Weed-killing chemical found in majority of U.S. urine samples(cbsnews.com)
cbsnews.com
Weed-killing chemical found in majority of U.S. urine samples
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/glyphosate-roundup-urine-samples-bayer-monsanto-weed-killing-chemical/
24 comments
Weedkiller ingredient tied to cancer found in 80% of US urine samples - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32035538 - July 2022 (361 comments)
The problem is that they are spraying it on the product that is consumed, such as soybeans and wheat. It should only be used to eradicate weeds before the crop is planted, where the residual glyphosate is consumed by soil bacteria after eight days have elapsed.
The Roundup Ready series of crops should be banned from consumption because of contamination potential, and for being genetically engineered.
The Roundup Ready series of crops should be banned from consumption because of contamination potential, and for being genetically engineered.
Right, so as politely as I can say this...
Tell me you have never lived on a farm, without telling me you have never lived on a farm. I say this, because if you had lived on a farm; you would know it's really, really fucking difficult to spray a chemical on a bunch of weeds separately when they are infesting your entire crop...
Though I do agree with the premise that we should only be using it on the weeds, if at all. I personally don't think we should be using it at all though, because we can easily deal with all the weeds and such; by hiring laborers.
Congratulations, we just created a new job market out of an old profession that should have NEVER gone away.
P.S. Just as an FYI for anyone who figures this would be silly to do...
We already do it to some degree with crops that are better off hand picked... And there are A LOT of people who could use that job... and would have no problem doing it either.
Tell me you have never lived on a farm, without telling me you have never lived on a farm. I say this, because if you had lived on a farm; you would know it's really, really fucking difficult to spray a chemical on a bunch of weeds separately when they are infesting your entire crop...
Though I do agree with the premise that we should only be using it on the weeds, if at all. I personally don't think we should be using it at all though, because we can easily deal with all the weeds and such; by hiring laborers.
Congratulations, we just created a new job market out of an old profession that should have NEVER gone away.
P.S. Just as an FYI for anyone who figures this would be silly to do...
We already do it to some degree with crops that are better off hand picked... And there are A LOT of people who could use that job... and would have no problem doing it either.
> if you had lived on a farm; you would know it's really,
> really difficult to spray a chemical on a bunch of weeds
> separately when they are infesting your entire crop...
Back atcha!
Farmers know that it's used not only to kill weeds but also as a desiccant just before harvest, to harvest sooner. That is likely the cause of the contamination in the food supply.
Farmers know that it's used not only to kill weeds but also as a desiccant just before harvest, to harvest sooner. That is likely the cause of the contamination in the food supply.
> because we can easily deal with all the weeds and such; by hiring laborers.
This, or a combination of laborers and robots. Robotic arms and cameras have come a long way – surely we can invest enough in them instead of conducting large chemical trials on the human population?
This, or a combination of laborers and robots. Robotic arms and cameras have come a long way – surely we can invest enough in them instead of conducting large chemical trials on the human population?
luckily these things are getting easier. with spot treatment from drones you can hit areas of crops that are affected by bugs or weeds. blanket chemicals won't be eliminated from soil prep for a long time though.
Yes, the drone approach is very tempting. But I still insist on us removing the need to use of manmade chemicals that don't exist in nature naturally... (That I am aware of...)
For instance, I am all fine and dandy with using lye soap and vinegar to kill weeds. It's not 100% effective, but it's also not going to poison you just because your potatoes happen to be near by. Lye is a tricky example, because it's not exactly always natural, but not exactly always manmade either. You can get naturally occuring sources, etc.
For instance, I am all fine and dandy with using lye soap and vinegar to kill weeds. It's not 100% effective, but it's also not going to poison you just because your potatoes happen to be near by. Lye is a tricky example, because it's not exactly always natural, but not exactly always manmade either. You can get naturally occuring sources, etc.
Camel feces is natural, would you eat it? How about hemlock? "Occurs in nature" is a naive metric.
Genetic engineering is a tool. I'd be happier if E.G. the crops were engineered to have high flavor, nutrient content, and maybe even lower sugar / starch concentration / etc.
It's that they were engineered to survive things harmful to those eating the crops, that's the evil part.
It's that they were engineered to survive things harmful to those eating the crops, that's the evil part.
Unfortunately, reality shows that this is being used to the opposite effect. Currently glyphosphate manufacturers (such as Monsanto) use genetic engineering to create crop seeds that will survive blanket application of their pesticide. In Monsanto's case, these are called "Roundup Ready" seeds.
It's a tool used by people who are happy to cover up health and environmental effects, and are most definitely not using that tool for the common good.
All your food is genetically engineered through selective breeding.
Hi there. You actually just kind of stepped into my ring here... sort of. Not an expert; but definitely more knowledgeable than the random person out there.
I used to work with G.E organisms. Particularly enzymes.
Long story short is this. While you are technically correct, there is a glaring issue surrounding the more... radical... kinds of G.E. See, the problem is that nothing on earth really is (at least as far as we can tell) meant to be cross bred between completely different species of plant/animal; or plants with animals...
That's not to say it is all immediately bad, harmful, dangerous, etc. BUT it does mean we should be careful we aren't causing ourselves more problems than solutions by mucking around with the genetic code of the things we eat...
And that's not just my opinion... This is just a fact of life when it comes to human nature. For every solution we come up with, we tend to find 2 to 3 more new problems to solve.
Now I don't know about you, but I prefer my food to not be causing me issues that would have never existed before except for scientists playing god with our food...
Take it or leave it, that's my stance on it. IF they can prove it is actually safe over the course of a multi-year study with full follow up procedures; then I am fine with eating it. Mostly.
If not however, then I really don't care about anyone's opinion on the matter. Because at the end of the day, there is a HUGE difference from what Norman Borlaug was doing with Wheat; and what we are doing with things like Corn today.
I used to work with G.E organisms. Particularly enzymes.
Long story short is this. While you are technically correct, there is a glaring issue surrounding the more... radical... kinds of G.E. See, the problem is that nothing on earth really is (at least as far as we can tell) meant to be cross bred between completely different species of plant/animal; or plants with animals...
That's not to say it is all immediately bad, harmful, dangerous, etc. BUT it does mean we should be careful we aren't causing ourselves more problems than solutions by mucking around with the genetic code of the things we eat...
And that's not just my opinion... This is just a fact of life when it comes to human nature. For every solution we come up with, we tend to find 2 to 3 more new problems to solve.
Now I don't know about you, but I prefer my food to not be causing me issues that would have never existed before except for scientists playing god with our food...
Take it or leave it, that's my stance on it. IF they can prove it is actually safe over the course of a multi-year study with full follow up procedures; then I am fine with eating it. Mostly.
If not however, then I really don't care about anyone's opinion on the matter. Because at the end of the day, there is a HUGE difference from what Norman Borlaug was doing with Wheat; and what we are doing with things like Corn today.
Where are all you people when we invented artificial fertilizer and grew the human population by 5 billion in 100 years?
Yet here we are with concern trolling over absurd scenarios where the well-meaning genetic scientist "inserts" a gene and produces some kind of killer organism. Meanwhile evolution is just out there rolling the dice every time.
> See, the problem is that nothing on earth really is (at least as far as we can tell) meant to be cross bred between completely different species of plant/animal; or plants with animals...
Everything is crossbred! You are made out of all imaginable crosses! We subsumed mitochondria!
Yet here we are with concern trolling over absurd scenarios where the well-meaning genetic scientist "inserts" a gene and produces some kind of killer organism. Meanwhile evolution is just out there rolling the dice every time.
> See, the problem is that nothing on earth really is (at least as far as we can tell) meant to be cross bred between completely different species of plant/animal; or plants with animals...
Everything is crossbred! You are made out of all imaginable crosses! We subsumed mitochondria!
You can probably find a bunch of other scary chemicals in your urine --- or even drinking water too --- if you had sensitive enough equipment... but just saying "found" amounts to nothing more than baseless scaremongering. This article links to https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news-release/2022/07/cdc-f... which, once again, only says "detectable levels".
"The dose makes the poison."
"The dose makes the poison."
Classic hacker news top comment. This is a hell site worse then 4chan sometimes.
Anyone upset about glyphosphate contamination is mad at the wrong people - the people who manufacture it produce a product that harmlessly degrades in a fairly short period of time. The villains here are the farmers and farming enterprises that use it as a desiccant to make preparation of crop faster and cheaper. They are literally poisoning you to make the post-harvest process cheaper.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_desiccation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_desiccation
“Anyone upset about glyphosphate contamination is mad at the wrong people”
“They are literally poisoning you to make the post-harvest process cheaper”
Not to take anything away from your comment, but shouldn’t we also point the finger at corporate supermarkets that choke profit margins for producers?
“They are literally poisoning you to make the post-harvest process cheaper”
Not to take anything away from your comment, but shouldn’t we also point the finger at corporate supermarkets that choke profit margins for producers?
Is there an industry where we can't make that argument? When the choice is either A) making money by poisoning customers or B) Making no money by not poisoning customers I think there is a pretty clear cut correct moral choice and an incorrect one. There will always be someone downstream trying to make themselves richer by making you poorer, that doesn't mean you get to cut dangerous corners to make yourself richer by making your customers sicker.
So, what food in the supermarket is safe to eat? How does one minimize exposure?
So what I'm hearing is farmers don't need to buy weed killer anymore and can just pee directly on the crops. Neat.