Hacker News Reader

Comment by microcolonel | Hacker News Reader

> The fact that the epa doesn't have the authority to shut down production of this stuff is insane.

How? It's not even anywhere near in their purview.

> Most things that are banned multinationally also face production bans for obvious reasons.

The chemical is also produced in Mexico (AFAIK by Viakem and Pyosa) and Brazil (by FMC Quimica do Brasil), and elsewhere. It is imported illegally from outside the country for these ops as far as I'm aware, so whether FMC Corp is producing it or not is immaterial to its availability in the U.S. for these ops.

View on HN

Regardless, it should not be manufactured here in the US if it's not even legal to use it in the US. This reeks of lobbying efforts by FMC Corp.

I mean, world is full of nonsense like this - UK is the world's largest producer of medical marijuana even though medical marijuana isn't really a thing here(it has been moved from schedule 1 to schedule 2 last year but it's nearly impossible to a) get it prescribed b) actually buy it)

[0]https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cannabis-leg...

ah , here its legal to buy weed in stores, but stores aren't allowed to buy it from 'vendors' and 'vendors' aren't allowed to produce it :D wonderful world :D full of magic

Ehh, I think that is a dangerous view. It could be used for other purposes, like as an intermediate reactant or for research. Similar thinking is why it is so hard to conduct chemistry or microbiology research as a normal person. Obviously dangerous things can't be sold to plebs and everything with a chemical formula is dangerous.

Consider that many people wish to ban animal cruelty -- sounds fine, except these laws tend to boil down to "every animal must be treated as a pet" even though that is not an economical proposition for the vast majority of animals that exist. Even if you just ban "killing puppies" now dog breeding is essentially illegal as the most effective way is to kill the young you don't want.

> Even if you just ban "killing puppies" now dog breeding is essentially illegal as the most effective way is to kill the young you don't want.

That really wouldn't be such a bad thing, IMO. Dog (and cat) breeders, by and large, exist to produce animals to maximize certain aesthetic norms, often to the detriment of their health. Given how many unwanted animals are killed in shelters each year, it wouldn't be such a bad thing to limit their production a bit

I agree that a lot of show breeds are not humane endeavors but there are lots of working breeds as well. Making it illegal to "kill puppies" with no exception means the breeds we have will be more or less the breeds we will have for thousands of years to come.

I write these posts because there is a lot of sentiment here and elsewhere that is frankly anti-science. In direct relation to the example, anti-GMO advocates and the FDA have strongly resisted the DNA modification of dog breeds and other nonconsumable organisms so frequent litters and culling is all that is left. Looking further back you see the same thing with chemistry and biology kits, with electronics kits, etc; the end result being if you do anything more than go home to watch TV or play golf you are assumed to have some fantastically dangerous hobby that gives babies cancer.

> Even if you just ban "killing puppies" now dog breeding is essentially illegal as the most effective way is to kill the young you don't want.

I have no idea what sorts of dog breeders you're familiar with, but the culling of puppies is not by any means a standard practice among breeders.

Poisonous shit should be banned globally, with global enforcement.

by the world police of our one government :O yes sir!

you got the theme of Team America stuck in my head. :-)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com