Hacker News Reader

Comment by sudden_dystopia | Hacker News Reader

Yet another reason to avoid grains, soy, and processed foods.

I would love to see some meat tested to see if it’s still detected in the meat after the animals eat the tainted corn.

Is there some indication it is more prevalent in processed foods? That wasn't indicated in the article afaict. Also, they mention it's used across a wider range of crops than just soy and grains sadly.

Glyphosate is sprayed on some grain crops prior to harvest to force a whole field into senescence at the same time.

Which species of crops? Because I have never seen that with winter wheat, common oats, #2 dent corn, soybeans or sorghum.

They grow all of that within 300’ of my home.

It may be that the farms near me are worked by smaller operators and they are not paying professional harvesting to bring in the crops in on a schedule. But not letting the grain mature on its own seems like a good way to take less money when sold at the elevator.

Sounds like you are much closer to production than me. Pre-harvest spraying is only something I have read about. Around here we talk about grades of seafood not crops. Here are a few sources I found recommending pre-harvest spraying and one talking about ending the practice in Canada.

US:

https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/glyphosate-use-as-...

https://extension.umn.edu/small-grains-harvest-and-storage/m...

UK:

https://ahdb.org.uk/knowledge-library/pre-harvest-glyphosate...

Australia:

https://grdc.com.au/resources-and-publications/all-publicati...

Canada:

https://non-gmoreport.com/articles/days-are-numbered-for-pre...

There are a few references that say glyphosate doesn't bioaccumulate well due to the chemical's "ionized state, its low octanol-water partition coefficient"[1]. However there are others that suggest glyphosate may bioaccumulate in biofilm consuming invertebrates, where biofilms concentrate glyphosate and prevent the chemical from being retained in surrounding water[2].

Personally, these concepts are newer to me and I'm not sure what to make of it all yet.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6827263/ [2] https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.03.234856v1....

meat is a known carcinogenic in itself.

EDIT: spare the stupid downvotes. Here: https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/can...

Hot water is a known carcinogenic.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2...

It's there, in the statistics. The thing is, the risks of eating meat or drinking hot espressos are like national lottery kind of probabilities. Not like asbestos or carbon particles, wich have more like rock paper scissor kind of probabilities.

You are trying to make a strawman by phrasing it as an exaggerated risk.

You can instead go check the probabilities or read scientific documentation and you'll find that both fluid intake at very high temperature and meat consumption have been reported as significant carcinogenics in many papers on publications with high impact factors.

You can search on Scholar or ask your GP. No need to be dishonest on HN.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com