[HN Gopher] Why does the US allow a controversial weedkiller ban...
___________________________________________________________________
Why does the US allow a controversial weedkiller banned across the
world?
Author : elorant
Score : 178 points
Date : 2022-10-29 14:38 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theguardian.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theguardian.com)
| euroderf wrote:
| Is this the same paraquat that damaged the lungs of US pot
| smokers in the 70s ?
| jmclnx wrote:
| Really ? Every person in the US knows why. Reason, Campaign
| Contributions, or as what is known in all other Countries as
| Bribes.
| Scarblac wrote:
| And they're allowed because contributing to a campaign is
| considered speech, I think? The US has the right to free
| bribing.
| jmclnx wrote:
| Correct, and any Companies, including Large Companies can
| "contribute" any amount they want because they are considered
| "people".
| gruez wrote:
| >including Large Companies can "contribute" any amount they
| want because they are considered "people".
|
| That's not an accurate representation of the court's
| opinion. Here's the summary given on wikipedia
|
| >The majority ruled that the Freedom of the Press clause of
| the First Amendment protects associations of individuals in
| addition to individual speakers, and further that the First
| Amendment does not allow prohibitions of speech based on
| the identity of the speaker. Corporations, as associations
| of individuals, therefore have free speech rights under the
| First Amendment. Because spending money is essential to
| disseminating speech, as established in Buckley v. Valeo,
| limiting a corporation's ability to spend money is
| unconstitutional, because it limits the ability of its
| members to associate effectively and to speak on political
| issues.
|
| Corporations being considered "people" (aka. corporate
| personhood) has nothing to do with it.
| gruez wrote:
| >Campaign Contributions, or as what is known in all other
| Countries as Bribes.
|
| Other countries have limits on campaign contributions, but
| claiming that they're known as "bribes" is a massive hyperbole.
| boomskats wrote:
| SPOILER ALERT: the answer is 'lobbying'. That is, the free,
| democratic, and fully legal, bribery of government legislators
| and elected officials by profit-driven corporate bodies.
|
| I, for one, was not surprised.
| rayiner wrote:
| Do they not have lobbying in say Germany?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_Germany
| webdoodle wrote:
| Citizen United destroyed politics in the country, by putting
| money above people.
| nipponese wrote:
| TFA mentions 102k signatures collected to petition to ban. Did
| you know the person with the clipboard gets paid per signature?
| All the incentives in these conversations are messed up.
| gaganyaan wrote:
| This sounds like a variation of "both sides are terrible, so
| what can we do?". I'm not accusing you of anything, but
| that's often used by people doing terrible things to deflect
| criticism, so hopefully you understand why this doesn't come
| across as a useful comment.
|
| At any rate, I think it's good that people collecting
| signatures are being paid for their time. If there's
| something actually bad about the petition though, it'd be
| good to hear about it.
| nipponese wrote:
| More like, "both sides are terrible, but America works, so
| let's keep going."
| gaganyaan wrote:
| That's not really a good argument. It can be used to
| dismiss any possible way we can improve our lives.
|
| I'm also still not sure why I should think both sides are
| terrible, given that you haven't stated any reason to
| think that the petition is terrible.
| theGnuMe wrote:
| It's even worse, you have epa officials who use to work for
| pesticide companies. It's collusion.
| voisin wrote:
| What's wild in my opinion is the unreasonable effectiveness of
| lobbying. Like $40k of lobbying can become $40 million is tax
| savings. I don't understand why elected officials are so cheap
| to buy off.
| slim wrote:
| because it's a job that anybody can do
| kreeben wrote:
| >> the answer is 'lobbying'. That is, the free, democratic, and
| fully legal, bribery of government
|
| Sure, it's legal, but how is it democratic?
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Lobbying is an essential part of most democracies - how would
| you're representatives know how to represent you if you
| weren't allowed to tell them?
| Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote:
| If just telling them what you want is all that lobbying
| entailed, then it wouldn't be an issue. Of course there is
| more to it than that.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| What's what 'lobbying' means. If you actually mean
| bribing then say that.
| Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote:
| Because a democratically elected government created the
| lobbying rules. It's the same, somewhat paradoxical,
| reasoning that allow for governments to systematically put up
| barriers to voting or to dilute votes through gerrymandering.
| Since its a elected government, its all good.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Sure, lobbying rules need to change (companies shouldnt lobby
| and gifts of any kind need to be reined in; but citizen funded,
| with cap, interest groups are probably ok).
|
| It seems like the other democratic thing, which is likely more
| impactful, is that most people don't give a shit about most
| issues like this. People have much bigger issues in their lives
| (and on the reps schedule), so there's no real pressure for
| regulators to changeover this issue vs others. For even more
| evidence of people not giving a shit, just look at voter turn
| out.
|
| Edit: why disagree?
| JoshTko wrote:
| Your perspective is perverse. the onus should not be on
| citizens to be informed about every possible toxin and
| regularly take action. This is victim blaming 101.
| giantg2 wrote:
| "Your perspective is perverse. the onus should not be on
| citizens to be informed about every possible toxin and
| regularly take action. This is victim blaming 101."
|
| Perhaps you misconstrued my perspective. I'm just telling
| it how it is. There are plenty of issues that we should see
| action on, yet none is taken. The main reason is that
| there's only so much bandwidth in the system so things get
| prioritized. The high priority stuff is high priority
| because a lot of people give a shit about that thing.
|
| This is not victim blaming. Even if people gave a shit, the
| system is overburdened and they'd have to deprioritze other
| stuff. This is simply reality. Not to mention, we'd need
| proof that all these indifferent people are actually
| victims.
| supportlocal4h wrote:
| The wisdom of the founding fathers of the U.S. impresses me.
| They didn't all agree on solutions and they didn't all agree
| on what was a problem. But together they chewed through a lot
| of tangly weeds.
|
| Many people think the foundations of the U.S. are outdated
| and ill-informed of modern society. Most of those people are
| poor students of history. The U.S. founders were not poor
| students.
|
| Regarding lobbyists and special interests in politics, the
| founders were not the least bit ignorant. In the end they
| settled on a clever mechanism to control them. The answer to
| special interests is special interests.
|
| It might be argued that some special interests have escaped
| containment. Big oil is too big? But Biden just sent massive
| funding into solar and batteries and electric vehicles. Big
| chemical is too big? Trump gutted EPA? What about Big Pharma?
| Well, any system is going to have pendulums, and none of them
| will be perfect. But can they self heal? History suggests the
| current system is pretty good at that even if any given
| moment seems a bit off-kilter.
|
| I'm not opposed to exploring other options. But to improve
| requires a recognition of the weanesses and the strengths of
| alternatives. Don't be too quick to dismiss the strengths of
| the current alternative.
| diogenescynic wrote:
| I wish we'd just call it what it is--corruption. We've got to
| start holding our country to a higher standard if we want
| things to improve, instead of just making up new words to
| normalize it.
| CharlesW wrote:
| Is $1-2M/year all it takes? If so, that's a pretty great ROI.
|
| https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary...
| gruez wrote:
| I doubt it. Sam Bankman-Fried sank 11 million into getting a
| biosecurity expert elected in a Democratic Primary, and got
| less than 20% of the votes.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Who was that candidate?
| gruez wrote:
| Carrick Flynn
| Nanana909 wrote:
| > lobbying'. That is, the free, democratic, and fully legal,
| bribery of government legislators and elected officials by
| profit-driven corporate bodies.
|
| That's not really the definition of lobbying though. We should
| try to avoid hyperboles. Additionally, bribery is not legal and
| that's not even remotely the form that the vast majority of
| lobbying takes today.
| electrondood wrote:
| I give you money and legislation. You push that legislation
| through. When you retire, we hire you with a fat salary for
| doing little.
|
| Yeah, it's bribery.
| sonofhans wrote:
| Of course it's bribery. Everyone involved knows it's bribery.
| The money is given with expectation of reward. If the bribing
| entity didn't expect a direct reward, they wouldn't give the
| money.
|
| Now, everyone tries to hide behind levels of abstraction --
| "It's just lobbying!" -- but those are just fig leaves and
| reasonable people should see through them. E.g., "Exxon gave
| the money to my campaign committee, and I'm not involved with
| the finance end; my vote in favor of Exxon was just a
| coincidence." That's pure bullshit and everyone knows it.
|
| So yes it's bribery. Calling it something else is
| disingenuous.
| rascul wrote:
| I don't think lobbying implies bribery. If you go and speak
| to your representative for a few minutes to try and
| convince them to support your position, isn't that
| lobbying? Even if no money changed hands, just words?
| deepsquirrelnet wrote:
| > If you go and speak to your representative for a few
| minutes to try and convince them to support your position
|
| Give it a try. Let me know how it goes.
|
| If you don't have a campaign donation lined up, you're
| not getting in the door.
| rascul wrote:
| I think it depends. I have little hope of speaking to one
| of my national representatives. At the state level, I can
| get to some of my representatives easily enough.
|
| Edit: Without money, I mean.
| celtain wrote:
| I've talked to one of my senators, three of my
| congressman, and my mom's congresswoman. I'm not that
| rich and I certainly don't make political donations large
| enough for them to notice. Your cynicism might be
| warranted in certain states/districts, but my
| representatives have been reasonably responsive to this
| fairly average constituent.
| deepsquirrelnet wrote:
| I'm honestly surprised. I have contacted my federal
| representatives asking for the opportunity to change
| their minds on issues many times in the last few years,
| and have never broken through the wall of automated
| responses. Although at the local level, it is not hard to
| find a willing ear.
|
| Sometimes I sincerely wonder if it is due in part to a
| lack of autonomy from the national parties. I think there
| is limited wiggle room to oppose the party line, except
| in cases where a lot of money is brought in, or a
| particular issue strongly jeopardizes the party's control
| over an area.
| rascul wrote:
| > I think there is limited wiggle room to oppose the
| party line,
|
| I've heard this before and I suspect it's true.
| userabchn wrote:
| They are supporting the election campaigns of those whose
| viewpoints they like because they want to increase the
| chance that they will be elected. It's the same as regular
| people making campaign donations to the candidates they
| like.
| Nanana909 wrote:
| > The money is given with expectation of reward. If the
| bribing entity didn't expect a direct reward, they wouldn't
| give the money.
|
| Let's say a lobbyist for a nonprofit cancer research group
| has dinner with a representative and discusses reasons for
| (lobbies) him to vote for increased cancer research at this
| dinner. Is this bribery? Because it is lobbying. But under
| your definition of lobbying and bribing being equivalent
| terms, they are the same! And to call such an action
| bribery isn't really making your case - it's just nuking
| the utility of both of the words.
|
| This is a problem with modern political discourse - all
| rhetoric is flattened. No - lobbying is lobbying. Bribing
| is bribing.
| bastawhiz wrote:
| It is still bribery. We don't really see it, though,
| because it's politically popular enough to direct support
| to cancer research so that lobbying is hardly necessary.
| jwarden wrote:
| Dinner is bribery? I can see how it would be bribery if
| the cancer researcher made a campaign donation after
| dinner, or left a suitcase of cash under the table, or
| even paid for dinner, but simply having dinner is not
| bribery.
|
| I agree that conflating these terms leads to less
| productive conversations.
| bastawhiz wrote:
| Every company I've worked at has had compliance
| trainings, and free dinner is always listed as a form of
| bribery that needs to be run past the compliance team.
| [deleted]
| candiddevmike wrote:
| A lot of companies forbid employees from having vendor-
| paid for lunches, among many other restrictive anti-
| bribery policies. I'd go so far as to say private
| companies are more ruthless about this than the
| government.
|
| Ironically enough, I'm pretty sure these companies do a
| lot of lobbying.
| Ekaros wrote:
| If we had proper standards of course it would be bribery.
| Offering anything with economic value should be
| considered such. Dinner, cup of coffee, campaign
| donation, lucrative position after stay in office, drugs,
| money, gold. All should be treated exactly same and
| result in extremely lengthy sentences in prison.
| serf wrote:
| >Dinner is bribery?
|
| it very well could be.
|
| I know plenty of people that could be persuaded to do
| things by the mere chance to meet someone that they
| adore.
|
| 'Dinner' is often just code for "let me introduce you to
| X business associate", which has definite real-world
| persuasive power for people that need to make those
| connections.
|
| It would be unsurprising for an oil-tycoon to try to
| purchase a plate at a dinner with lots of oil-state-
| politicians. This isn't for the sake of good company,
| it's to further business interests.
| gaganyaan wrote:
| Yes, dinner is very much bribery if the bribee doesn't
| pay for it. Even though I skip past those annoying HR
| trainings as much as possible, I still gathered that much
| from them.
| MobiusHorizons wrote:
| Bribery is a very strong word, but I think we can all
| agree that lobbying gives undue influence. Using money to
| increase one's influence corrupts the representative in a
| representative democracy. I can certainly see why people
| would chose to call that bribery.
| darth_avocado wrote:
| In my basic corporate training, we are told spending any
| more money than non trivial swag on people in the
| government is strictly prohibited because it can be
| considered bribery. So, I'm pretty sure the definition of
| bribery is very flexible.
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| That training is given to general employees, not to the
| lobbying firms that the company hires.
| serf wrote:
| >Lets say a lobbyist for a nonprofit cancer research
| group has dinner with a representative and lobbies him to
| vote for increased cancer research at this dinner. Is
| this bribery?
|
| most people would tend to agree that if it required
| something it was at the very least an exchange, perhaps a
| bribe.
|
| one could ask why the request for support couldn't be
| done over the phone; the answer is "because of the
| dinner." -- well, then, isn't the dinner being exchanged
| for the support?
|
| what is the value of the dinner? Does the value represent
| a monetary amount that would throw red flags up regarding
| the dinner being an exchange of value rather than a
| living expense? Does this exchange of value represent a
| bribe?
|
| It's not as cut and dry as "A is lobbying and B is
| bribing.", that's why most political corruption scandals
| are generally handled by committees of people that try to
| go through the events to extract meaning from them.
| supportlocal4h wrote:
| The dinner is not necessarily buying support. It _is_
| buying access. The lobbyist can drown out my voice
| because I don 't get the same access to my supposed
| representative. Welcome to a republic.
|
| Do you have an idea to improve on this? Perhaps there
| could be 100 designated dinners per rep per year and up
| to four competing voices could be at the table. We could
| vote for the candidate who has a 100 dinner topics list
| that we like the best.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Generally agree. However, you're only describing the way
| it _should_ work. The other, more problematic, part is
| when these groups give large contributions to candidates
| campaign, or even their "charity".
| scotty79 wrote:
| If he's buying dinner it's bribery. In other coutries
| giving money (or things that cost money) to politicians
| is just called corruption.
| groffee wrote:
| Of course it's still bribery. The definition doesn't
| change just because you happen to agree with what they're
| getting bribed for.
| Nanana909 wrote:
| Okay, if you think having dinner while talking about
| cancer research is bribery, let me find you an even more
| bare bones example.
|
| Your representative has a town hall and afterwards you
| get a few minutes to speak with him. You argue that the
| number of stop signs in your neighborhood isn't enough
| and causes danger. In other words, you lobby him to
| pursue increased stop signs in your area. He hears you
| out, you guys shake hands, and leave.
|
| As you have now engaged in lobbying, have you engaged in
| bribery? Clearly not. The two words are not synonyms.
| partyboob wrote:
| I think the problem is that the behaviour that is called
| "lobbying" is better described as "bribery" when you look
| at the mechanics of what is actually happening. The words
| of course mean different things, but what is happening in
| the US is actually bribery.
| hulitu wrote:
| Not only in the US.
| tluyben2 wrote:
| If the dinner bill is split it is ok, otherwise it can be
| considered bribery.
| johnchristopher wrote:
| > Okay, if you think having dinner while talking about
| cancer research is bribery, let me find you an even more
| bare bones example.
|
| Who's footing the bill ?
| Test0129 wrote:
| I think you are trying to make a point where none needs
| to be made.
|
| Lobbying has, for a very long time, been another term for
| bribery. Even as recently as the COVID crisis. Why do you
| think Pfizer got all that juicy government money? Go look
| at open secrets and see who they paid. If you want a real
| shocker, look at their top donors and then look at their
| voting record. Look at all the politicians that end up at
| Pfizer, Exxon, Northrop, Google, etc. Look at all the
| executives for those companies that, as if by some
| miracle, end up running MAJOR parts of our government.
|
| You are correct in the literal sense lobbying was
| supposed to be about the everyman talking to their
| representative and convincing them to do right by them.
| However, now, the everyman has no voice. If you don't
| donate $X millions you won't even the time of day from
| most congressmen. It's corruption at it's core and an
| affront to democracy. It's disguised as "lobbying"
| because Citizens United allowed it to be. That's all.
| candiddevmike wrote:
| It's not even X millions, lots of Congress critters have
| been bought for much less. Still, most citizens can't
| donate 20k to 50 Congress critters on the same committee
| to get their agenda pushed through.
| klipt wrote:
| > You argue that the number of stop signs in your
| neighborhood isn't enough and causes danger.
|
| It's fine for normal people to lobby their
| representative. But if you're a billionaire telling your
| representative to close the roads near your house because
| you don't like normal people driving by, and anyway you
| travel by helicopter, and you donate millions every year
| to your representative's campaign so they'd better listen
| to you - then you're using money to increase your
| influence beyond "one man, one vote" and that's basically
| bribery.
| klyrs wrote:
| A representative talking to a constituent is an okay form
| of 'lobbying.' Notably, the representative isn't getting
| a tangible benefit. Lobbying is broad spectrum and on one
| end is politicians doing the right thing, and on the
| other end is corporations making huge donations to
| political campaigns which is effectively bribery.
| Lobbying, as it's practiced in US politics, is
| overwhelmed by the cash that corporations can splash
| around that individual constituents can never compete
| with. Your stalwart defense of the practice as a whole is
| missing the forest for a dead tree.
| publicola1990 wrote:
| Even in this case representative is getting a tangible
| benefit that he is possible getting an opportunity to do
| something which they can in turn take credit for. A
| lobbyist getting an audience with someone in power
| therefore may lead to something that is mutually
| beneficial to the lobbyist and the person in power,
| without need for materialized bribes. Shutting nuance out
| of a discussion will mislead us.
| klyrs wrote:
| Look, we've got a right to petition our government.
| Corporate personhood is an abomination that blows that
| into a barn-door of a loophole. There's a ton of gray
| area here, but material benefit is, or should be in my
| opinion, a pretty bright line between legitimacy and
| bribery.
|
| There's tons of nuance here; I'm responding to a person
| who appears to be insisting that there's absolutely
| nothing wrong with lobbying when in fact there are lots
| of problems with the actual practice as observed in the
| US.
| Supermancho wrote:
| > Shutting nuance out of a discussion will mislead us.
|
| Frequently, lobbying is used for corruption. The
| insinuation that nuanced perception can somehow alter
| this dynamic, is not compelling.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Because of changes in the law, during that dinner the
| lobbyist will causally mention their client sent $500k to
| the "Citizens for Some Bullshit the Congressman Cares
| About"
| mistrial9 wrote:
| Cancer Inc. is your example of harmless influence ?!? you
| embarrass yourself here, perhaps unwittingly. Source: US
| citizen
| seanf wrote:
| Can you provide a better source? I know about the waste
| in large nonprofits, but am also personally benefiting
| from grant-supported research that if it otherwise didn't
| happen would leave me and a lot of others dead.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| yikes! your healthcare is more important than the
| politics of funding; let's be very clear that my comment
| is about overall funding, not specific people and cases.
| Good wishes to you and yours
| nearbuy wrote:
| People are conflating lobbying with political donations.
|
| Lobbying is talking to politicians to attempt to convince
| them of something. Lobbyists aren't allowed to give money
| or gifts to a politician beyond some small limit (exact
| rules vary by state). For example, in California, a
| lobbyist can pay up to $10 of the politician's meal and the
| politician has to pay the rest.
|
| A company can both make political donations and hire
| lobbyists. But when you see that X company spent $2 million
| on lobbying, that's not money going to a politician or
| their campaign. You need to look at the political
| donations.
| everybodyknows wrote:
| Transferring campaign donations to personal use is a
| felony, precisely because it does amount to bribery as
| enabled by money laundering. Recent case, ending in prison
| conviction:
|
| https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdca/pr/former-congressman-
| dunc...
| pjc50 wrote:
| Everybody knows you've got to launder it by having the
| campaign by services from a company you control. Besides,
| you can just bribe the people on the FEC (or rely on
| party loyalty) to not investigate.
|
| https://www.salon.com/2022/05/17/fec-block-action-on-
| alleged...
| diffxx wrote:
| According to the supreme court
| (https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/16/politics/supreme-court-
| campai...), it is legal to make personal donations to
| your campaign and then have the campaign pay you back
| with post election fundraising. What is to stop a
| candidate from colluding with a bank? Let's say a banker
| offers the candidate a 1MM loan with 0.5% apr. The
| candidate receives that money and makes a 1MM loan to
| their campaign at 10% apr. Now the candidate potentially
| has a ~100K/year annual revenue stream coming from the
| repayment of their loan. All they need to do is rile up
| their supporters about whatever hot button issue is most
| salient with their constituents to keep the post election
| donations coming in. This is particularly scary when it
| comes to house elections since given the short terms,
| house members are pretty much always in election
| fundraising mode.
|
| Now, perhaps the scheme I just outlined is a bit too
| obvious, but I certainly don't doubt that far more
| sophisticated money laundering schemes that leverage the
| recent supreme court decision are happening now and will
| happen in the future.
| pjc50 wrote:
| The phrase that should have been used is "campaign
| contributions" and "PAC contributions". All corporate PACs
| are purchasers of influence. It's especially obvious when the
| same company funds both sides.
| slowmovintarget wrote:
| Lobbying is not supposed to be bribery. It was supposed to be
| a a legally protected avenue for the governed to communicate
| with their representatives in government.
|
| It has become a channel for corruption, though. The solution,
| which may be entirely impossible, is to select better
| representatives. But requires being a better people in the
| first place.
| rgrieselhuber wrote:
| This is gaslighting at its finest.
| epakai wrote:
| Lobbying is fine. The problem with the US is you can literally
| buy votes in the legislature. That's because the legislator's
| individual votes were made public via sunshine laws. As long as
| you keep those votes visible they can be bought no matter how
| much indirection has to be introduced.
|
| The alternative is a secret vote. Now only passed/unpassed
| legislation can be bought. This is a lot more expensive and
| requires a conspiracy, but it's a lot harder to hold the people
| in this conspiracy directly accountable since they can always
| plausibly deny how their vote was cast. I've yet to see another
| better solution for getting rid of the money to vote pipeline.
| kibwen wrote:
| You can even have a middle ground. Make all votes secret, up
| until two months before someone's seat comes up election,
| then reveal all their past votes. Give voters information
| while reducing the window that lobbyists can use to buy
| votes.
| epakai wrote:
| Not worth it. Interest groups can have very long timelines.
| Think Federalist Society. Besides I wouldn't even expect a
| group as small as the senate to be able to record votes
| this way and keep it secret. Better to control who votes,
| but keep how they vote anonymous.
| 93po wrote:
| If the votes are visible at any time at all then it still
| defeats the purpose. There is so much revolving door and if
| you promise the person bribing, I mean lobbying you that
| you'll vote one way and it's revealed you didn't, then they
| lose their future lucrative private sector "jobs"
| Ptchd wrote:
| Lobbying is NOT fine. It is bribery and is illegal almost
| anywhere else.
| amelius wrote:
| If you show a map of the use of the weedkiller, at least also
| show a map of the prevalence of the disease.
| stefanfisk wrote:
| Could you provide us with suitable maps to compare?
| gardenfelder wrote:
| The websearch using a clustering search engine [1] lands a
| cluster called "Parkinsons PD" which has 20 PubMed hits, some of
| which are suggestive of causal links between Paraquat and PD.
|
| [1] https://search.carrot2.org/#/search/pubmed/Paraquat/folders
| bastawhiz wrote:
| Herbicides aside, I worry a lot about the chemicals that we
| consider "normal". I signed up for a pest service after
| purchasing my home because we were getting ants and water bugs in
| the house. They have a package they they sell that includes a
| "full property" treatment, which I don't think I need. They list
| off a couple down "pests" that they kill, and go through a long
| script about how safe the chemicals are.
|
| But like, how safe are they really? If they're spraying a
| cocktail that kills dozens of kinds of insects of all sizes, how
| does that have no effect on humans? Even at small doses it would
| seem that the effect would still be measurable. Surely whatever
| biological process that kills all those bugs also does
| _something_ to people?
|
| I don't let them apply chemicals inside the house, that's where I
| draw the line. And I'm probably not going to renew the extensive
| service. If nothing else, it's more chemicals around me that I
| can live without. But almost every one of my neighbors pays for
| something similar. How much are we inundating ourselves in this
| stuff? And what is it doing to the environment and ecosystem?
| This is one of those things that I feel like we'll look back on
| with deep regret in a few decades.
| ransom1538 wrote:
| "I signed up for a pest service after purchasing my home
| because we were getting ants and water bugs in the house."
|
| Lol. My neighbor got pest treatment for the _first time_
| recently. Guess what happens? The pests move next door. So now
| we need pest control.
| coryrc wrote:
| We wrap food in PFAs. You know, that thing people are making a
| big deal about showing up in tiny concentrations in well water
| near military air bases. They're also on every waterproof
| jacket you can buy.
| bastawhiz wrote:
| I don't think I shouldn't be worried about that as well, but
| I can make active choices to not add more compounds to the
| ones that are arguably forced on us.
| kortex wrote:
| > But like, how safe are they really? If they're spraying a
| cocktail that kills dozens of kinds of insects of all sizes,
| how does that have no effect on humans?
|
| Short answer: it's complicated, and there are in fact very
| targeted pesticides that are far less harmful to humans. In the
| same breath, we've had so many fuckups of the flavor of "use
| this wonder chemical! It's safe! _" that it 's easy to be wary.
|
| Humans, having evolved as omnivores, are actually very good
| digesters of xenobiotics (foreign chemicals). The true masters
| of eating poison are rats (which, frankly it's cruel _and* not
| very effective to use poison to kill rats), and they are only
| about 6x better than us at metabolizing weird chemicals.
|
| Insects have very different biology, so usually they can be
| orders of magnitude more selective than typical poisons. Most
| are nerve agents, basically Sarin for bugs. Note: they can
| still be very hazardous to poor metabolizers, e.g. cats.
|
| There is little in the way of selectivity against arthropods
| (some are better at insects than arachnids, or vice versa).
| Anything effective against ants, wasps, or even beetles will
| likely harm bees.
|
| Personally I use borax/sugar for ants (has to be eaten), and
| gamma cyhalothrin as a barrier only on the edges of my
| foundation, avoiding any zones which I think could spread out
| into the environment. I probably shouldn't even use that stuff
| really, but my partner insists.
| hunter-gatherer wrote:
| Yeah, we have ants in our house in the summer. I have found
| that as long as everything is clean, I hardly do see them.
| Usually if we spill something and miss a spot and tbey show up
| then they generally have it all cleaned up and are out of my
| way by the time I get back from work.
|
| I've sworn off pesticides and herbicides and the effect on my
| property has been amamzing. It's like a little nature hub. Lots
| of insects outside, but it hasn't been an issue. We started to
| have lots of birds show up every day to feast, and there is a
| noticeable difference in the amoujt of birds that show up
| compared to all the homes around me.
|
| At first all the pesky weird insects show up, but eventually
| the birds and bats and other predatory insects balance things
| out. One group I wasn't to keen on was a wasp nest. I got rid
| of that one but they moved to the other end of the property and
| aren't an issue. I don't know... I feel like we humans are too
| afraid of nature these days. I mean, everyone likes hiking in
| the national parks and tells themselves they want to preserve
| nature but don't really seem to interested on the day to day
| things that can help preserve other species' habitats.
|
| I'm not perfect either. It takes some effort to question norms
| and behaviour you were taught, so I'm just as guilty as
| everyone else.
|
| Edit: On mobile. Forgive the typos.
| coryrc wrote:
| And how could I forget BpA? Known toxic chemical and in all
| receipts from thermal printers, which readily enters the
| bloodstream. Luckily they removed it from PC water bottles and
| can linings, except replaced with... BpS! Obviously a
| completely safe chemical, though no testing had been done.
| kornhole wrote:
| Your skepticism is warranted. Of course the negative affects of
| these chemicals is down played by those who sell them. Many
| leech into ecosystems, our homes, and our bodies causing
| obvious and latent issues. I personally love insects and plants
| considered weeds as they are critical to our biosphere. I have
| learned to live with and around them managing a balance both in
| my house and in my garden. Chemical warfare should be a last
| resort.
| lostmsu wrote:
| How do you deal with ant infestations inside your house?
| kornhole wrote:
| I suppose I have been lucky in location or keep some kind
| of good balance. Chemical warfare would be my last resort
| if I was ever faced with it.
| nemo44x wrote:
| Termites ruin a home. Ticks are more dangerous than the
| pesticides we spray on foliage. Mosquitos are just plain
| annoying. There's also sone invasive species that bring down
| certain trees, such as Lantern Flys.
| epgui wrote:
| 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.
| propogandist wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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...
| epgui wrote:
| 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.
| colechristensen wrote:
| Sri Lanka tried wholesale banning of everything and it
| was a disaster.
|
| >small agriculture and local permaculture ... feeding the
| world
|
| Requires a major restructuring of civilization and
| economic upheavals involving an enormous number of people
| returning to food production. It might be a yuppie ideal
| to go start up a hobby farm but a few rich people having
| fun is a lot different than changing world economies.
|
| It's not so hard to do for the Whole Foods and farmers
| market crowds willing to pay high prices. It's quite hard
| to feed the poor by throwing out industrialization and
| replacing it with lots of labor. This makes food much
| more expensive.
|
| https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/future-
| perfect/2022/7/15/23...
| imglorp wrote:
| Roundup is also available at your home center in a big flashy
| display. This seems like criminal deception and disregard for
| public safety.
| epgui wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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).
| ErikCorry wrote:
| For those of us who are not biochemists, he's talking about
| Roundup (glyphosate).
| sampo wrote:
| > Roundup (glyphosate)
|
| You can buy glyphosate from different manufacturers, under
| different brand names. Roundup is just one of many.
| dwaite wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| guelo wrote:
| Which is not what the article is about
| epgui wrote:
| 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.
| ErikCorry wrote:
| 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).
| throwoutway wrote:
| If you were forced to pick an herbicide to use at your house,
| which would you choose?
| warble wrote:
| Roundup.
| epgui wrote:
| Yep. Not because I think it's great, just because I think
| it's probably the least-bad.
| throwoutway wrote:
| Even around children?
| CharlesW wrote:
| Glyphosate isn't mentioned in TFA. Thoughts on paraquat?
| kortex wrote:
| 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
| rb229 wrote:
| I do not really buy this reasoning. Glyphosate has been proven
| to be harmful [ source:
| 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.
| seiferteric wrote:
| Your own link disagrees with you. I think you are proving OPs
| point. Paraquat is an entirely different beast and is known
| to bad but people lump glyphosate in with really nasty stuff
| for no real reason.
| epgui wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Shortlist of those other herbicides?
| colechristensen wrote:
| * Atrazine
|
| * 2,4-D
|
| * Dicamba
|
| * Trifluralin
|
| * Pendimethylin
|
| Go find a herbicide that doesn't have a list of health
| concerns and environmental effects... which anybody uses.
| epgui wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| They're asking for a list of the more concerning ones.
| epgui wrote:
| 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
| deelowe wrote:
| They said "short list" not all.
| appletrotter wrote:
| They now have instructions that would allow them to
| assemble their short list.
|
| Just pick a couple that look interesting from the larger
| one.
| deelowe wrote:
| So your claim is that there are much worse things people
| should focus on but you refuse to point out which these
| are?
|
| This whole discussion seems extremely hyperbolic...
| epgui wrote:
| It sounds to me like you just don't want to believe it
| could be true that nearly any other thing could be worst.
|
| Other commenters have provided good short lists. Do you
| want me to repeat them?
| chemeng wrote:
| Atrazine, cyanazine, trifluralin come to mind
| Ekaros wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| jccalhoun wrote:
| money. the answer is always money.
| lob_it wrote:
| kornhole wrote:
| We Americans are against chemical warfare in other countries but
| not when it is done in our own homes or farms against other
| species.
| technovader wrote:
| The US allows guns at walmart
|
| You're worried about weedkillers?
| TimTheTinker wrote:
| I'm more worried about the GMO "roundup ready" seeds they sell,
| and the crops that result.
|
| Those contain alterations that (I hypothesize) are partially
| responsible for increased allergies in the US population.
| adrr wrote:
| Anything done by genetic modification can be accomplish through
| breeding given enough time. There's nothing special about
| genetic modification and it's manipulating the genetic code
| which happens randomly in nature.
| ethanwillis wrote:
| Surely you can also understand that selective breeding can
| also result in bad outcomes?
| HPsquared wrote:
| I can't think of a mechanism for GM crops causing allergies.
| How would this work?
| glyphosate wrote:
| 1. Plants defend themselves from predators (i.e. animals,
| humans, insects) via chemical warfare. These chemicals can
| and do disrupt the gut of the predator to dissuade them from
| consuming the plant. At least in humans, 70-80% of immune
| cells are contained in the gut. Many genetically modified
| plants are engineered to produce more of these gut disrupting
| chemical defense compounds to be more resistant to predators.
|
| 2. A study by the CDC estimates that 80% of Americans have
| glyphosate in their urine. Glyphosate is an antibiotic proven
| to be disrupting to gut bacteria. Crops are being genetically
| engineered to allow for more and more glyphosate exposure
| because the weeds are growing increasingly resistant to it,
| requiring even more glyphosate - which in turn runs off into
| our water supply. It's a positive feedback loop as nature
| abhors monoculture (less diversity = less evolutionary
| resiliency), and seeks to restore balance and diversity with
| pests, weeds, viruses, etc. Monocrop agriculture is
| fundamentally unsustainable
| dekhn wrote:
| THere's a classic paper where somebody cloned brazil nut
| genes into soybeans. Unfortunately, the genes they cloned
| were the ones that code for protein allergens... making the
| resulting soybeans cause brazil nut like allergic response. I
| don't think this work was ever followed up, or repeated, but
| it's an entirely plausible mechanism by which genetic
| modification could cause allergies.
|
| (are you a biologist? this stuff is pretty obvious to
| biologists)
| HPsquared wrote:
| I'm a total layman when it comes to biology. Chemical
| engineer by training, never got into the biotechnology side
| though.
| dekhn wrote:
| Actually chemical engineer is a good foundation. You
| should probably be able to read this paper: https://www.n
| ejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJM199603143341103?url_ver...
|
| The goal in this case was to improve soybean amino acid
| content (soybean is a major world crop, with Brazil being
| one of the top suppliers). Pioneer- one of the major seed
| companies- created a transgenic (moving a whole gene from
| one organism to another) soybean with a gene from Brazil
| nuts. That gene turned out to be the one that produces
| the protein in Brazil nuts which causes an allergic
| reaction and the soybeans actually seem to cause a
| reaction in people who consume them (I'm glossing over a
| bunch of technical details in the paper).
|
| It's not hard to image, with an existence proof like
| this, that there are many ways that GM crops could
| increase the risk to consumers.
|
| Any biologist I've trained with who understands
| transgenics and immune response would immediately note
| that this was a fairly obvious potential risk/outcome
| provided the source gene's properties had been identified
| first.
| TimTheTinker wrote:
| Genetic modification often produces altered proteins. These
| protein signatures do not match human T-cell allowlists,
| causing immune response.
|
| Even if the modification is a simple addition between
| adjacent start and stop codons, that kind of modification
| could alter meta encodings that control other aspects of cell
| regulation, including (potentially) gene expression -- which
| would cause proteins that are coded for but that normally
| aren't present to become present in crops. Even one newly
| expressed protein (that is normally not ever expressed) could
| trigger immune response.
| colechristensen wrote:
| Genetic modification isn't a bull in a china shop. The
| glyphosphate resistance gene replaces the shape for one
| enzyme. You don't have a whitelist for every substance in
| every lifeform you eat, the number of things out there is
| mindbogglingly enormous. It would be very simple to test
| the human reaction to this new enzyme, i bet it's been done
| but i don't want to search for it.
| sooheon wrote:
| You know genetic modifications occur literally all of the
| time in everything we eat, right?
| TimTheTinker wrote:
| Yes, of course. But there's a difference between multiple
| short sequences being added/deleted/modified and entire
| new proteins that add new capabilities being inserted or
| swapped. These artificial edits introduce large step
| functions in the overall mutation rate.
|
| Normally, parallel evolution of people and crops allows
| humans enough time to adapt to natural mutations. Note
| selective breeding doesn't increase the underlying
| mutation rate - that's the number that I'm concerned
| we've manipulated beyond acceptable bounds.
| collegeburner wrote:
| then why are nut allergies the most common when there are
| no GMO nuts? or shellfish when we don't have GMO shellfish?
| why do whites have higher rates of childhood allergies
| (6.6%) but blacks are now rising the fastest?
|
| none of this really seems to fit with a GMO hypothesis.
| orwin wrote:
| Exposure to leaded gasoline and diesel is way more likely to
| have caused this increase tbh.
|
| In France, the increased allergies isn't as noticeable in rural
| area as in cities. If it was caused by chemical we use on
| plant, the reverse would be true.
| collegeburner wrote:
| another hypothesis i heard was rural kids grew up with their
| immune systems exposed to more stuff and so better
| trained/less likely to overreact. personally, i always
| noticed kids with allergies tended to be weak and sickly much
| more often, so maybe that's related.
| zdragnar wrote:
| Allergies are a form of immune response to normally
| innocuous things.
|
| It makes sense that there is general coincidence between
| severe allergies and other immune disorders.
| collegeburner wrote:
| not just immune disorder, i mean that "allergy kids"
| always seemed to be the 110lb scrawny ones, never go
| outside, never play sports, and burst in to tears for
| things that made other kids say "ow". idk but makes it
| seem like maybe there's as much nurture as nature here, i
| bet
|
| ngl i think this is just a epigenetic shift from people
| who have been "raised weak" for several generations. i
| can't prove it completely but there is some research
| showing that kids with milk allergies end up runty:
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4362703/
|
| https://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(19)31475-7/
| ful...
| collegeburner wrote:
| where can i read more on this? tbh it doesn't make intuitive
| sense, like we don't have glyphosate peanuts so why are peanut
| allergies all of a sudden a thing but not corn?
| seattle_spring wrote:
| Which scientific papers support your hypothesis?
| elfchief wrote:
| I think the answer to literally every question that starts with
| "Why does the US..." is going to always be: profits
|
| Profits are the only yardstick by which anything in the US is
| measured. Everything else is secondary.
| epgui wrote:
| That is, short-term, first-order profits!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-10-29 23:01 UTC)