
      - quesera 10mo ago
        Weeds are pests, as defined by the EPA at least. https://www.epa.gov/minimum-risk-pesticides/what-pesticide https://www.epa.gov/minimum-risk-pesticides/what-pesticide
    - phil21 10mo ago
      > Herbicides are pesticides. Are you implying that I made a mistake with that word? I did not. Fair, the word pesticide is technically accurate - simply not used where I am from to describe herbicides. > would you advocate for dishonest research to be acceptable as evidence that a pesticide is ready for widespread human field trials? I don't see where anyone is advocating this. I see a lot of attacks against the most tested and studied herbicide on the planet - many such studies and tests set about with a pre-determined agenda (by either side). If there was strong evidence of this chemical being widespread harmful to human health, I feel it'd have come out by now. What it means is that instead of using glysophate, agriculture simply switches to less tested and newer chemicals that may end up actually being more harmful. Certainly more expensive. Using nothing is not an option for modern agriculture if we're going to feed the number of humans on the planet. There are plenty of "bad actors" in this field (no pun intended) - but if used as directed and in conjunction with GMO crops engineered to reduce herbicide applications it's likely one of the best ag inventions of our lifetime. Why so many people are willing to die on this hill is beyond me. I see otherwise very intelligent people in my life who as they have aged went down the youtube conspiracy theory rabbit hole and now preach about how it's the devil. If Monsanto (or others) conducted research or scientific fraud they should absolutely be punished for it. To be blunt - especially the scientists - since it is absolutely deleterious to public trust.

red-iron-pine 10mo ago

HN is plagued by bots and shills. Arguably is one of the main selling points of the site -- it's a news aggregator run by Angel Investors Why would you expect anti-corporate narratives? If I'm F500 and am trying to sway opinion here is one of the places I'd direct my marketing drones to hit hard, as the tech-bro demographic would then parrot it everywhere else