GMOs, Monsanto, the future of food, and deGrasse Tyson

an interesting development that brings together the adaptive end of evolution and GMO industry is DOWs proposeal to make a new "super herbicide".
It appears that plants have evolved a resistance to glyphosates , so "Roundup" is no longer working in many areas of the farm belt where the stuff is used like Holy Water.

So DOW is hoping that EP gives an approval to the introduction of a new"teamed " herbicide and seed where the seed will be GMO'd to present a seed that is resistant to Glyphosate AND 2,4 D, and 2,4,5 T.
(Thse guys never learn that, if they can make a SEED that's resistant to some chemical, so can nature.
Then DOW plans to introduce this new herbicide which will be Roundup ith 2,4 D . Another version of r"Field sweeping" on no-till lands is the introduction of a really super herbicide with all the above plus a toned down PARAQUAT (the only herbicide that can kill the unprotected applicator on his tractor), It horribly bleaches human lung tissue in tiny doss.


The thing that I find ironic is that th USDA has already approved its use (what do these guys care about safety)> SO, its up to the EPA to decide, (we all know how we can trust the EPA to do the right
thing)

Wooooohoooooo!!!

Little drops of justice dripping on Poisonmeisters!

https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-motion-reconsider-glyphosate-2446783069.amp.html

Excerpt:


Earlier this year, California became the first state to consider requiring Monsanto to label glyphosate as a chemical "known to the state to cause cancer" in accordance with the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, better known as Prop 65. The designation was compelled by the IARC's glyphosate classification.

Glyphosate is at the center of hundreds of cancer lawsuits in which plaintiffs across the U.S. claim that they or their loved ones developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma due to exposure to Monsanto's Roundup, pointing in part to the IARC cancer classification.

But the St. Louis-based agrochemical maker has vehemently defended the safety of its star product and has previously attempted to block the herbicide from California's cancer list.

The Reuters piece accused Dr. Blair, a top epidemiologist from the U.S. National Cancer Institute, for failing to share "important" scientific data from the Agricultural Health Study (AHS) he conducted with other scientists to assess the herbicide glyphosate for the IARC. IARC scientists, including Dr. Blair, reviewed a wide body of published, peer-reviewed scientific research on glyphosate and determined in March of 2015 that glyphosate should be classified as a probable human carcinogen. The Reuters' article assumed that IARC scientists were unaware of the additional AHS data and that if the IARC had known of this missing data, its conclusion could have been different. However, Dr. Blair, who worked on the AHS study and the IARC analysis testified [starting on page 70] that he supported IARC's carcinogenicity finding notwithstanding the AHS results, repeatedly asserting that the AHS study was unfinished and unpublished, and IARC required that findings only rely upon studies that were complete, therefore the incomplete AHS data could not have been relied upon by IARC scientists.

http://www.dailynews.com/2017/10/26/california-cracks-down-on-herbicide-roundup-as-lawsuits-abound/amp/

In March 2016, McCall filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Monsanto, alleging that the company concealed the cancer risk posed by a chemical called “glyphosate,” the active ingredient in Roundup, which she now blames for the deaths of her husband and their dog.

Hundreds of similar lawsuits are pending in federal and state courthouses around the United States, and Monsanto vigorously contests them.

The use of glyphosate has grown exponentially in the past two decades. The chemical has found its way into the food chain — and into people’s bodies. A study published this week in the medical journal JAMA showed that the number of Southern California adults who tested positive for glyphosate in their urine rose dramatically from 1993 to 2016, as did the amount of the chemical in those who excreted it.

In July, California added glyphosate to its list of cancer-causing chemicals under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986. The act, also known as Proposition 65, requires businesses to warn consumers if their products or facilities contain potentially unsafe amounts of any toxic substances known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.

reading along

water is a great natural solvent and a carrier for organochlorine and organophosphate chemicals. Then when we mix organo chlorines and organophosphates and engineer crops to be. immune from their effects. Then, on toppa that we make believe that were engineering "superplants by welding bacteria onto their circulatory structure that only kill bugs that go through complete metamorphosis(so the seed companies remove genetic diversity from the very food plants we depend on).
About 200 years down the road, when were trying to fight "SUPERWEEDS" that we created back in 1970, and were eating only "genetically derived paste" in place of meat and bacterial sludge in place of veggies, I hope our descendents look back on us and curse us for being so stupid.

Maybe we will learn to relish food out of biomass made from The derived daughter species of roach, spider, flies , and the 1000 species or so of rats.

AS I id in the beginning of this thread "when we **** with natures chemistry set, we gotta realize that so can nature itself"

Do we curse our ancestors for being so stupid? I happen to like corn, and I love my dog. Both of these were engineered by our ancestors. We live in a world that has been transformed by the technological progress of the past 500 years. I am not upset with previous generations for these development.

I doubt that our descendants will see us any differently.

Id rather people learn rn to learn about the basics of ag business qnd how we are at the end of the chemical dumping cycle rather than to try to make humor out of trying to assume that mot people are too dumb to recognize what the "chemical name" of water is.
Anyway, I much prefer PROTIUM HYDROXIDE, by being so Victorian it actually sounds like your trying to be insidious and everyone can get a laugh without making fun of people whose knowledge doesnt include High SChool Chemistry.

You are missing the point, Farmerman. No one is learning anything. This is mostly a bunch of politically liberal propaganda (with a few facts mixed in just to confuse people).

If you tell a liberal that some chemical is hurting the environment or endangering health they will believe it without any thought, not because the facts support the story... but because it fits an ideological template of outrage.

Sometimes chemicals are dangerous. Sometimes they aren't. Sometimes chemicals are helpful to improving yields, feeding more people, or in improving health. The way to tell the difference is not knee-jerk reactions based on a seething hatred of Monsanto or the internet outrage of the day.

The sensible way to decide what is helpful or dangerous is to look at the research. Unfortunately the hysterical left has decided to discredit any science that doesn't fit their narrative.

There are lots of independent respectable scientists (not on the payroll of Monsanto) that have looked at the data and decided that the claims of the hysterical left about glyphosate are not supported by the facts. Instead of listening to the scientists. The left has decided to savage them.

some people can follow the dots of evidence better than others. I cant speak for everyone but I try to buy non GMO seed for stuff like my alfalfa. Its expensive but it wont cause my peripheral woods from
dying away because the Krovar has killed tree roots an wrecked and stunted half the trees. THEN, after the canopy climax trees are stunted, a whole fuckin mass of "ghetto trees" like Pawlonia or "princess bushes and immune multiflora rose start taking over and my woods and fallow fields need trackhoes to control."Pawlonia trees , around here, THRIVE on Roundup.
Good insects like bees, ladiebugs and nw , even mantids are being decimated by the bt carryover thats now invaded the ghetto trees chromosomes.

Nature doesnt need a lab to create resistant species. All nature is its own lab and it relies on time and fecundity.

Ive been farming for almost 35 years now an I started as a"what hrm cqn GMOs do?". As a result of what Id seen in my own fields , Im a card carrying alarmist now. I also used to be a Climate SCience skeptic based on what I considered rel data point. Now Ive done a 180 based on the growing wall of evidence in support of anthropogenic global warming.

Theres actually a growing move toward organic dairy around here. Im more or less surrouned by at least 7 farms that have, in the last 10 yers, gone organic. Most of the market push has been for producers of ic cream or cheeses not wanting to deal with GMO (alfalfa/grains residua) and bt laced milk. Ive gone rock and manure fertilizer means for my fields and I buy my grains from mills that only hndle chemical free grain (not quite full organic because I dont really see the need to get the registrtion)

Qs far a s"liberal" v "right thinking", thats twaddle an I am getting a wee tired of the conservatives who act like they know everything and they know how other people think and plan.
I think Lash and I agree on maybe one or two things. I find her politics to be waaay different thqn mine. But as far s this one item, I support backing away from GMO's to the extent wve gone lrady. When companies try to control the totql mqrkt supply chain (the seed business) by creating inimical nvironment for open pollenated seeds, and they aid in creating a condition that requires more nd more ag chemical usage. We're butting up to producing 400 bushels pr acre of certain feed grains. Yet these grains are sterile and laced with genetic markers that hqvent been shown to be "non harmful" (AND I watch the newslines for as much of the research as I can manage). The ag businesses and Ag hem folk hve spent bazillions on PR and slick ads, many of which are at lest half true and they sound impressive as hell.


The patent protection in the US for glyphosate went off in about 2001. Foreign companies NEVER honor our patents so theyve been making "knockoff glyphosate based ag chems" that contain DIQUAT and PARAQUAT (The only ag chemical that will kill you while youre applying it on the field.
All those knockoff glyphosate manufcturers hire their own "independent" experts. ALL EXPERTS are selected for two reasons

1.going in they are commensal"feeders" off that industries philosophy

2. They wont ay anything damaging about their clients product undergoing examination. If they arent in full agreement, their client may freely choose NOT to use their expertise nd thus they are kept "tied up" by their contract terms

"Expert Testimony" is not forensic science. Guys can make very good livings being hired guns, and the hell with damages that the ag chemical may do to human health or the environment. Then, on top of that, we have science "advisory boards" providing advice to the USDA about "how much residual carryover and leaching ag chemicals are considered "SAAFE".

I am a consumer, and a citizen. I am not a farmer. I am a fact-based liberal, not a conservative.

The Organic Food Industry is asking me to pay more for food. Sometimes organic products are better than conventional products (and sometimes I am happy to pay more for them). But often, the conventional products are just as good in my opinion at a significantly lower price.

If the Organic Food Industry is arguing that their food is healthier, they need provide evidence for these claims. So far they have failed to provide independent evidence. And reputable independent researchers have produced well-done, peer reviewed studies that strongly suggest that, except for a very few exceptions, conventional food is just as safe and nutritional as the equivalent organic versions.

The same goes for the environmental claims. From what I have read, I accept that there are some valid environmental problems with conventional agriculture. There is reputable, independent research on the effects of nitrogen fertilizer... for example. Again, the claims should be fact based. Just because one claim is true, doesn't mean that all claims are true. And there are some ways that organic agriculture causes problems for the environment. The facts need to be considered without regard to ideology.

What really bothers me is the rejection of science from supporters of organic food. Any science or scientist, no matter how well-done the study, how independent the research or how conclusive the data... is attacked if he or she fails to support the ideological narrative of the organic food industry.

I will listen to you as a farmer. Of course your experience is relevant. But what I really am asking is to show me the science. Public policy should be based on evidence and data, not on political narrative.

theres actully more "rejection of science" from the average frmer . One can grow chemically free and not be organic. Organic i kind of market scam too. It requires lots of govt intervention for certification so that USDA allows food to be sold as "organic"

However, youre bein rather naive when you say that ag i safe. First guys in the danger zons are the farmers themselves. Theres a cocktail of chemicals besides Glyphoste that you , apparently, hve no idea about. Guthion, Alar, Blazr, Dicamba, (Theres hundreds and hundreds of mixed cocktails of chemical). That, on top of GMO is creating a problem. Im speaking as one whose been in te business for these many yers.
If you believe that your food is safe, well, party on.

We eat Amish grown fruit and they all have applicator licenses for fruit sprays. My wife washes the heck out of stuff like grapes (where naturl yts serve as a barrir and these yests suck up the Alar and finishes. You buy oranges and they are laced with Krovar which is a pumped up version of Diuron. Oranges are sprayed with waxes and the krovar stays in the "zest" peeling a washed ornage will give you a dose of about 5ppb of diuron. MANY of these ag chemicals are cumulative.

I hve a feeling Im just blowing this out a chimney caue lst time I got on GMO nd chemical-free ag, I got bounced around by both sides.
Why do you need a political litmus test to accept science? You may be a liberal but (Like set once said-"We are all conservative about certain things") Thus, I say you are buying the fact-free mantra of the conservatives who seem to say that all industry is faultless.

My mantra is that NO industry does the right thing unless they are forced to by regulation and/ or by profit motive.

Industrial farming methods are rapidly destroying the ecological balances all over the planet. That's why I unload on vegan/vegetarian types who get all Pope holy about their alleged moral position. Industrial ag methods of soy bean production have killed the Illinois River. More than 30 years ago, a friend and I took one of those peddle boats out on Aquia Creek south of DC. It was bright green with the plant bloom from fertilizer run-off. Even without considering other chemical pollution, that carpet of microscopic plants cut off the sunlight, and impaired the oxygen exchange. That creek was dead by then, except, of course, for those little green critters.

Another joker on-line was saying that soy bean production was for animal feed. I just couldn't believe it. The primary use of soy beans is for the production of vegetable oil, which is ubiquitous in industrial scale food production. Sure, after they press all the oil out of the beans, they sell the residue for the production of animal feeds. But the beans were grown--which in Brazil means on land where the rain forest was cut down to sell the wood to Europe and Japan--to make "vegetable oil." (They've gotten cagey--they no longer call it soy bean oil on the labels.) Selling the mash for livestock feed production is just the hoary old capitalist practice of maximizing profit.

This guy (really, a nice guy who was interesting to talk to on other topics) was obviously a true believer--I just let it go. Nobody gets a pass on the subject of food these days, unless they produce 100% of their own food (oops, no coffee or bananas for you, Yanqui)--sinners or saints, carnivores or vegans, we are all a part of the problem.

Even when soy was on the list of good, healthy, foods from most quarters, I avoided it. I just never saw any proof it helped at all. Now that I realize how destructive is the farming of it, I am proud I am in no way involved. Whether one is vegan or not, there seems little balance in favor of good farming or livestock care. There is much blame for us all, in general, well intentioned or not. I feel guilt over mass food production methods, animal and vegetable. But we all gotta eat.

I tried veganism 6 years ago, thinking that I was avoiding “unhealthy meat.” Soy products and whey figured heavily into my meat-replacement foods.

Two months of that caused a myriad of increasing digestive problems until I had to seek medical attention. It precipitated serious “allergies” that leave me unable to eat a wide variety of fruit and vegetables, no grains, which means no bread etc.

These types of reactions to food grown in unsafe soil and hormone-injected chicken and cattle are becoming more prevalent in America. People are slow to discover the source of their distended bellies, early arthritis, diabetes etc. It’s not a normal bodily response to normal food.

Glad you avoided the soy train.

For all my reliance on 'alternatives,' I am rather conservative, on the whole, in eating habits.

almost QLL soy bean seed is now GMO, "Roundup Ready" which hs almost defoliated neighborhood fields and woods

Can you direct me to those peer reviewed studies?

What were those exceptions that you speak of? Also, what's your take on glyphosate? Do you believe that Monsanto has been above board with their claims concerning its safety?

https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2012/09/little-evidence-of-health-benefits-from-organic-foods-study-finds.html

Listen to the independent research from reputable organizations. Cherry picking studies from either Monsanto, or the Organic "movement" will not give you an objective view..

From your link: "They did not find strong evidence that organic foods are more nutritious or carry fewer health risks than conventional alternatives . . . "

It appears that they found evidence that organic foods are more nutritious and carry fewer health risks than conventional alternatives, just not strong evidence. Okay.

From your link: ". . . though consumption of organic foods can reduce the risk of pesticide exposure."

So consumption of conventionally grown foods increases the risk of pesticide exposure. Okay.

From your link: ". . . organic products, which are generally grown without synthetic pesticides or fertilizers or routine use of antibiotics or growth hormones . . ."

Then organically grown foods don't contain synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, or the routine use of antibiotics and growth hormones.

From your link: ”There wasn’t a comprehensive synthesis of the evidence that included both benefits and harms."

This undermines the point that you were are trying to make using the information at the link you provided.

From your link: "For their study, the researchers sifted through thousands of papers and identified 237 of the most relevant to analyze . . . There were no long-term studies of health outcomes of people consuming organic versus conventionally produced food . . ."

This, too, undermines the point you are trying to make. It is hardly the conclusive statement that you think it is.

From your link: "After analyzing the data, the researchers found little significant difference in health benefits between organic and conventional foods."

This means that they found differences in health benefits, but not all the differences were significant. Okay.

From your link: "The researchers were also unable to identify specific fruits and vegetables for which organic appeared the consistently healthier choice . . ."

Perhaps this has to do with the fact that "there were no long-term studies of health outcomes of people consuming organic versus conventionally produced food . . ."

From your link: "“Some believe that organic food is always healthier and more nutritious . . . We were a little surprised that we didn’t find that.”

Once again they appear oblivious to the fact that they have already explained the reason for not finding that organic food is more healthy when they declared that ". . . there were no long-term studies of health outcomes of people consuming organic versus conventionally produced food . . ."

From your link: "The review yielded scant evidence that conventional foods posed greater health risks than organic products."

So they did find evidence that conventional foods posed greater health risks than organic products, just not very much, which we can chalk up to the fact that--you guessed it--"there were no long-term studies of health outcomes of people consuming organic versus conventionally produced food . . ."

From your link: "While researchers found that organic produce had a 30 percent lower risk of pesticide contamination than conventional fruits and vegetables, organic foods are not necessarily 100 percent free of pesticides."

Then organic products contain less pesticide contamination than conventional produce. Okay.

From your link: ". . . the pesticide levels of all foods generally fell within the allowable safety limits."

Generally? What does that mean? But yeah, sure, everyone knows that ingestion of a little bit of pesticides and synthetic fertilizer has a neutral effect on the body as it goes in and comes out, and that there is no such thing as accumulative effects of such things. Sure.

From your link: "Two studies of children consuming organic and conventional diets did find lower levels of pesticide residues in the urine of children on organic diets, though the significance of these findings on child health is unclear."

So, children eating organic produce had lower levels of pesticide residues in their urine than the children eating conventional food. I guess the most surprising thing about the results of those two studies is that the authors are unclear as to what that means.

From your link: "Additionally, organic chicken and pork appeared to reduce exposure to antibiotic-resistant bacteria, but the clinical significance of this is also unclear."

So organic chicken and pork reduce exposure to antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Okay. But again, the most surprising thing about their finding is that they are unclear about what it means. LOL.
_________________________________________


Yes, that's what I asked you for, and that's what you just gave me . . . for what it's worth.

Also, what's your take on glyphosate? Do you believe that Monsanto has been above board with their claims concerning its safety?