China set to introduce low glyphosate residue limits in food imports | Hacker News Reader

China set to introduce low glyphosate residue limits in food imports

sustainablepulse.com

31 pointsmhkool18 comments

Searched the Chinese term for glyphosate, absolutely no information on this limit on either Google News[0] or Baidu News[1].

[0] https://www.google.com/search?q=%E8%8D%89%E7%94%98%E8%86%A6&...

[1] http://news.baidu.com/ns?word=%E8%8D%89%E7%94%98%E8%86%A6&tn...

Edit: another commenter elliekelly has linked an old source for WTO filing from April 2018, which is for 107 pesticides, including glyphosate.

https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S009-DP.asp...

https://members.wto.org/crnattachments/2018/SPS/CHN/18_0894_...

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/sustainable-pulse/

The linked source is literally fabricated news and has no place on HN. The people upvoting this should stick to Alex Jones message boards.

Oh nice website. Is there list of verdicts on mainstream media by this website?

The homepage has a list but it seems to be missing some big names because the website is not featured in them.

I can't find any reputable source on this. The linked site is terrible and on the same plane as "natural news" or "Infowars." Can we please try to do a little better?

I agree the site isn't the best but it's based in fact. I'm a regulatory attorney in the investment industry but moonlight as a legal journalist for a publication about environmental regulations. This isn't news to most of the industry. China filed notice of their intention to revise the limits with the WTO in April without specifying an effective date. This "article" just says China might announce the effective date of the regulation soon and the effective date might be before year-end. I would be surprised if the new limits go into effect in the next 2.5 weeks but given the politics of the U.S.-Chinese trade war I won't say it's impossible.

Here's the WTO filing but the attached schedule of MRL's isn't translated: https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S009-DP.asp...

Edit - Here's the fully-translated filing from the USDA's site[1] though the MRLs are expressed as mg/kg. I believe 2 mg/kg is approximately equivalent to 2000 parts per billion which is significantly higher than the 200 parts per million reported in OP's article.

[1]https://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/China...

NH is weird again with the downvotes. I see nothing wrong with your comment or linked source.

Some anecdata: my work computer is logged into HN with a username thats gender-neutral. I'm about 3 times more likely to be downvoted on this account. I've also noticed a lot more replies on this account tend to flat out tell me I'm wrong or don't know what I'm talking about (my favorite was the time someone told me it's against HN's rules to be dumb in the comments) while replies on my other account tend to be more constructive ("have you considered XYZ..."). I've been thinking about getting both sets of comment replies and running them through Watson's tone analyzer or something but I'm not sure any good would come of it.

And of course, it's entirely possible I'm just a complete moron when I'm on this computer.

You defended a NaturalNews / Infowars offspring site, but think you were downvoted because your username is female?

What? Because the original site is "bad" providing a better source is somehow not acceptable? After you've complained you can't find a better source?

Uh no, saying a pseudoscience site is "based in fact" is not acceptable, champ.

What part of "China is introducing Glyphosate MRLs" is pseudoscience, specifically? And for that matter, what part isn't a fact?

The source is pseudoscience, not every single line that they write. Go look at their other articles. Go look at the crap they sell.

>The source is pseudoscience...

I agreed with you that it's a shit source.

> ... not every single line that they write.

Exactly. I pointed out that this particular headline was based in fact and provided a reliable source for that fact and pointed out where the "facts" stated by the article differed from the reliable source I provided.

I fail to understand the egregious offense I've allegedly committed.

So which of the facts from the sources do you disagree with? You do not get to say "this site is pseudoscience" and then ignore claims that it got a specific thing more or less right if people provide sources, or downvote people for doing so.

So, what's your evidence that the claim "China set to introduce low glyphosate residue limits in food imports" is not based in fact?

> China is set to introduce maximum residue limits (MRLs) of 200 parts per billion (ppb) or lower for glyphosate in all imported final food products and raw materials including grains, soybeans and other legumes before the end of 2019, according to Sustainable Pulse sources.

For comparison, in the U.S. the EPA's current glyphosate limit for soybeans ranges from 20-200 parts per million.[1]

China's motivations are certainly trade related but what does it say about our regulatory structure when China will have more rigorous health and safety standards than the EPA by a large margin?

Glyphosate is the pesticide in Monsanto's Roundup that was at the center of the recent $289 million jury verdict in California.[2]

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/180.364

[2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-monsanto-cancer-lawsuit/m...

How to screw over America while being in the moral right and not actually putting up tariff barriers :-D

It's screwing themselves a bit as well. I guess it's just fine to export it. Just don't let it come back.

> China is a major glyphosate exporter in the world. Over 80% of China-made glyphosate is exported to account for over 60% of the global supply. The output of glyphosate in China increased from 316,000 tons in 2010 to about 505,000 tons in 2017.

My impression is that glyphosate is safe, but that the inactive ingredients, which are loosely regulated, are carcinogenic in some formulations of the herbicide. Of course, Monsanto won't admit this and open themselves up to lawsuits.

If there's a lesson to be learned here, it's that the United States needs stronger protections against the use of potentially dangerous inactive ingredients

Reply on news.ycombinator.com