Stick a fork in Monsanto...

Page 1 of 3  
Americans are waking up!
http://www.wsj.com/articles/fields-of-gold-gmo-free-crops-prove-lucrative-for-farmers-1422909700
More U.S. consumers are seeking out non-GMO foods, which proponents perceive as healthier and friendlier to the environment. Retail sales of GMO-free cereal, salad dressing, eggs and other food products increased 15% to $9.6 billion last year, among the fastest-growing U.S. food segments, according to market-research firm Nielsen NV. Nielsen sharply increased its non-GMO food sales estimate last year after incorporating a broader range of products and stores.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

-for-farmers-1422909700

fastest-growing U.S. food segments, according to market-research firm Nielsen NV.

That's good to hear. Best way to get something changed is to speak up about it. I notice in my local market more and more food is marked Made in China. I'll buy cheap tools now and then, but draw the line on food.
And while I'm at it... I'd like to see the law changed so that labels have to show each country where a food product was grown, processed and packaged and stop this "distributed by...." nonsense. The only reason I see for a company not putting "Made in -----" on the label is that they are hiding something.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
And while I'm at it... I'd like to see the law changed so that labels have to show each country where a food product was grown, processed and packaged and stop this "distributed by...." nonsense. The only reason I see for a company not putting "Made in -----" on the label is that they are hiding something.

I think you just have to vote with your wallet on that one. American prosperity is built on exploitation of 3rd world resources and labor. I avoid anything that's not from the US, with the exception of possibly Canada and Europe. I'm surprised that so many people who care about food quality don't pay any attention to country of origin.
But even being aware of such things can be tricky. I saw an article recently about scams in the olive industry. Among other things, there are tricks such as shipping a load through Greece so that the resulting product can then be claimed to be from Greece.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 2:38:09 PM UTC-5, Mayayana wrote:

According to the resident radical hippie loon. This country has done more to lift the countries that we've dealt with than any other on this planet. We buy those resources or products and it benefits their local economy, increases the locals incomes, gives them jobs. It benefits us, it benefits them, but of course being an anti-American idiot, you wouldn't see that.

I'll bet plenty of that expensive organic crap you buy really isn't organic either.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 02/09/2015 07:08 PM, N. Cognito wrote:

GMOs are causing a rise in autoimmune diseases so
- Buy organic food for a healthy body.
- Buy pharmaceuticals stock for a healthy portfolio.
Is it wrong for me to profit from the sickness of ignorant people?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/10/2015 4:52 AM, Charlie Taylor wrote:

Ever notice smokers tend to defend their cigarettes? Ever notice alcoholics defend their booze. Well it's same thing with people addicted to their GMOs. Taking money from stupid people is a righteous act!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 7:56:24 PM UTC-5, Mark wrote:

Of course there is one big problem with that silly statement. Alcohol and nicotine are both physically addictive substances. GMO is not. Alcohol and nicotine both have easily demonstrated direct effects on the body, GMO does not. People can't tell the difference between a GMO food and a non-GMO, plus in the USA GMO is not labeled so the typical consumer could not even tell them apart. Now if you're so ignorant that you don't understand that, what does that say about your real knowledge of GMO?
Just the facts.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 04:36:28 -0800 (PST), trader_4

I'm a computer programmer with a masters in medical biology, and I read, so I know somethings about GMOs. Humans have been messing around with genetics since we started breeding animals and plants for certain traits. But splicing genes into things is a bit different. For instance, sticking genes for resistance to certain poisons, and then using those poisons to kill everything but the target plant, does bother me. After all, those poisons are likely still in the plants, and then we eat them, at least in theory absorbing the poison ourselves.
The problem with GMOs is testing. There is no way to test what these things do to us or or progeny. Sort of like geoengineering - we can do all the computer models we want, but only large scale experiments will actually prove things out, and those aren't experiments, those are reality.
Crossing all kinds of genes might do no harm, or one might accidently create something that will have very bad outcomes in the wild.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 9:54:39 AM UTC-5, dgk wrote:

The key issue there would seem to be:
A - Is glyposate at the levels found in foods consumed by people a poison? Bleach is a "poison", yet it's added to municipal water systems. So is flouride, which is also added to many water systems.
B - What amount of glyphosate is left when the crop is consumed? And is that level harmful? Crops are sprayed with a variety of chemicals prior to harvest, eg insecticides. If that is OK, then what is so unique about glyphosate on GMO crops?

Why not?
Sort of like geoengineering - we can do

Similarly, the random mutilation of DNA that causes everything from new great crops, to cancer, occurs naturally. Why hasn't that all killed us?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Human
Excerpt:
The EPA considers glyphosate to be noncarcinogenic and relatively low in dermal and oral acute toxicity.[20] The EPA considered a "worst case" dietary risk model of an individual eating a lifetime of food derived entirely from glyphosate-sprayed fields with residues at their maximum levels. This model indicated that no adverse health effects would be expected under such conditions.
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| The EPA considers glyphosate to be noncarcinogenic and relatively low | in dermal and oral acute toxicity.[20] The EPA considered a "worst | case" dietary risk model of an individual eating a lifetime of food | derived entirely from glyphosate-sprayed fields with residues at their | maximum levels. This model indicated that no adverse health effects | would be expected under such conditions. |
I realize that you've already made up your mind that you don't want to worry about this sort of thing, so you're going to cherry pick any data you find, and thus you'll find the data you want to know.
For anyone else reading this thread, there are other points to consider:
1) First is the obvious point: Why would anyone decide to trust a gov't agency that says it's safe to eat poison?
2) The issue being discussed here is not specifically how dangerous glyphosate might be, but rather the general issue of GMO crops. Roundup Ready GMO crops are designed to tolerate *even more* toxic herbicide than other crops.
3) At the EPA's own site they make clear, as they always have, that they see their job as one of balanced assessment and action. They don't just decide whether something is poison and should therefore be banned. They weigh economic and other factors.
-------------------------------- http://www.epa.gov/risk_assessment/basicinformation.htm Risk assessment provides "INFORMATION" on potential health or ecological risks, and risk management is the "ACTION" taken based on consideration of that and other information, as follows:
........
a.. Economic factors inform the manager on the cost of risks and the benefits of reducing them, the costs of risk mitigation or remediation options and the distributional effects. -------------------------------
4) The referenced EPA fact sheet is *22* years old. Why, when glyphosate is so common in the food supply, has it not been looked at in 22 years? Could that possibly have anything to do with Monsanto's clout in gov't? Maybe not. But if one searches for 'monsanto revolving door' a lot of interesting links come up.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 02/12/2015 09:36 PM, Mayayana wrote:

Exactly!
Anyone that defends GMOs is either ignorant of the facts or a chemical/agriculture industry shill.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 4:44:22 AM UTC-5, warren wrote:

Really:
So far I see all the bogus hysteria, devoid of fact, coming from anti-GMO hippies.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| | Anyone that defends GMOs is either ignorant | of the facts or a chemical/agriculture industry shill.
Or an ostrich. That's probably the biggest category by far: People who ignore anything that might involve hassle or effort. It seems to be human nature. We don't stop to remove a pebble from our shoe until we have a sharp pain in the hip and are walking with a limp. Then we get angry at the pebble for causing so much trouble. If glyphosate turned out to be a potent carcinogen, the ostriches would be the first to file lawsuits. :)
Internet security and privacy is another good example of that pattern. If offered a chance to ignore inconvenient facts in favor of lounging in an existential hammock, most people will instinctively ignore. Thus the role of the salesman, who doesn't really trick anyone. He just helps people to fool themselves.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 10:02:39 AM UTC-5, Mayayana wrote:

As usual, just hyperbole, totally devoid of any fact. Speaking of fact, where's the cite I've asked for 10 times now to backup your claim that Monsanto "forced" farmers to use their product?

The ostrich strawman.

More blather.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| the GMO folks don't care and have the courts and laws | stacked against the small gardener or the organic farmer. |
I first heard about this in a PBS documentary. I think it was this one, which I linked earlier:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food%2C_Inc .
Prior to that I had little idea of what was going on.

could save your seeds from year to year and know that there was no problem. now for annuals to ensure non-GMO seeds i'd have to source and buy them each time i plant or risk contamination

Corn farmers who saved their own seed were interviewed in that documentary and said they were not only risking an infected crop, but that Monsanto was actually threatening a patent lawsuit if the farmers kept using their own seed. The logic was that their fields were probably already infected and therefore the farmers should be paying for Roundup Ready seed. Or to put it another way, since Monsanto GMO pollen was spreading on the wind, Monsanto figured it was reasonable to say that corn farmers in the US could no longer save their own seed legally!
It's hard to believe things could come to that, but I suppose it's not really a legal issue. Rather, Monsanto probably considers it a marketing expense, easily able to drag out mickey mouse lawsuits until the farmers either go broke or give in. Whether or not they actually have a legal case apparently doesn't come into it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Of course, that's clear enough. If they are on the other side, they are wrong.
This isn't science, this is team sports.
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 11:33:24 PM UTC-5, Mayayana wrote:

What "data" have you presented here so far? All I've seen is opinion, hysteria and outright lies. And of coure *you* haven't made up your mind, have you? Are you as sure about the rest of GMO as you were about the Supreme Court conservatives being to blame for Monsanto prevailing in court?

For the same reason that we trust them regarding all the other chemicals that are found in most of the foods we eat, everything from trace insecticide, herbicide to food additives. It's based on science.

What matters is how much glyphosate is actually in a crop when it's harvested. If a chemical breaks down relatively quickly in the environment is different from one that persists, like arsenic or lead.

Wow, what a profound concept.
The hysteria here is not unlike the hysteria over vaccinations that has been going on for the last couple of decades. The same analysis applies, ie cost versus benefit. In the vaccine case, just like here, certain hippies are absolutely convinced that vaccinations are causing autism and God knows what else, despite the mountain of the best scientific evidence that says it's not true. So now we have outbreaks of measles again, that are putting kids in the hospital.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Cherry pick?
You are officially out of your mind.
I went directly to where everyone else that has background in the issue has gone. The wikipedia authors have undoubtedly fought out the exact wording of that section for years. What remains is full of attributions (cites). Any of which you are free to research yourself.
By the way, I spent some time looking at other sources for the lethal dose of glyphosate. They're in agreement. I did NOT look at random Joe Blow opinions. Only cases where the issue was actually studied.

Because, obviously, the EPA wants to poison you. Sometimes we hear rants about EPA over-regulation. But in this case, the EPA just wants to kill people.

Sorry, the issue of glyphosate came up and I commented directly on the issue raised.

And that's a problem how?

Congratulations. More idiocy. You have been watching all this time and no further research has been done? How do you know that?
So, from the right, we hear about how the Dems are trying to destroy business with over regulation, but your theory now is that the EPA is in cahoots with Monsanto (for at least 22 years).
So, I've cherry picked my data and my mind is already made up. Your counter arguments don't even make sense. Especially where you tell me I'm not on topic. My reply was obviously not addressing GMO. Roundup came up, someone asked a question and I found what I consider the best answer. Come up with some facts by someone with some data or give it up.
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| I went directly to where everyone else that has background | in the issue has gone. The wikipedia authors have undoubtedly fought | out the exact wording of that section for years. What remains is full | of attributions (cites). Any of which you are free to research | yourself. |
Which is what I did, as I explained. I went to EPA and downloaded their PDF info file on glyphosate -- the one that *you* referenced in your posted quote. It's dated 1993.
It was a similar case to what you did in the other thread, where you referenced a study claiming 80% of people think DNA should be banned from foods. It turned out that the study was a sham defense of GMOs perpetrated by a college in farm country. You not only hadn't looked at the actual study. You also didn't recognize it when I responded. In a humorous twist of irony it turned out that study related to GMOs and I assumed you knew that. I only realized afterward that you hadn't actually seen the study and had no idea that you were posting on-topic. That was just a coincidence. :) Your only intention was apparently to make fun of scientific ignorance.
| Sorry, the issue of glyphosate came up and I commented | directly on the issue raised. |
Yes. More cherry picking. But you did, at one point, make clear that you thought concern over GMOs was unwarranted. You advanced the interesting "scientific" theory that your personal health depends on exercise and is unrelated to what you eat:
"I believe I preserve my health through activity, not fear of what I eat."
| > 3) At the EPA's own site they make clear, as they | > always have, that they see their job as one of balanced | > assessment and action. They don't just decide whether | > something is poison and should therefore be banned. | > They weigh economic and other factors. | | And that's a problem how? |
As the page explains, the EPA takes various factors into consideration. For instance, the EPA issues guidelines for "allowable" mercury exposure from tuna. In setting that limit they'll take into consideration both research and the tuna industry. Tuna catchers need to make a living. People want to eat tuna. So the EPA will never say, "Don't eat tuna. Period."
Not that I'm complaining about the EPA. They're better than nothing. But nor would I base my own dietary guidelines on EPA reports.
| > 4) The referenced EPA fact sheet is *22* years old. | > Why, when glyphosate is so common in the food | > supply, has it not been looked at in 22 years? Could | > that possibly have anything to do with Monsanto's | > clout in gov't? Maybe not. But if one searches for | > 'monsanto revolving door' a lot of interesting links | > come up. | | Congratulations. More idiocy. | You have been watching all this time and no further | research has been done? How do you know that?
Hello?! That was the fact sheet that *you* linked to! It was the reference (note 20) in your quote from Wikipedia. Again you're not even looking at your own references.
| | So, from the right, we hear about how the Dems are trying | to destroy business with over regulation, but your theory now is that | the EPA is in cahoots with Monsanto (for at least 22 years). | Did you look at any revolving door links? Where do you think gov't regulations come from? Just today the NYT has an expose on how the company that's been making faulty guardrails has responded with a massive lobbying push. If Glyphosate is found to be more toxic than expected, do you think Monsanto will say, "That's OK. We don't need those billions of dollars. We've got plenty of money now." ? Or might they call up a few congressmen and start making more donations? Do you want to bet your health on your answer to that?
| Your counter arguments don't even make sense. | Especially where you tell me I'm not on topic. | My reply was obviously not addressing GMO.
Right. And GMOs are the topic. That's another example of what I mean by cherry picking to avoid further thought. (Are you a tuna nut, by any chance? :)
Those of us criticizing GMOs are concerned about exposure to toxins, among other things. You're putting a lot of effort into rebutting that concern with various data that you haven't actually looked at, yet you also claim that you don't care about GMOs. And you you regard concern about GMOs as pointless fear. ....You seem a rather hotheaded partisan for someone who doesn't care about the topic.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.