7 ms·

> But the European Chemicals Agency last year said scientific evidence did not justify classifying glyphosate as a carcinogen So there you go, still ignoring t

> But the European Chemicals Agency last year said scientific evidence did not justify classifying glyphosate as a carcinogen So there you go, still ignoring the woefully underpaid science. When the local council here in the UK spray it around the pavements to keep the weeds down, the stuff just stinks for days and weeks on end, I dont know how people can put up with it. The US courts, if the media are to be believed, have ruled its contributed to cancer. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45155788 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45155788 Whats also worth noting, is this chemical has been sold off, and its currently owned by the European company, so are economic interests overruling the health of the EU voters? It would seem like that.

deepsummer 3y ago
A lot of things "contribute" to cancer, including alcohol and red meat. The question is what the alternatives are, and their pros and cons. What I heard from farmers is that there is no know alternative that's safer. There's just less research done on the alternatives, so they may be better. But could be worse.
- orwin 3y ago
  I feel in this case, the real issue is protecting the farmers by reducing exposition. They already are way, way less exposed than gardeners used to be, but by switching cultivation technique ('Semi sous Couvert Végétal' , I do not find the English translation), you can divide the exposition by 10 to 20. As usual, the dose makes the poison, and people both anti and pro, are camped on their position it seems.
  - darkclouds 3y ago
    https://fr-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Semis_direct_sous_couvert?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://fr-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Semis_direct_... This method requires a lot of plant knowledge to make it work, and is not suited to the current brute force method of farm machinery which is the main method of farming. It would be better suited to little robots doing the work, but in the mean time, the only competitor is more human hands on the fields which some people see as a backwards step.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    "As usual, the dose makes the poison" Yes, but it seems there is still the credo of "much helps much" applied (together with "toughen up you pussy"). Meaning they spray way more than what is needed. And usually there are lots of regulation when you can spray, like no strong wind etc. to prevent it from going anywhere else. You think the average farmer cares? As far as I know, the regulation authorities do not care either.
    - beauzero 3y ago
      Yes the average American farmer cares because inputs are expensive. Really expensive. That's why spot spraying on a massive scale has been invented. If you want to see one in action look up Welker Farms in YouTube. There are some videos and anecdotal evidence in a single field on input savings.
      - hutzlibu 3y ago
        Ok, I think the average american farmer has way bigger field, but here in germany, there are often small patches of fields, so it might be expensive, but not soo expensive that quite some farmers would care to not spray on a windy day, as long as they can cover their fields (and their organic neibhor then cannot sell his products as organic).
- darkclouds 3y ago
  > including alcohol and red meat. When referring to red meat, shouldnt that nitrates or nitrites? >What I heard from farmers is that there is no know alternative that's safer. Well actually there are alternatives, but then that would be more resource intensive, unlike the current lazy method of mono crop farming that capitalism does not reward. So is Capitalism your enemy?
  - deepsummer 3y ago
    Is there any economic system in which resource intensive alternatives are a good idea?
piokoch 3y ago
It is all playing with the statistics. How the risk of getting cancer grows if one eats glyphosate? How does it compare to other factors, like pollution, obesity, etc. We used to have a similar discussion about contraceptive pills, at some point there was research that they increase probability of getting cancer by 30%. Holy crap, 30%!!! Sounds horrible, right? Some political groups that call themselves "right wing" pick this subject up immediately. The point is that you calculate this 30% out of a very small probability value and, as a result, it is negligible if you look on other factors like smoking, bad food, pollution, alcohol or drugs usage or genetic factors. They increase getting cancer by thousands percent, so, in practice, contraceptives influence is not practically important, as it might affect just a few cases out of millions. Same with herbicides. What if we stop using them, are we able to stop the biggest killer from old times, various fungus, that grow on plant, are not visible but very toxic. Does the risk of consuming glyphosates is that big so we can drop it and risk something else? How about prices, food will be more expensive, people in Europe will perceive themselves poorer and will riot. Bollocks! What an absurd claim, you say, Europeans are rich as they've never been! Objectively this is true, the point is people are not objective - see what happens in Germany, one of the richest countries on our planet. People got more expensive gas & oil and what happens? See how much popularity gets NSDAP reconstruction group, called AfD (in the polls they have 20% and still growing). Is the cancer risk enough to justify a risk of getting us into political rumbles Western Europe hasn't seen since 1939? And so on, this is not simple if you deal with something that might affect millions.
- weweersdfsd 3y ago
  Yeah, and those Germans got their expensive energy bills because they believed in "Green" (like Soviet/Russian funded) propaganda about dangers of nuclear power, even though the risk of Chernobyl or Fukushima in Germany has always been extremely low.
- cf141q5325 3y ago
  >See how much popularity gets NSDAP reconstruction group, called AfD (in the polls they have 20% and still growing). You do realize that this kind of nonsense is one of the main reasons they have as much support as they do? By treating people like caricatures you are turning yourself into one as well. Which people react to. Tribalism and signaling isnt going to solve this, its causing it. One description for the difference between progressives and conservatives is what they are most concerned with. Either fixing perceived injustices or preserving systems perceived as functioning (Or reverting back to such a state). The more dysfunctional and reckless your approaches at fixing stuff becomes, the more the willingness to accept pretty fucked up systems increases in the other half of the population. Please try to not turn the AFD into the lesser evil through your behavior. The word nazi has some actual meaning. By messing with that you risk not just normalizing actual nazis but also some pretty fucked up politics. Its a really bad idea, especially if its done just for ingroup signaling. The stakes are too high for that.
josefx 3y ago
> The US courts, if the media are to be believed, have ruled its contributed to cancer. Even worse, herbicide companies are supposed to collect data from unbiased studies that cover their products effects and provide them with a summary to the authorities to show they are safe for use. The court case uncovered an internal email chain where Monsantos management was openly discussing its methods for snuffing out "problematic" studies using contacts it had with various institutions. This undermines the entire "there is no conclusive proof" narrative and should have had dire consequences for every institute with close contacts to Monsanto for fucking with such an important safety process on global scale.
cf141q5325 3y ago
Its quite comical how both the EU and the US did a 180 the moment it was sold.
- dathinab 3y ago
  not comical, sad, very sad because it show how there a quite a bit of corruption in both places in ways which is harmful for the general population in bother places
hexfish 3y ago
"In 2001, a researcher from pesticide manufacturer Syngenta noticed that newborn rats moved less after their mother had been given glyphosate, which is widely used in agriculture. European authorities only saw the study[1] last year." Unfortunately I only see media coverage about this in Dutch, so here is a Dutch article with a translated version. Translated: https://www-nrc-nl.translate.goog/nieuws/2023/08/18/hoe-syngenta-een-studie-naar-glyfosaat-en-hersenschade-meer-dan-twintig-jaar-achterhield-a4172264?_x_tr_sl=nl&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://www-nrc-nl.translate.goog/nieuws/2023/08/18/hoe-syng... Original: https://12ft.io/proxy?&q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nrc.nl%2Fnieuws%2F2023%2F08%2F18%2Fhoe-syngenta-een-studie-naar-glyfosaat-en-hersenschade-meer-dan-twintig-jaar-achterhield-a4172264 https://12ft.io/proxy?&q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nrc.nl%2Fnieuws%2... 1: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11237511/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11237511/
dathinab 3y ago
I many EU countries (all?) the usage of pesticides _of any kind_ for killing weeds in such a use-case is strictly forbidden because it can (will!) end up in some amounts in apartments, on clothes of pasants etc. Which would not be in line with it's regulation of it's application and the risk models based on it. > The US courts, yes, but that was more politically motivated after Monsanto was bought up by a EU company then anything else Basically the court decided it on a study which was not yet peer reviewed and all the points the court decision based it on where pretty much taken apart by the pair review as improper since. (Basically anything which increases total cell grows (e.g. by killing cells which need replacement) is carcinogen if consumed in very very high dose. I.e. with the methods used there fresh lemons juice probably would be carcinogen...). At the same time the court ignored a bunch of studies which showed that (with the viable methods of studying that aspect) it doesn't seem to carcinogen. To top that of the people which sued because their got cancer had other habits which mad them quite a bit more likely to have cancer, exactly the cancer type they got too. I think it was a past heavy smoking but I don't that fully. And somehow the judges decided they need to make a ruling before the study is properly reviewed and rule different to all the other curt cases in the past which tried to sue the same way just after the company was sold of to outside of the US... very ... normal.. right? Honestly I'm 0% worried to get cancer because of glyphosate. BUT I do not trust it and many similar pesticides at all. I.e. I would not be surprised if we find out at some point that traces consumed with food lead to stomach issues or that it affects certain insects in ways which is so bad for the environment that burning down docents of forests would have been way less of an issue. Through that generally seems to be an issue for this kind of "roud up" stile of pesticides. And then there is the issue that especially outside of the EU glyphosate is often used in doses WAY above the safe limit publicized up by Monsanto and I wouldn't be surprised if some EU farmers do so, too. But here is a thing all that applies to (at least nearly) all alternatives to it. So what is needed is more like a fundamental change to how farming is done, mainly focused on long term sustainability and environment which likely would happen to also remove any potential subtle negative effects on human.

deepsummer 3y ago

A lot of things "contribute" to cancer, including alcohol and red meat. The question is what the alternatives are, and their pros and cons. What I heard from farmers is that there is no know alternative that's safer. There's just less research done on the alternatives, so they may be better. But could be worse.

orwin 3y ago
I feel in this case, the real issue is protecting the farmers by reducing exposition. They already are way, way less exposed than gardeners used to be, but by switching cultivation technique ('Semi sous Couvert Végétal' , I do not find the English translation), you can divide the exposition by 10 to 20. As usual, the dose makes the poison, and people both anti and pro, are camped on their position it seems.
- darkclouds 3y ago
  https://fr-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Semis_direct_sous_couvert?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://fr-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Semis_direct_... This method requires a lot of plant knowledge to make it work, and is not suited to the current brute force method of farm machinery which is the main method of farming. It would be better suited to little robots doing the work, but in the mean time, the only competitor is more human hands on the fields which some people see as a backwards step.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  "As usual, the dose makes the poison" Yes, but it seems there is still the credo of "much helps much" applied (together with "toughen up you pussy"). Meaning they spray way more than what is needed. And usually there are lots of regulation when you can spray, like no strong wind etc. to prevent it from going anywhere else. You think the average farmer cares? As far as I know, the regulation authorities do not care either.
  - beauzero 3y ago
    Yes the average American farmer cares because inputs are expensive. Really expensive. That's why spot spraying on a massive scale has been invented. If you want to see one in action look up Welker Farms in YouTube. There are some videos and anecdotal evidence in a single field on input savings.
    - hutzlibu 3y ago
      Ok, I think the average american farmer has way bigger field, but here in germany, there are often small patches of fields, so it might be expensive, but not soo expensive that quite some farmers would care to not spray on a windy day, as long as they can cover their fields (and their organic neibhor then cannot sell his products as organic).
darkclouds 3y ago
> including alcohol and red meat. When referring to red meat, shouldnt that nitrates or nitrites? >What I heard from farmers is that there is no know alternative that's safer. Well actually there are alternatives, but then that would be more resource intensive, unlike the current lazy method of mono crop farming that capitalism does not reward. So is Capitalism your enemy?
- deepsummer 3y ago
  Is there any economic system in which resource intensive alternatives are a good idea?

piokoch 3y ago

It is all playing with the statistics. How the risk of getting cancer grows if one eats glyphosate? How does it compare to other factors, like pollution, obesity, etc. We used to have a similar discussion about contraceptive pills, at some point there was research that they increase probability of getting cancer by 30%. Holy crap, 30%!!! Sounds horrible, right? Some political groups that call themselves "right wing" pick this subject up immediately. The point is that you calculate this 30% out of a very small probability value and, as a result, it is negligible if you look on other factors like smoking, bad food, pollution, alcohol or drugs usage or genetic factors. They increase getting cancer by thousands percent, so, in practice, contraceptives influence is not practically important, as it might affect just a few cases out of millions. Same with herbicides. What if we stop using them, are we able to stop the biggest killer from old times, various fungus, that grow on plant, are not visible but very toxic. Does the risk of consuming glyphosates is that big so we can drop it and risk something else? How about prices, food will be more expensive, people in Europe will perceive themselves poorer and will riot. Bollocks! What an absurd claim, you say, Europeans are rich as they've never been! Objectively this is true, the point is people are not objective - see what happens in Germany, one of the richest countries on our planet. People got more expensive gas & oil and what happens? See how much popularity gets NSDAP reconstruction group, called AfD (in the polls they have 20% and still growing). Is the cancer risk enough to justify a risk of getting us into political rumbles Western Europe hasn't seen since 1939? And so on, this is not simple if you deal with something that might affect millions.

weweersdfsd 3y ago
Yeah, and those Germans got their expensive energy bills because they believed in "Green" (like Soviet/Russian funded) propaganda about dangers of nuclear power, even though the risk of Chernobyl or Fukushima in Germany has always been extremely low.
cf141q5325 3y ago
>See how much popularity gets NSDAP reconstruction group, called AfD (in the polls they have 20% and still growing). You do realize that this kind of nonsense is one of the main reasons they have as much support as they do? By treating people like caricatures you are turning yourself into one as well. Which people react to. Tribalism and signaling isnt going to solve this, its causing it. One description for the difference between progressives and conservatives is what they are most concerned with. Either fixing perceived injustices or preserving systems perceived as functioning (Or reverting back to such a state). The more dysfunctional and reckless your approaches at fixing stuff becomes, the more the willingness to accept pretty fucked up systems increases in the other half of the population. Please try to not turn the AFD into the lesser evil through your behavior. The word nazi has some actual meaning. By messing with that you risk not just normalizing actual nazis but also some pretty fucked up politics. Its a really bad idea, especially if its done just for ingroup signaling. The stakes are too high for that.

josefx 3y ago

> The US courts, if the media are to be believed, have ruled its contributed to cancer. Even worse, herbicide companies are supposed to collect data from unbiased studies that cover their products effects and provide them with a summary to the authorities to show they are safe for use. The court case uncovered an internal email chain where Monsantos management was openly discussing its methods for snuffing out "problematic" studies using contacts it had with various institutions. This undermines the entire "there is no conclusive proof" narrative and should have had dire consequences for every institute with close contacts to Monsanto for fucking with such an important safety process on global scale.

cf141q5325 3y ago

Its quite comical how both the EU and the US did a 180 the moment it was sold.

dathinab 3y ago
not comical, sad, very sad because it show how there a quite a bit of corruption in both places in ways which is harmful for the general population in bother places

hexfish 3y ago

"In 2001, a researcher from pesticide manufacturer Syngenta noticed that newborn rats moved less after their mother had been given glyphosate, which is widely used in agriculture. European authorities only saw the study[1] last year." Unfortunately I only see media coverage about this in Dutch, so here is a Dutch article with a translated version. Translated: https://www-nrc-nl.translate.goog/nieuws/2023/08/18/hoe-syngenta-een-studie-naar-glyfosaat-en-hersenschade-meer-dan-twintig-jaar-achterhield-a4172264?_x_tr_sl=nl&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://www-nrc-nl.translate.goog/nieuws/2023/08/18/hoe-syng... Original: https://12ft.io/proxy?&q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nrc.nl%2Fnieuws%2F2023%2F08%2F18%2Fhoe-syngenta-een-studie-naar-glyfosaat-en-hersenschade-meer-dan-twintig-jaar-achterhield-a4172264 https://12ft.io/proxy?&q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nrc.nl%2Fnieuws%2... 1: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11237511/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11237511/

dathinab 3y ago

I many EU countries (all?) the usage of pesticides _of any kind_ for killing weeds in such a use-case is strictly forbidden because it can (will!) end up in some amounts in apartments, on clothes of pasants etc. Which would not be in line with it's regulation of it's application and the risk models based on it. > The US courts, yes, but that was more politically motivated after Monsanto was bought up by a EU company then anything else Basically the court decided it on a study which was not yet peer reviewed and all the points the court decision based it on where pretty much taken apart by the pair review as improper since. (Basically anything which increases total cell grows (e.g. by killing cells which need replacement) is carcinogen if consumed in very very high dose. I.e. with the methods used there fresh lemons juice probably would be carcinogen...). At the same time the court ignored a bunch of studies which showed that (with the viable methods of studying that aspect) it doesn't seem to carcinogen. To top that of the people which sued because their got cancer had other habits which mad them quite a bit more likely to have cancer, exactly the cancer type they got too. I think it was a past heavy smoking but I don't that fully. And somehow the judges decided they need to make a ruling before the study is properly reviewed and rule different to all the other curt cases in the past which tried to sue the same way just after the company was sold of to outside of the US... very ... normal.. right? Honestly I'm 0% worried to get cancer because of glyphosate. BUT I do not trust it and many similar pesticides at all. I.e. I would not be surprised if we find out at some point that traces consumed with food lead to stomach issues or that it affects certain insects in ways which is so bad for the environment that burning down docents of forests would have been way less of an issue. Through that generally seems to be an issue for this kind of "roud up" stile of pesticides. And then there is the issue that especially outside of the EU glyphosate is often used in doses WAY above the safe limit publicized up by Monsanto and I wouldn't be surprised if some EU farmers do so, too. But here is a thing all that applies to (at least nearly) all alternatives to it. So what is needed is more like a fundamental change to how farming is done, mainly focused on long term sustainability and environment which likely would happen to also remove any potential subtle negative effects on human.