Monsanto Stunned – California Confirms ‘Roundup’ Will Be Labeled “Cancer Causing”

Monsanto was seemingly baffled by the decision to place cancer-causing glyphosate on the state’s list of nearly 800 toxic chemicals.
By @Subversive_Pen |
Be Sociable, Share!
    • Google+
    Monsanto herbicide to be sprayed on food crops. (Photo from the USDA via Wikimedia Commons)

    Monsanto herbicide to be sprayed on food crops. (Photo from the USDA via Wikimedia Commons)

    (ANTIMEDIA) Sacramento, CA — California just dealt Monsanto a blow as the state’s Environmental Protection Agency will now list glyphosate — the toxic main ingredient in the U.S.’ best-selling weedkiller, Roundup — as known to cause cancer.

    Under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 — usually referred to as Proposition 65, its original name — chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm are required to be listed and published by the state. Chemicals also end up on the list if found to be carcinogenic by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) — a branch of the World Health Organization.

    In March, the IARC released a report that found glyphosate to be a “probable carcinogen.”

    Besides the “convincing evidence” the herbicide can cause cancer in lab animals, the report also found:

    “Case-control studies of occupational exposure in the U.S.A., Canada, and Sweden reported increased risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma that persisted after adjustments to other pesticides.”

    California’s decision to place glyphosate on the toxic chemicals list is the first of its kind. As Dr. Nathan Donley of the Center for Biological Diversity said in an email to Ecowatch, “As far as I’m aware, this is the first regulatory agency within the U.S. to determine that glyphosate is a carcinogen. So this is a very big deal.”

    Now that California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has filed its notice of intent to list glyphosate as a known cancer agent, the public will have until October 5th to comment. There are no restrictions on sale or use associated with the listing.

    Monsanto was seemingly baffled by the decision to place cancer-causing glyphosate on the state’s list of nearly 800 toxic chemicals. Spokesperson for the massive company, Charla Lord, told Agri-Pulse that “glyphosate is an effective and valuable tool for farmers and other users, including many in the state of California. During the upcoming comment period, we will provide detailed scientific information to OEHHA about the safety of glyphosate and work to ensure that any potential listing will not affect glyphosate use or sales in California.”

    Roundup is sprayed on crops around the world, particularly with Monsanto’s Roundup-Ready varieties — genetically engineered to tolerate large doses of the herbicide to facilitate blanket application without harming crops. Controversy has surrounded this practice for years — especially since it was found farmers increased use of Roundup, rather than lessened it, as Monsanto had claimed.

    Less than a week after the WHO issued its report naming glyphosate carcinogenic, Monsanto called for a retraction — and still maintains that Roundup is safe when used as directed.

    On Thursday, an appeals court in Lyon, France, upheld a 2012 ruling in favor of farmer Paul Francois, who claimed he had been chemically poisoned and suffered neurological damage after inhaling Monsanto’s weedkiller, Lasso. Not surprisingly, the agrichemical giant plans to take its appeal to the highest court in France.

    It’s still too early to tell whether other states will follow California’s lead.

    This article (California Just Announced It Will Label Monsanto’s Roundup as Cancer Causing) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Claire Bernish andtheAntiMedia.org.
    Be Sociable, Share!

    Stories published in our Hot Topics section are chosen based on the interest of our readers. They are republished from a number of sources, and are not produced by MintPress News. The views expressed in these articles are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Mint Press News editorial policy.

     

    Print This Story Print This Story
    You Might Also Like  
    ___________________________________________
    This entry was posted in Daily Digest, Health & Lifestyle, National and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
    • DrKelvin Ahmed

      Kidney donor who want to sell their kidney should contact Aditya Birla Memorial Hospital Pune, we are looking for kidney Very urgently, Donor who are B+ve , O+ve and A+ve. Interested Donor should contact us now on my Email: Dr.Kelvin_Ahmed@surgical.net for more details, thanks.

      Regards
      Dr. Kelvin Ahmed
      phone number: +917418483179

    • Robert Hull

      Wow, I have been using Glyphosate since the early 80’s on my farm, and after hearing this am going utterly and totally keep on doing it. This interview is without any statements of substance….only inference. Perhaps, it is really caused by all the unnatural and previously non-existent sound waves….yikes, turn off your cell phone, tv, radiio, not to mention remote locks on our cars..

      But, back to farming….Glyphosate replaces other herbicides that are not mentioned here. In minute 32 Dr. Huber finds a voice, and state that his fears are readily addressable, and that is what we do as farmers….address challenges. Thanks for reading.

    • Kwelio Largo

      A Great Proverb

      “The one who guards his mouth preserves his life; The one who opens wide his lips comes to ruin. The soul of the sluggard craves and gets nothing, But the soul of the diligent is made fat. A righteous man hates falsehood, But a wicked man acts disgustingly and shamefully.…”

    • Pingback: Japan, South Korea Halt Wheat Imports Following Discovery Of Tainted Monsanto Crop In US – Mintpress News (blog)()

    • Pingback: Japan, South Korea Halt Wheat Imports Following Discovery Of Tainted Monsanto Crop In US()

    • Pingback: Asbestos Mesothelioma Desmoines | My Mesotheliom Lawyer()

    • Pingback: Mesothelioma Etymology Meaning Of Names – Mesothelioma View and Opinion()

    • Pingback: Filing A Mesothelioma Lawsuit In Pine Top Ky 41843()

    • Pingback: Mesothelioma Class Action Lawsuit In Wing Nd 58494()

    • Pingback: ANOTHER BIG NAIL IN THE COFFIN OF MONSANTO’S ‘ROUNDUP’ HERBICIDE. – Wood Prairie Farms()

    • Tyranny Stopper

      Hate the idiots in CA, but I admit they may be the spearhead on this attack and we need them.
      The Monsanto Corp has toooo much power in DC and the company needs to be taken down.

      • Dia Wong

        Why do you hate California? It’s the best part of America. Maybe you should live here for a while before you pass judgment. PS I spoke to California, and it still loves you

        • Tyranny Stopper

          My words are clear but perhaps you incidentally fell into the category of people I am talking about. Please note the term “idiots” this is referring to a group. Are you one of the “idiots” in CA? If so, I might not like you. But if not, then we can break bread.

          • Todd Naz

            STFU. I live in WA but I see CA as the same. We only house the technology hub of the world but you so smart. Idiots reside everywhere including on the Internet right here. I think you fall into a certain category but I won’t say. Lol…Your bitterness is duly noted.

    • Pingback: Seo For Financial Advisors From Falls City Tx 78113()

    • Pingback: Seo For Financial Advisors From Idaho Falls Id 83401()

    • Pingback: Seo For Financial Advisors From Sunset Tx 76270()

    • Pingback: Monsanto to Cut 3600 Jobs as Public Protests Continue to Stymie Profits - EcoWatch -RocketNews()

    • Pingback: Seo For Financial Advisors From Rome Ga 30164()

    • Pingback: Seo For Financial Advisors From Kellogg Id 83837()

    • Pingback: Car Rental Darwin Unlimited Kms | online car rent deals()

    • Pingback: Demystifying Cancer: Why Have Cancer Rates Skyrocketed? – pats-blog()

    • Pingback: Tooth Extraction Infection North River Crossing Ga()

    • Michael Flack

      This is a nice turn of events, the need to produce food is one thing, the creation of a public health issue that mainly effects the poor to middle class for the profit of the few is another or more accurately a crime!

      The irony is its been noted that Monsanto serves only organic produce in its offices (Its like how a “successful” drug dealer will avoid being a user of their own goods as they know better then their customers the dangers of the drugs they are selling and what its sourced from)

      • Paleo Huntress

        That’s a myth actually. Monsanto serves the same foods most other cafeterias serve.

        Fact: The food in our cafeterias is no different than what you’d find in most cafeterias, restaurants or supermarkets – some of it is from GM crops and some of it isn’t. We don’t go out of our way to have either GM or non-GM food in our cafeteria, with the exception of occasional specialty meals that showcase food grown with our seeds.

        http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/what-monsanto-serves-in-its-cafeterias.aspx

        • farmerdave

          Well it seems that one of your whistle blowers posted a cell phone pic of the sign in front of the monsatan cafeteria line showing only non-gmo food served here.

          • Paleo Huntress

            It’s easy to sell something that people want to believe. I believed it too. I don’t eat GMOs and I hate Monsanto, but I hate lies more. We lose credibility when we lie. How hard is it to mock up a sign? FFS, it’s bullshit and you just want it to be true.

    • Pingback: Neil Young - Activist music - THE MONSANTO YEARS ⋆ activist noise()

    • Pingback: Total Control: Monsanto | kba4()

    • Pingback: What Are GMO’s and Why Should I Care? | Organic Trumps All()

    • Mike

      There are already lawsuits being filed against Monsanto where people claim they have developed cancer from working with glyphosate. Here is a link to one such case for those trolls who demand proof and refuse to search for it themselves.

      schmidtandclark.com/roundup-cancer-lawsuit

    • Pingback: Sustainable farming in comparison | frostedfoodblog()

    • TutuWuwu

      Dr. Don Huber, Professor Emeritus, Plant Pathology, Purdue University, has a lot to say about glyphosate and GMOs, and none of it is good. Do a YouTube search. He’s got over 50 years of research in this area. I like his interview with Dr. Mercola. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENmc9kHnvbo

      • Peter Olins

        Real scientists publish; they don’t post on YouTube!

        • Mike

          You just keep telling yourself that. Put your tin foil hat back on and it will all be okay.

          • Irwell Pete

            It’s better to be informed rather than just opinionated

        • TutuWuwu

          So, ye think Don Huber hasn’t published? Really? The man has 50 years of research in plant pathology, FFS!
          Learn to read, then learn the search engine of your choice.

          • Peter Olins

            TuTu — I’m not going to wade through 58 minutes of video. Why don’t you do us all a favor and summarize the one or two key points that you learnt from the video?

            Since you have mastered the use of search engines, fire up your favorite one and give us a literature citation supporting these points. I’d be glad to discuss.

            • TutuWuwu

              Peter – I’m not insisting you “wade through” anything. Just saying that if you think the Professor Emeritus of Plant Pathology at a major university, with 50 years of research under his belt has not published, then I’m just gobsmacked, because, that’s what professors and scientists do to advance their careers – they publish! When I worked for a transplant pioneer, and dept. head of surgery, I spent a good deal of time sending out reprints of published research that had been requested.

              • hyperzombie

                I think Peter was asking if he published anything regarding his GMO and glyphosate claims?

                • TutuWuwu

                  Well, yes, I would imagine, since he is regarded as an expert in the field. He gets into detail in the vid, and no, I am not going to write an exegesis of the vid.

                  • hyperzombie

                    He is not regarded as an expert in this field, he was an expert on plant pathogens, like mycotoxins. Go to google scholar or PubMed and read his papers. I have seen him live, I don’t have to see the video, and he doesn’t know what he is talking about.

                    • Paleo Huntress

                      On Dr. Don Huber-

                      “His agricultural research the past 50 years has focused on the epidemiology and control of soil-borne plant pathogens with emphasis on microbial ecology, cultural and biological controls, and physiology of host-parasite relationships. Research also includes nitrogen metabolism, micronutrient physiology, inhibition of nitrification, and nutrient-disease interactions.”

                      You may not agree with him, but I think he’s about as expert as one can get in the area… and that IS what he’s discussing with regard to glyphosate and how it suppresses some soil organism and stimulates others.

                      • hyperzombie

                        Nope not an expert. He is an old crazy man.

                      • Paleo Huntress

                        He may very well be a crazy old man, that’s a matter of opinion. But his expertise is a matter of fact.

                      • hyperzombie

                        You got that backwards….

                      • Paleo Huntress

                        You can’t help but chuckle at the dude calling everyone out on a lack of evidence but simply expecting to be taken at his word when he dismisses expertise and labels someone crazy.

                        I guess your integrity around evidence only makes an appearance when arguing against positions not personally held by you.

                        I have no dog in this fight, but the requirement for evidence applies universally.

                      • hyperzombie

                        LOL, keep supporting crybaby Huber

                      • Paleo Huntress

                        I’m not supporting him, I’m simply insisting that you offer the same evidence you insist everyone else offer.

                      • hyperzombie

                        So if Huber has so much evidence that GMOs are harmful, why doesn’t he publish the facts? He is a scientist he know hows to do this,, what is stopping him? He has been complaining about them for 9 years now…. Put up or shut up.

                      • Paleo Huntress

                        Again, not making a case for his position, just asking you to prove that he’s-

                        a.) Not an expert
                        b.) A crazy old man

                        Go.

                      • Peter Olins

                        Huber has been talking about his discovery of a new life-form for almost a decade. On the speaker circuit he claims that it is a pathogen of both plants and animals, and that it is a fungus, or a virus or prion. No-one else in the world has observed the devastating effects of this mystery bug.

                        Too bad that he never publishes this, or shares the mystery bug with the scientific community.

                        I think that the most charitable description is that Dr. Huber is a former prestigious scientist.

                      • Paleo Huntress

                        Stating this a second time doesn’t add any additional weight to the claim. It has no bearing on his expertise in the field.

                        He is a recognized expert, and the absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence.

                      • Peter Olins

                        Paleo H — Let’s get specific. What do you think is the most important thing that Huber has discovered with regard to glyphosate?

                      • Paleo Huntress

                        Peter O,

                        I don’t know anything bout Huber’s positions or arguments, only that he is a recognized expert. I support your right to debate the particulars of his position, but disagreeing with someone doesn’t make them ignorant or crazy, so unless you’re prepared to offer evidence of his state of mind and expertise, stick to the subject matter of the debate and leave the ad homs out of it.

                      • Peter Olins

                        Huber has presented unpublished claims that GMO corn contains 200 ppm toxic formaldehyde, but only 7 ppm nitrogen! Have you any idea how absurd this is, especially coming from someone who has worked with plants for decades? You do realize that nitrogen is a major component of protein—one of the main reasons for growing corn, right?

                        https://intermountainiftpresentations.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/ift-idaho-13-huber.pdf

                        In 2014 presentation he even showed pictures brain-damaged babies to illustrate his argument about the toxicity of glyphosate. Shameful.

                        http://agroecology-appg.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/2014-0618_Huber_short.ppt

                        As they say on financial websites, “Past history is no predictor of future performance”. Sad.

                      • Bruce__H

                        No matter how good your past credentials, if you claim a new discovery and then refuse to publish evidence for it people ought not to accept your claims. Even Nobel Prize winners must submit their manuscripts about new findings for peer review. This is how science works.

                  • Peter Olins

                    A carefully-worded discussion of topics related to some of Huber’s claims, by members of his former University, can be found at:
                    http://www.btny.purdue.edu/weedscience/2011/GlyphosatesImpact11.pdf

                    They don’t mention anything about dead fetuses, though.

                    TutuWuwu, YouTube is probably the least reliable source of scientific information I can think of. Save it for videos of cute cats.

                  • Bruce__H

                    Where has he published on this. I can’t find it. Others can’t find it.

                    If it is in the video why not just indicate which part? Near the beginning? Further towards the end? Where?

              • Peter Olins

                I have no reason to doubt that he has done high quality, peer-reviewed, research in the
                PAST. That’s not the point.

                For about 10 years, Huber has been claiming to have discovered a dangerous new life form, somehow associated with GM or glyphosate. Why doesn’t he publish, rather than giving scary talks (including a picture of dead fetuses) to the non-science public? And if this organism is really is such a threat, doesn’t he have an ethical responsibility to share his material with other scientists?

        • Nor are they found in interviews with the quack of woo, Mercola.

    • vm0404

      “1) Lasso does not contain glyphosate.
      2) The Prop 65 list includes orange oil (limonene) which is the active ingredient in Avenger Burndown Organic Herbicide.
      3) And “alcoholic beverages”
      4) And methyl bromide – another “Organic” pesticide
      5) And methyl iodide – yet another “organic” pesticide
      6) And cisplatin – an anti-cancer drug
      7) And…

      Wait for it….

      COCONUT OIL”

      source https://www.facebook.com/GenMods4Monsanto?fref=nf

      prop 65 list can be downloaded here

      http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/prop65_list/Newlist.html

    • Spamihazit

      That photo shows the use of Lasso (alachlor), not Roundup (glyphosate). Secondly, that is not even the PPE required to be worn by the Lasso label. But go ahead and use misleading photos.

      • Mike

        You can’t dispute the fact that glyphosate causes cancer so you whine about the photo. That’s rich. LOL

        This article needs around 2000 comments and is almost there. Let’s keep debating this issue so they will post more articles like this one. What do you say?

        • Spamihazit

          I can say that basically everything you put into your body is similarly rated as far as cancer causing potential, or greater. Grilling meat. Potatoes. Alcohol. Being a hair dresser. air pollution. The sun.

          Know what is listen as probably NOT a carcinogen? Caprolactam. That is it. Literally the only thing WHO calls “probably not” a carcinogen. Group 4.

          • Peter Olins

            Yes, only one out of 982 items on the IARC list is described as “probably not carcinogenic to humans”. The IARC cancer experts must live a very fearful life.
            monographs dot iarc dot fr / ENG / Classification

          • Mike

            No. Now you just sound desperate.

        • Jason

          Can’t dispute? Every agency that’s ever reviewed glyphosate has concluded its non carcinogenic but one. And that one just said “probably”. That seems like quite a leap from “causes with certainty”, doesn’t it?

          • Mike

            That’s just your opinion. I wonder why farmers and workers who handle glyphosate and have developed cancer as a result have started filing lawsuits against Monsanto and company. Go ahead and dispute that one.

            • Peter Olins

              “…as a result…”
              This implies causality. Do you have any evidence; the IARC didn’t. Have you read any of the relevant research?

            • Jason

              No… That is not an opinion, knucklehead. That is called a fact.

              My opinion is that you’re an idiot if you think that people filing a lawsuit proves anything.

    • rel0627

      Bruce loves defending chemical companies online as a hobby…..right brucey?

    • Chlytie

      Finally!

    • Terrafurtive

      I’m proposing a discussion on one topic:

      Humans eating food contaminated with glyphosate at every meal, is it a good idea?

      This is a current fact sheet, worth reading for background info:
      http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphotech.pdf

      Please do not discuss drinking concentrated glyphosate nor if that’s dangerous to animals or humans. I don’t advise it.
      ForensicSci Int. 2013 Mar 10;226(1-3):e20-5. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2012.12.010. Epub 2013 Jan 3.

      In other words, we know it’s harmless, don’t beat this to death. An adult male in 1955 would have >50% chance of being a smoker. Since the LD50 (lung cancer) for cigarette smoke wouldn’t have been known and even if it were, it would be about the same as fresh air anyways, in other words, harmless. Cigarette smoking in 1955 was prevalent and harmless, same as glyphosate today.

      Please do not discuss GMO crops nor if they are dangerous to eat. This post is about glyphosate.

      Nearly all of our food containing corn or soy products are contaminated with glyphosate. How much is up for debate, and should be documented better. “Herbicide tolerant (HT) Soy has a 94 percent penetration in the US in 2014. 89 percent of US corn acreage is HT, in 2014.” There’s a nice graph of this in the reference.
      ref:http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-us/recent-trends-in-ge-adoption.aspx

      Today, glyphosate is used is fundamentally differently from when herbicides were applied only to the weeds, say before the crop plants emerge from the soil.
      “Herbicides remained the most widely used type of pesticide in the agricultural market
      sector. Among the top 10 pesticides used in terms of pounds applied in the agricultural
      market were the herbicides glyphosate, atrazine, metolachlor-s, acetochlor,
      2,4-D, and pendimethalin, and the fumigants metam sodium, dichloropropene,
      methyl bromide, and chloropicrin.”
      ref:http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/cb/csb_page/updates/2011/sales-usage06-07.html

      What follows is my opinion:

      Glyphosate appeared in the evolutionary blink of an eye. It hasn’t found a place in the physiology of our food web. It is an exclusive molecule, its interaction with other biological processes isn’t known. It might find a place of harm, it might not. I want a record of the levels in my food supply. In the event it falls into a harmful category, I can make a case against the manufacturers who have so carefully proven it harmless. No one can object to the testing, if it’s harmless then so what, if it turns out to have a negative health impact, we have the evidence of amount and duration of the injury.

      • Paleo Huntress

        Even if it caused no harm at all to humans directly, it definitely causes harm to the gut biome, which causes harm to humans directly.

        • Terrafurtive

          What do you think about monitoring the food we eat? Is it possible, reasonable?

          • Bruce__H

            It’s an economic issue really. How expensive do you want your food to be and/or how high do you want your taxes to be?

            Food is monitored already, but not thoroughly. It is monitored by sampling. And often by the company raising or preparing the food. I’m in Canada and there are differences between the Canadian and US food surveilance systems but in broad strokes it is the same in both countries.

        • Bruce__H

          There is no evidence for this though.

          I have been looking for such evidence for a little over 4 months. SageThinker has been looking for evidence on this point much longer and has educated me in the scientific literature. Neither of us can find anything solid. So what makes you say that dietary glyphosate harms the human microbiome?

          • Paleo Huntress

            The gut flora that makes up our biome also contains the EPSP synthase enzyme, the blocking of which is the kill mechanism employed by glyphosate.

            • Bruce__H

              Glyphosate at high concentrations can definitely attach to EPEP synthase and thereby block shikimate metabolism. But how much this plays out at the sorts of concentrations seen in the diet is in question. I have only ever seen a single paper showing that low doses of glyphosate can affect bacterial growth. This was a paper showing inhibition by low levels of glyphosate of a bacterial species, Rhizobium Japonica, found in the roots of plants (so, not very related to species in mammlian gut). That study (Jaworski, J Agr Food Chem 20:1195 1972) remains unreplicated after more than 40 years.

              A person who often posts on these topics goes by the name SageThinker. He is more in your corner. He suspects there is an effect of dietary glyphosate on the human microbiome. He is a tiger at research. For 4 months I have been asking him to locate a study showing an effect of glyphosate on bacterial proliferation in the human microbiome. Although he has located many studies involving glyphosate and bacteria found in the gut of various mammals, he has found nothing indicating an adverse effect of dietary glyphosate at the levels seen in the diet.

              • Peter Olins

                I have seen three papers about gut bacteria that are relevant. In the worst cases, growth inhibition was only seen at about 1000+ fold higher concentrations than might be expected to occur in the human gut. In addition, the bioavailability in the gut is probably much reduced, since glyphosate is likely to bind to a variety of the materials in our gut contents.

                http://www.netwerkvlv.nl/downloads/2012-Krueger,%20M-glyphosate%20effects.pdf

                http://jb.asm.org/content/168/3/1147.full.pdf

                http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/yesmaam/pages/680/attachments/original/1393210276/Effects_of_Roundup_and_Glyphosate_on_Three_Food_Microorganisms.pdf?1393210276 (yes, the Seralini group…)

                • Paleo Huntress

                  According to the EPA, sesame, flax, and soybeans are allowed residues of 40ppm, making the dose amount in the first paper you cited about 25 fold that allowed in these foods.

                  So far I’ve only explored your first resource, which was a review rather than an actual study and the 1000ppm figure cited is footnoted with this study. (Current Microbiology, May 2012, Volume 64, Issue 5, pp 486-491)

                  In the paper, the researchers state that,

                  The presented results evidence that Roundup® has an inhibitory effect on microbial growth and a microbicide effect at lower concentrations than those recommended in agriculture.

                  My university library doesn’t include digital access to this journal and I don’t have access to the full text, so I cannot confirm the source. I’m not suggesting that this makes it false, only saying that I can’t determine one way of the other, and the researchers appear to be stating outright that glyphosate kills beneficial microbes at levels BELOW what is routinely used and not far above as you suggest.

                  Researchers also found that glyphosate killed beneficial gut bacteria in chickens and they suggested that this action may make the chickens more susceptible to other bacterial infections like campylobacteriosis, as many of the dangerous pathogens were not susceptible to glyphosate and killing off competing flora allows their populations to grow.

                  This statement is found in the abstract as well- “[T]hese results should be considered in the understanding of the loss of microbiodiversity and microbial concentration observed in raw milk”.

                  Add to that that the soil micro-biome is clearly and obviously impacted by glyphosate and that your source appears to suggest that not only does it kill beneficial microorganisms, but it in becoming inert, it binds trace minerals in the soil and prevents uptake by the plants themselves… and then food residues further bind with minerals in the human gut preventing assimilation– you yourself pointed to this binding action as a positive thing.

                  I don’t see the rendering of micro-nutrients as un-absorbable as a positive thing. This alone would be a good enough reason to me to avoid glyphosate treated foods, and it’s NOT alone.

                  I haven’t gotten to your other sources yet, I’m still plugging away. I appreciate you sharing the resources, I’m inspired to learn more.

                  • Bruce__H

                    Peter Olins’s first source is the paper by Shehata et al isn’t it (Curr Microbi 2013 66:350)? This is an experimental paper, not a review. SageThinker and I went over this and other papers in some detail about 5 months ago in the comments section of a blog post on Skepti-Forum (the blog was a review of “A Critical review of compositional differences in soybeans on the market: Glyphosate accumulates in roundup ready soybeans”). If you go to that blog you will see us going over things.

                    Also, the 1000ppm figure in the reference you wondered about — Current Microbiology, May 2012, Volume 64, Issue 5, pp 486-491 — is for Roundup, not glyphosate itself. The researchers found that the micro-organisms they studied were inhibited at Roundup concentrations of about 300ppm or higher but that there was no effect of glyphosate on its own right up to 10,000ppm. It seems to be a consistent result of research in this field that additives to glyphosate in commercial formulations are having their own adverse effects. This is a big problem I think.

                  • Bruce__H

                    Here are some more readings I have accumulated on glyphosate and bacterial species in food or mammalian gut. What you see here are actually the filenames of the pdf files I have so some of the titles are trunctated. The numbers at the end of each citation refer to page_vol_year. I have yet to see anything indicating an action of glyphosate in mammals at concentrations less that a couple of hundred ppm

                    Ackermann et al Influence of Glyphosate on the Microbiota and Production of Botulinum Curr Microbiol 374_70_15

                    Hüther et al Effect of glyphosate contaminated feed on rumen fermentation Archiv Anim Nutr 73_59_05

                    Krüger et al _Glyphosate suppresses antagonistic effectof Enterococcus on Clostridium __ Anaerobe 74_20_13

                    Schrodl et al _Possible Effects of Glyphosate on Mucorales in Rument Curr Microbiol 817_69_14

                    Clair et al Effects of Roundup and Glyphosate on food microorganisms Curr Microbi 486_64_12

                • Bruce__H

                  The first paper on your list is Shehata et al 2013. One of the things that puzzled SageThinker and I about this paper was a note appearing at the bottom of their Table 2. The note reads “Mean of quantitative bacterial counts expressed as reciprocal log10”. Why do this? If they report a bacterial count as 2.24 doesn’t this mean that the bactierial count is .01 or so?

                  SageThinker actually wrote to Shehata but I never heard an answer. Neither of us is a microbiologist. Do you know what is going on?

      • Peter Olins

        I share your curiosity about real-world levels of exposure to glyphosate. Here are a few relevant reports that I came across:

        https://www.evernote.com/shard/s70/sh/0279e3f9-a571-44da-afc1-408c35e215a6/0d3b6ef8b395e37a

        Much food has undetectable residue levels, and the relevance of the trace levels found in some samples of foods depends on how inherently toxic you believe the compound is.

        The other critical factor is that all risk is relative. There are tens of thousands of compounds that were are exposed to daily (both natural and man-made): the challenge is to decide which are most likely to be risky. Many substances that we eat regularly affect our bodies or are toxic at levels only slightly above our normal intakes. Although I’m not a professional toxicologist, I think it’s naive to put too much weight on toxicology studies in experimental animals receiving massive amounts of a particular chemical.

        https://www.evernote.com/shard/s70/sh/c0ebb06e-2ac9-4fcb-b1d7-e4593e5474fb/13d05f2980c66547

        • Paleo Huntress

          Certainly you consider the combined load of different risks a consideration?

          I avoid most foods with preservatives. Not because I think the preservatives are directly toxic, but because if the purpose of a preservative is to suppress the growth of bacteria, it stands to reason that it’s not good for my gut colony. The evidence is mounting– few things appear to be more important in overall health and immune response than a healthy gut biome. Not only does it protect us from infection and autoimmune disease, but it controls appetite, food cravings and even blood-sugar regulation

          Does it make sense to add residues from a substance intended solely to kill beneficial organisms, if it can be avoided?

          • hyperzombie

            “but because if the purpose of a preservative is to suppress the growth of bacteria,”

            The world’s most popular preservative is salt, do you avoid that?

            • Paleo Huntress

              Nope. People have been consuming salt for thousands of years will no ill effects. Try again.

              • hyperzombie

                Glyphosate is a salt.

                • Paleo Huntress

                  Oooooh, you so clevah!

                  Playing word games doesn’t support your argument, it merely demonstrates your inability to participate genuinely in a discussion.

                  Sodium chloride.

                  Try again.

              • hyperzombie

                Drink a couple of glasses of all natural sea water and get back to me..

                • Paleo Huntress

                  I routinely drink salt water before a heavy workout.

                  Your argument just fails at every turn.

                  • Mike

                    I bet zombie wouldn’t drink a glass of glyphosate under any circumstances.

              • jam8canpops

                Believe it or not salt is essential in one’s diet.The problem is too much salt.

    • Pingback: Breaking News: Toxic Chemicals Are Bad For Food - Good Whole Food()

    • Bev Jo

      Just drink it, Monsanto, until you are gone….

    • FrenchKissed

      The Canadian study the IARC cites does not show a link between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma as they claim. You can see it here http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/10/11/1155.full.pdf+html

      It wasn’t done on farmers. The study involved a case group of NHL patients and a control group and looked at their exposure to pesticides. For glyphosate exposure, the groups broke down thusly-

      (in days per year)

      Case Group

      0 / 90.1%

      >0/ 5.4%

      >2/ 4.5%

      Control Group

      0 / 91.2%

      >0/ 6.4%

      >2/ 2.4%

      The researchers claimed that while there was no statistical significance linking glyphosate to NHL, it did show a dose response relationship- as if that changes anything! Especially with a randomly chosen benchmark for the dose. Even more telling was this:

      ” Cases were less likely to have a history of measles or mumps and more likely to have a personal history of a previous primary cancer. Cases were more likely than controls to have a positive family history of cancer, whereas more controls had undergone allergy desensitization injections. A slightly higher proportion of cases than controls indicated cumulative exposure to pesticides of ≥10 h per year.”

      In the case group 14.1% had previously had cancer compared to 5.8% in the control.

      Also, 42.4% of the case group reported a family history of cancer in a first- degree relative compared to 33% in the control group.

      I haven’t looked at the other studies cited, but this one is every bit as much a data fishing expedition as a Seralini study.

      • Bruce__H

        The way I read the paper they showed a significantly raised incidenc of NHL in the case group for >2 days per year exposure to glyphosate with a fairly large odds ratio of 2.12. There was no significant effect when NHL indicence for the 2 levels of exposure were combined.

        Your point about the benchmark for the dose-response has some teeth except that the problem seems to be not that it is randomly chosen but the reverse. The authors have chosen different exposure benchmarks for different agents and from their description there is no way of knowing if they didn’t choose these benchmarks precisely because they produced the most significant effects.

        • FrenchKissed

          Actually, that’s kind of what I meant by “randomly chosen.” Perhaps I worded it poorly. All I meant was there was no obvious justification for picking those benchmarks, and (as you mentioned) they were not consistent with the other substances evaluated for the study. Perhaps if they picked a third benchmark at >5 days, they would have had one guy left in the control group and no one in the NHL group.

          While I realize there was a fairly large odds ratio in the case group at >2 days/year, it seems a bit meaningless given that 90.1 percent in the case group and 91.2 percent in the control group had no exposure. I am not a scientist, so maybe I’m just ignorant, but I would think that if there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups, that should be the end of the story, at least as far as this study is concerned.

          • Bruce__H

            I have no objection to stratifying a sample so as to avoid confounds. But the stratification needs to be set before seeing the data otherwise the random structure assumed in any test is violated.

    • justin moreau
      • Terry Hill

        OH, so the retracted Seralini study? Really?

    • justin moreau
    • robertg222

      I was shopping for a drain cleaner one time. I was reading all the labels trying to figure out which one was best. Then I found one that was labeled “banned in California”. So that is the one I bought and it worked great. Thank you CA for making it easier to buy the right product.

      • Paleo Huntress

        Because equating the quality of your daily nourishment with a caustic substance that reams out toilet pipes is the way to go.

        • hyperzombie

          No, I think want he is saying is that some products that are banned in CA are highly effective at cleaning out his drains.

          • Ken Riel

            Just one, not some. He said it “worked great”, but if he only tried one product then a relational/positional value (highly) doesn’t really make sense, maybe that’s why he used a less specific value assessment.

            • hyperzombie

              OK

    • Moparman

      Those EPA morons are just finding that out now I guess Monsanto forgot to pay off California’s EPA like they do the rest of the morons that pass these cancer causing garbage to be used on our food Monsanto has done nothing but lie like a rug ever since day one back in the DDT days but they are allowed to genetically modify our food like they are mother nature when all they are is a big greedy company that wants to take over the food supply so there chemicals can be sold and they don’t care how many people they kill and poison as long as they are making money who cares about anything else.

    • Stephen McCallister

      Good. Now maybe the US will join the rest of the world and ban GMO’s. Spain and Hungary burned all GMO fields and outlawed GMO’s.

      • Moparman

        Just wait Monsanto will send the boys down to talk to the EPA in California with a big suite case and soon Roundup will be safe again How do you think it was passed in the first place and how they were allowed to play with our food so they can make the food live when these poisons are sprayed on it

        • Warren Lauzon

          I wonder why nobody else – of the thousands that produce products on that list – could not afford to buy off the EPA in CA, but Monsanto can?

          • Mike

            Because that is Monsanto’s standard operating procedure. If you would stop trolling articles like this and watch the news, you might learn something.
            You do realize that all these comments you make are keeping these stories in the headlines. They choose the topic based on the number of comments it generates.

          • hyperzombie

            Monsanto bucks are worth Billions….

      • John Mills

        Too many unscrupulous politicians willing to take a buck off unscrupulous companies. 1st you need to vote out the dill weeds, then consider going after them criminally.

        • Mike

          The problem is that every single presidential candidate is sponsored by Monsanto. Well, except for Bernie Sanders. We need to vote for Bernie.

          • hyperzombie

            So a company that is smaller than Starbucks and the Gap has enough money to buy all the presidential candidates and the EPA, FDA and USDA, but somehow they do not have enough money to buy Bernie Sanders? I would stop drinking so much bong water if I was you.

            • Mike

              You are an ignorant piece of $hit. I understand you have to spread your propaganda, but you are still an ignorant piece of $hit.

              • hyperzombie

                Funny so you have no evidence of anything, but yet call me ignorant… You are so funny,,, keep on drinking the bong water.

                • Mike

                  I call you ignorant because no matter what evidence you are presented with, you would dismiss it if it does not align with your views. Ignorant means a lack of knowledge, which you clearly demonstrate from your post. I did not call you stupid, but you are slipping closer and closer to that definition. Probably all the acid and mushrooms you’re on. You need rehab.

                  • hyperzombie

                    Put up some evidence…….What are you scared of

                  • GMO Roberts

                    What he said is easy to look up, instead of answering him, you prove him right.

                    • Mike

                      Everything that everyone says is easy to look up. The problem is that both sides have already made up their minds and there doesn’t seem to be any middle ground at all. hyperdumbass is just a troll. He doesn’t make any sense whatsoever and keeps changing the subject. I bet you are just pissed off because you and your boyfriend there are having trouble getting your marriage license.

                      • GMO Roberts

                        Yes with childish comments like that it is easy to find the middle ground isn’t it? You seem to change the subject several times in just a short statement and each time it just got more degrading. Congrats.

      • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

        Actually, that was Greenpeace, not those country’s governments. Also, they have ,em>not banned them: http://ec.europa.eu/food/dyna/gm_register/index_en.cfm Sorry that you got your info wrong.

        • Stephen McCallister

          Sorry but I didn’t see anything about green peace there… I didn’t see any GMO corn or other things for human consumption… might want to check your sources.

          • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

            Sorry but I didn’t see anything about green peace there

            I never said, nor implied, that you would.

            I didn’t see any GMO corn or other things for human consumption

            (facepalm) So, you’ve never seen a search engine. That’s impressive.

      • hyperzombie

        Spain grows GMOs, and the EU imports millions of tons of them every year.

        • Mike

          Maybe so, but they at least label them. I guess their government doesn’t have a revolving door with Monsanto the way our government does.

          • GMO Roberts

            Why don’t you go buy meat and products there and tell me how many are labeled. What you will find is zero of them are even though most livestock in the EU eat gmos.

          • Chlytie

            Spain unfortunately doesn’t label all gmo’s… it’s sort of behind the rest of Europe… although it does label many products, and it says very clearly, “NON GMO” (in Spanish). Some products are not labelled, while other products you have to read in the ingredients to see if it says “non-gmo” soybeans.

        • Stephen McCallister

          Might want to actually read something beside what you are told because that is not true.

          • hyperzombie

            Sorry you are wrong. Spain grows GMO corn (not a lot) and Germany imports 48 million tons of GMO soy per year.
            It would be easy to confirm these facts, but I am thinking that you will not bother.

    • justin moreau

      All of you Monsanto supporters are FOOLS. Look at the history of Monsanto lying and saying their products are safe. Aspertame, DEETect ect.

      • lollerlaban

        Aspertame is the most thoroughly researched of them all and has been declared safe for a while now.

        • Andrew Thomas Harrelson

          Aspertame is not safe, I and a friend will both suffer seizures if we drink a diet pop or another product with Aspertame in it. My Neurologist also look it up on His computer and found that some Neurologist give some of the people in their care Diet Coke(sweetened with Aspertame) to induce Grand Maul Seizures for test purpouses.

        • Ananda van den Bos
          • Ananda van den Bos

            Aspartame is most definitely not safe.

          • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

            Well, crap. She cited Mercola. Alright guys, our work is finished. We’ve been defeated by the guy who sells “supplements” which cure what he says you have.

            • Dave

              Aspartame was only approved because a Searle puppet was in charge of the FDA and even had to appoint an extra board member to vote for it so he could break a tie. Mercola has been called a quack and only interested in selling supplements. I’ve been reading his articles for many years and almost everything he used to preach, and be criticized for, has been reported recently as fact. I see the Monsanto defenders are out in full force for this article. Monsanto has been buying scientists to sign off on the safety of their products more than once and has been caught red handed doing so.

              If you want to know the truth abpout Aspartame continue reading.

              A chemist from the company called G.D. Searle. accidentally creates aspartame while trying to create a cure for stomach ulcers. Searle decides to put aspartame through a
              testing process which eventually leads to its approval by the FDA. Not long after, serious health effects begin to arise and G.D. Searle comes under fire for their testing practices. It is revealed that the testing process of Aspartame was among the worst the investigators had ever seenand that in fact the product was unsafe for use. Aspartame triggers the
              first criminal investigation of a manufacturer put into place by the FDA in 1977. By 1980 the FDA bans aspartame from use after having 3 independent scientists study the sweetener. It was determined that onemain health effects was that it had a high chance of inducing brain tumors. At this point it was clear that aspartame was not fit to be used
              in foods and banned is where it stayed, but not for long.

              Early in 1981 Searle Chairman Donald Rumsfeld (who is a former Secretary of Defense.. surprise surprise) vowed to “call in his markers,” to get it approved. January 21, 1981,
              the day after Ronald Reagan’s inauguration, Searle took the steps to re-apply aspartame’s approval for use by the FDA. Ronald Reagans’ new FDA commissioner Arthur Hayes Hull, Jr., appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry’s decision. It did not take long for the panel to decide 3-2 in favor of maintaining the ban of aspartame. Hull then decided to appoint a 6th member to the board, which created a tie in the voting, 3-3. Hull then decided to personally break the tie and approve aspartame for use. Hull later left the FDA under allegations of impropriety, served briefly as Provost at New York Medical College, and then took a position with Burston-Marsteller.
              Burstone-Marstella is the chief public relations firm for both Monsanto and GD Searle. Since that time he has never spoken publicly about aspartame.

              • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

                Psst: I got a little secret for you: Mercola has Never been correct. Another secret for you: Just because someone worked at one job doesn’t mean crap when they move to another. A final, potentially mind blowing secret for you: Monsanto is not the only GE company out there and the sell organic seed, too. They have for years.

                • Paleo Huntress

                  Oh don’t be ridiculous, of course Mercola is correct sometimes.

                  • hyperzombie

                    When,,,,Mercola is like a stopped watch only accurate by accident.

                  • disqus_k3oycamN0W

                    Mercola is correct always, but can you expect from the shill to praise anyone who tells the truth? He is here to spread his employer’s lies. The tactic is : when every line is a lie, and 5-10 lies are present in every post, nobody will waste time refuting a whole big dirty bucket of his. So he kind of has a last word. Which is the purpose of Monsanto PR department.

                    • Paleo Huntress

                      I’m a fan, but I don’t believe Mercola is correct always. (ie: microwaves) It is these “all or nothing” polarized positions that make it so hard to communicate effectively. At the very least, he provides the data he bases his positions on, and I have a starting place for my research. Sometimes his position is not supported by his research, but I respect his right to come to his own conclusions. He’s a thoughtful, intelligent practitioner but he’s also human.

                • justin moreau

                  Actually in Monsantos case and many others it does matter. When an executive at Monsanto moves into a position of power at the FDA or the USDA they stay on the Monsanto payroll and do their bidding. Although I will say that you should ask your boss for a raise. Out of all the people on this discussion thread that are getting paid to defend Monsanto you have made some of the best arguments. Well done Sir, but no one believes the bull $h!t lies that come from Monsanto. Everyone knows they are evil and corrupt manufacturers of death. But come again!

                  • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

                    The only response I have for that is this: https://youtu.be/wcinzmfZeCc

                  • disqus_k3oycamN0W

                    Why do you think the shill going under the name Foster makes the best arguments? Look at his vocabulary. He can say nothing but “dumbass”, “idiot” etc., or post cartoons. He is example of imbecile who calls people much smarter than him “idiots” And interesting thing is, when I ridicule those Monsanto shills here, mediator deletes my posts immediately, despite the fact that my vocabulary is literary. What he is protecting? This moderator can not tolerate any wit and originality, but boring posts, but Foster’s verbal diarrhea he welcomes and doesn’t delete. The word “imbecile” toward Foster is my strongest one so far, because Foster 1. deserves it 2. His tongue behind his iron cage is dirtiest of everyone on this board. 3. Brain is absent – he can not be offended

                    • Terrafurtive

                      Sorry, but Foster is not a shill. The good shills are vetted and vested with industry. They have cogent arguments and support their arguments with references. Farmerson63 is a good example, he’s respectable. Foster is a poser, he hasn’t got the scientific cojones to have any credibility. Hopefully he will go away and bother a junior high crowd.

                • Dave

                  Mercola backs up his comments with links to peer reviewed research. Of course that doesn’t matter to people like you. You actually believe that Monsanto’s doesn’t have scientists on their payroll that will say anything Monsanto wants them to or you’re being paid to defend them. Either way there is no way you will change your stance on the matter. You will continue to lie about the chemical industry no matter how much evidence we show you.

                  • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

                    “Mercola backs up his comments with links to peer reviewed research. ” HahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahahaHahahahaha

                    • Paleo Huntress

                      Mercola’s blog post today is titled, Two Meals a Day Is Ideal, But Which Two Is Up to You”

                      He cites the Time Magazine article (the data hasn’t been published yet), and the following citations to scholarly journals subject to peer-review.

                      Obesity September 2015: 23(9); 1785-1791
                      Nature Communications June 17, 2013
                      Journals of Gerontology, Series A July 17, 2015 [Epub ahead of print]
                      American Journal of Clinical Nutrition July 2007: 86(1); 7-13
                      Cell Metabolism December 2, 2014: 20(6); 991-1005
                      Cell Metabolism June 18, 2015
                      British Journal of Diabetes & Vascular Disease March/April 2013: 13(2); 68-72
                      Cell Stem Cell June 5, 2014

                      What a laugh riot that is!

                      • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

                        (the data hasn’t been published yet) Think about that. Take all the time you need. And then, a bit more.

                      • Paleo Huntress

                        There is no need to take any time to think about it. Researchers often give press releases before the data is published, there is nothing untoward about it. But then even if you wanted to make a stink about it, there is also the cited PUBLISHED data backing it up. This is the very definition of responsible reporting on a health-topic.

                      • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

                        (sigh) I’ll explain this to you because you’ve been fooled by that fraud.

                        “Avoid primary sources (ones in which the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences). Instead, utilize secondary sources (which summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic, to make recommendations, or to combine the results of several studies). The reason secondary sources are so valuable is that they combine the works of several authors (and presumably locations), eliminating biases of one laboratory or one study. Secondary sources also include repetition of experiments that support or refute a hypothesis.” – Skeptical Raptor (http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/judging-quality-science-sources/)

                        You should never take press releases as anything useful because 99.9999999% of the time, they are junk and/or bs. If the paper were of any use, they’d have been published in a quality peer-reviewed journal.

                      • Paleo Huntress

                        Your argument would only be valid if I stopped at the press release. I don’t. It is a heads-up that alerts me that it’s due out soon. Then I’ll go to the actual journal and read the data for myself.

                        And again, there is also the additional cited PUBLISHED data backing it up.

                        Once more? There is also the additional cited PUBLISHED data backing it up.

                      • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

                        Wrong again. I’ll allow one of my favorite TV doctors to tell you how wrong: https://youtu.be/FPD5q6DC43M

                      • TZ

                        You do know the more you post the more ignorant you look?

                      • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

                        Yet, you keep posting.

                      • TZ

                        How does that even make sense when the comment was directed towards YOU…illogic trolls bore me!

                      • Paleo Huntress

                        Yes, Scrubs memes are always a good choice when your argument fails. Good for you. 😉

                      • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

                        Ya know, it’s not called a come back because you leave, and then return 22 days later when you’ve thought of something.

                      • Paleo Huntress

                        Or, you respond when you see the meme for the first time at the site because the notification that came to email 22 days earlier didn’t include the image.

                        Yikes.

                      • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

                        Ooh. Nice cover.

                      • Paleo Huntress

                        The truth usually is.

                        You’re kind of a nub, aren’t you, Robert.

                      • Terrafurtive

                        Why are you still here? No one ordered coffee. What you said is the most scientifically inane statement ever written, clearly by someone lacking science training. You couldn’t possibly know anything about the politics of review writing. Stop bothering us with your pretender science speak. I can’t wait to show this around, it’s a real gem.

                    • Dave

                      Typical. When you can’t refute the facts, just laugh it off. Well here is a link for you to look at. Of course you will brush it off as being nonsense. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Glyphosate_is_Carcinogenic.php This is just one of hundreds of sources backing up Mercola’s statements. He doesn’t make this stuff up and he doesn’t do the research himself. He simply reports on research done by peer reviewed studies.

                      • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

                        I laugh at those who insist they have facts, but only have bullshite. Mae-Wan Ho believes in homeopathy, which strikes her out. Joe Cummins is an ecconomist , not a biologist, or geneticist, which strikes him out. Peter Saunders is a Mathematician, not a biologist, or geneticist, so he’s out. And Eva Sirinathinghji has never written any research at all. She’s only been an assistant on three. She’s out. Your source has failed this trial.

                • tinfoilhatttt

                  Wow, the trolls are becoming more stupid by the day…must be the Roundup/aspartame/fluoride, etc. they consume massive amounts of-

                  • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

                    Your Disqus name is quite accurate. I’ll give you that.

        • Moparman

          Yes Roundup was declared safe too so was DDT’s would you like to have a big heaping bowl of it?

        • John Mills

          Which study are you looking at. Stevia is a natural safe alternative.

        • disqus_k3oycamN0W

          Aspartame makes you bloated, wreaks havoc on your brain satiety centers, in the long run makes you fat and, and in a short run metabolized by the liver into methanol and formaldehyde (embalming fluid – carcinogen). But for those who live with head in the sand it is very safe.

          • FrenchKissed

            You don’t think that fat people might be more likely to consume aspartame? How many people do you think were thin up until they started drinking diet sodas? Do you know anyone that switched from diet soda to regular soda and lost weight as a result (without decreasing their total soda intake)?

            Metabolic formaldehyde isn’t the same thing as embalming fluid. It is produced during digestion when dietary proteins are broken down into amino acids. It is not carcinogenic

            • TZ

              Liar,liar pants on fire….http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/17119233/

              Results of long-term carcinogenicity bioassay on Sprague-Dawley rats exposed to aspartame administered in feed.

              Authors

              Belpoggi F, et al. Show all

              Journal

              Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2006 Sep;1076:559-77.

              Affiliation

              Abstract

              Aspartame (APM) is one of the most widely used artificial sweeteners in the world. Its ever-growing use in more than 6000 products, such as soft drinks, chewing gum, candy, desserts, etc., has been accompanied by rising consumer concerns regarding its safety, in particular its potential long-term carcinogenic effects. In light of the inadequacy of the carcinogenicity bioassays performed in the 1970s and 1980s, a long-term mega-experiment on APM was undertaken at the Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center of the European Ramazzini Foundation on groups of male and female Sprague-Dawley rats (100-150/sex/group), 8 weeks old at the start of the experiment. APM was administered in feed at concentrations of 100,000, 50,000, 10,000, 2,000, 400, 80, or 0 ppm. Treatment lasted until spontaneous death of the animals. The results of the study demonstrate that APM causes: (a) an increased incidence of malignant tumor-bearing animals, with a positive significant trend in both sexes, and in particular in females treated at 50,000 ppm (P < or = 0.01) when compared to controls; (b) an increase in lymphomas-leukemias, with a positive significant trend in both sexes, and in particular in females treated at doses of 100,000 (P < or = 0.01), 50,000 (P < or = 0.01), 10,000 (P < or = 0.05), 2000 (P < or = 0.05), and 400 ppm (P < or = 0.01); (c) a statistically significant increased incidence, with a positive significant trend, of transitional cell carcinomas of the renal pelvis and ureter in females and particularly in those treated at 100,000 ppm (P < or = 0.05); and (d) an increased incidence of malignant schwannomas of the peripheral nerves, with a positive trend in males (P < or = 0.05). The results of this mega-experiment indicate that APM, in the tested experimental conditions, is a multipotential carcinogenic agent.

              • FrenchKissed

                What are you, 8 years old?

                That study is using insane amounts of aspartame. If they switched vitamin E for the high dose aspartame (100,000 PPM) it would have killed half the rats in the first week. Also, a schwannoma is a benign tumor. There is no evidence of harm at even twice the ADI.

                http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/3496
                http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17828671

                Regardless, none of what you said refutes my two points-
                1/ The reason why so many diet soda drinkers are fat is because fat people are more likely to drink diet soda.
                2/ Metabolic formaldehyde is not the same thing as embalming fluid.

                • TZ

                  It was called levity…. Look it up… 🙂 No it is not using insane amounts especially considering some people drink a 6 pack of diet pop a day and some even more! Also they are getting aspartame in candy, gum, etc. there are a plethora of products that contain Aspartame!

                  • FrenchKissed

                    Okay, sh** for brains- levity, gotcha 😉

                    Aspartame is 200 times sweeter than sucrose, so there’s not a lot of it in a can of soda. To meet the 50 mg/kg ADI for aspartame, a 165 lbs person would need to drink 21 cans of diet soda.

                    Personally, I’m not a fan of the taste, and I mostly drink unsweetened carbonated beverages. But there is no evidence of harm even when consumed at levels typical of diabetics.

                    • TZ

                      BS! Oh please you biotech trolls are a trip, in that you think your posting your opinions is gospel…. Narcissism anyone? Party of one!

                      • FrenchKissed

                        Sometimes I do post opinions, and I may seem somewhat narcissistic when I do so. The post to which you are responding is not based on opinion, but stone cold, verifiable fact (with the exception of my beverage preferences).

                        According the the National Cancer Institute “FDA’s Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of aspartame is 50 mg per kilogram of body weight or about 3,750 mg (21 cans of diet soda) for an adult weighing 75 kilograms (165 lb). ”

                        You can check the math- if the ADI is 50 mg/kg, then a person weighing 75 kg would have an ADI of 50 * 75 or 3750. Since a can of diet soda has roughly 180 mg of aspartame, 3750 /180 = 20.83 cans of diet soda.

                      • TZ

                        French kissed, who cares what the FDA says about the ADI? You act like the FDA can do no wrong and they don’t approve products that are later recalled because they suck at regulating. Just cherry-picking data as the basis for NOAEL is not science, it is pseudoscience!!!

            • Paleo Huntress

              I find no evidence that there is any difference at all, though I suspect the poison is in the dose.

              • FrenchKissed

                That is correct. As with vitamins A D and E, table salt and plain drinking water- consuming vast quantities over a short period can cause death by toxemia.

      • Moparman

        DDT, Agent Orange The thing with Monsanto is they have lot’s of money that’s how they get there posion’s passed in the first place`the EPA, & Government get a big green stack of bills and soon it’s all passed and labeled safe

      • Warren Lauzon

        Look at the history of the OCA lying and saying their products are safe. Please show me one scientific study that says either of those is not safe if used as directed.

        • Rob Bright

          Known pro-GMO troll and shill, Warren Lauzon, at it again: nothing better to do with his time than support his corporate overlords and shamelessly attempt to confuse the public and spread pseudoscience/misinformation about biotechnology. Truly pathetic…

          • vm0404

            then prove that warren’s statements are false

    • justin moreau
      • justin moreau

        up

    • GMO Robert is a troll

      You couldnt pay me enough money to support Monsanto’s products and food “innovations”.

      Its the same tired argument. Oh but they have 10,20,30,40+ years of “independant” research studies done.

      What they have is private studies done purely in the interest of profit.

      • justin moreau

        Lets put this back at the top right next to the milk cover up.

    • Cynthia D. Eliason

      Why does this article use a photo of the far more toxic Alachlor? The invention of the much safer glyphosate meant less use of Alachlor.

      • Zampolit

        It is an article in Antimedia.

      • Laura Palmer

        Oh PLEASE don’t try to tell us that glyphosate is SAFE AT ALL. This is a HUGE victory. Monsanto is acting stupid to put doubt in the minds of the public. Eat it if you want, but all the European nations that have banned roundup and GMOs know better than you.

        • Zampolit

          Use all caps. That’s how to best demonstrate your knowledge and strength of conviction.

          • justin moreau

            YEP

        • Zampolit

          Quick question but a bit off-topic. What are your thoughts about the recent measles outbreak in the Congo? 20,000 sickened with measles & over 300 dead. The majority of them children.

        • Warren Lauzon

          How many places do you think have actually banned Roundup?

          • justin moreau

            NOT NEAR ENOUGH

            • Warren Lauzon

              So in other words, you don’t have a clue.

        • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

          Even if they did ban RoundUp (which they haven’t), the would still be able to use glyphosate. China is the biggest manufacturer of it nowadays.

      • Paleo Huntress

        Is this better?

        • Zampolit

          That’s the same protective gear workers wear when they have to handle substances approved for use under the organic standards.

          • Paleo Huntress

            I don’t know why that matters. Organic doesn’t equal safe.

            • TZ

              Although it does mean safer and organic pesticides degrade quickly in the environment but the whole premise of organic farming is to AVOID pesticides….

              • hyperzombie

                The whole premise of ALL agriculture is to avoid pesticides. Like Duh, do you think that they are free?

                • TZ

                  What planet are on? The whole point of GM crops…There are two main GE crops—One is BT toxin which is an unnatural synthetic form of a naturally occurring soil bacteria which is far more toxic than its natural counterpart, this unnatural bacterium has been genetically engineered into the seed, so this toxin is then expressed in every cell of the plant, it cannot be washed off nor will it degrade in sunlight like its natural counterpart, another fun FACT is our corn then becomes a registered pesticide with the EPA…yummy….then there are Roundup Ready crops that have been genetically engineered to withstand heavy doses of Roundup without dying, so mothers get to feed their babies Glyphosate ridden breast milk which the WHO (World Health Organization) deemed as a probable carcinogen and the rest of us get to process it though our kidneys and out in our urine, etc……Not to mention the active retro virus called the cauliflower mosaic virus that is used to turn the desired trait on and then the antibiotic marker used to ascertain if the desired trait is being expressed… antibiotic resistance anyone? There were never any independent, long-term, minimum of 3 mammalian species, preferably multi-generational studies done to deduce toxicology in human beings concerning the consumption of GMOs…. it’s criminal that they were allowed into our food supply….PERIOD!

                  These are the genetically engineered crops to avoid…buy organic or Non GMO project verified until we can obtain proper labeling and transparency…..corn, soy, canola, cottonseed, zucchini, crooked neck squash, papaya, alfalfa, potatoes, apples plus some wheat and rice have contamination…over 80 percent of the food found on grocery store shelves contain at least one of these crop ingredients in there processed product …such as HFCS, modified corn starch, hydrolyzed yeast protein, MSG, soy lethicin and many more are hidden ingredients in these processed foods…. another crop most people would never think about is genetically modified bacteria which can be used to ferment cheese, wine, beer, dairy products and let’s not forget aspartame/ NutraSweet which is made from genetically modified bacteria excretions / waste..you also need to watch out for the synthetic genetically modified bovine growth hormone (rBGH/rBST) this is found in milk and some dairy products…http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9bkN0hv8yLc ….http://www.foxbghsuit.com/bgh3.htm watch out for GMO salmon which will ruin the environment and GMO apples…they have 2, 4-D crops which is a component of Agent Orange, waiting in wings for approval; as Roundup ready crops have failed because of super weeds and super bugs….so as previously stated now the active ingredient in Roundup which is Glyphosate can be found in human urine, human breast milk, organs, even bones and Bt toxin has been found in blood… Next we will have 2, 4-D to add to our bodily fluids but hey do not worry BIOTECH says it is perfectly safe… We must stop the lunacy before its too late!

                  • justin moreau

                    He is paid by Monsanto to go on the internet and defend them.

                    • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

                      Shill gambit. Translation: I have no further arguments. I have been defeated.

                      Thanks for playing. You can see yourself out now.

              • JoeFarmer

                No, the whole premise of organic farming is to create an aura of, “goodness” while complying with an artificial list of certain ag chemicals, and hoping that consumers don’t catch on.

                • TZ

                  http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9874504b6f1025eb0e6b67cadf9d3b40&rgn=div6&view=text&node=7%3A3.1.1.9.32.7&idno=7&hc_location=ufi#se7.3.205_1601

                  Who are you trying to kid. Organic is regulated, the whole point of organic is to AVOID ALL pesticides but if a situation arises and it is nessasary it cannot contaminate the crop, soil or water!
                  GM crops by design CONTAMINATE ALL of the above!

                • TZ

                  USDA National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) definition, April 1995

                  “Organic agriculture is an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity. It is based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain and enhance ecological harmony.
                  “‘Organic’ is a labeling term that denotes products produced under the authority of the Organic Foods Production Act. The principal guidelines for organic production are to use materials and practices that enhance the ecological balance of natural systems and that integrate the parts of the farming system into an ecological whole.
                  “Organic agriculture practices cannot ensure that products are completely free of residues; however, methods are used to minimize pollution from air, soil and water.
                  “Organic food handlers, processors and retailers adhere to standards that maintain the integrity of organic agricultural products. The primary goal of organic agriculture is to optimize the health and productivity of interdependent communities of soil life, plants, animals and people.”

                  CFR Regulatory Text, 7 CFR Part 205, Subpart A — Definitions. § 205.2 Terms defined

                  “Organic production. A production system that is managed in accordance with the Act and regulations in this part to respond to site-specific conditions by integrating cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity.” USDA National Organic Program. http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/NOP/standards/DefineReg.html

                • TZ

                  USDA Consumer Brochure: Organic Food Standards and Labels: The Facts

                  “What is organic food? Organic food is produced by farmers who emphasize the use of renewable resources and the conservation of soil and water to enhance environmental quality for future generations. Organic meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy products come from animals that are given no antibiotics or growth hormones. Organic food is produced without using most conventional pesticides; fertilizers made with synthetic ingredients or sewage sludge; bioengineering; or ionizing radiation. Before a product can be labeled ‘organic,’ a Government-approved certifier inspects the farm where the food is grown to make sure the farmer is following all the rules necessary to meet USDA organic standards. Companies that handle or process organic food before it gets to your local supermarket or restaurant must be certified, too.” Consumer Brochure, USDA National Organic Program, http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/Consumers/brochure.html

                  • justin moreau

                    Ouch you mean no antibiotics or growth hormones. I’m pretty sure Monsanto has been covering up how cancerous those are too…..for years.

                    • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

                      That would be impressive indeed. For a seed company to care about pharmaceuticals.

                      • justin moreau

                        Actually Monsanto owns a lot of Pharmaceuticals that they know are dangerous and sell anyway. Watch the video about the milk cover up. You shills will not win. The truth is not stoppable anymore with the advances in communication. Sorry Monsanto will go bankrupt one of these days.

                      • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

                        I’ll give you conspiracy nuts one thing: You’re entertaining.

                      • GMO Roberts

                        Why don’t you enlighten us on all the pharmaceuticals they own. In reality Monsanto is quite small when compared to the real agriculture/pharmaceutical companies.

                      • justin moreau
                      • justin moreau

                        Do some research and learn a little about your client.

                      • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG
                  • hyperzombie

                    Nothing says “Renewable or Sustainable” like a Organic farmers flame weeder being pulled by a diesel tractor. Nothing like burning up to 9 gallons of propane per acre, just to kill some weeds.
                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuuSJf8JHq4

                    • Warren Lauzon

                      But propane is natural.. Just remember, a dinosaur died for that photo.

                    • TZ

                      Oh yeah…what did you graduate from YouTube university??? Sheesh….just kidding I am not an idiot like your cohorts…kinda genius…using fire instead of cancer causing pesticides…. Awesome!!!

                      • hyperzombie

                        So buning organics does not release cancer causing agents in to the air that we all breath? If you think that this weed control method is Awesome, you are truly an Idiot.

                      • TZ

                        Ummm, they start forest fires for a reason….http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/dbnf/home/?cid=stelprdb5281464 Controlled Burning
                        The Daniel Boone National Forest uses controlled burning and mechanical treatments to reduce the risk of wildland fire, improve wildlife habitat and riparian zones, control noxious weeds and improve watershed and range conditions in eastern Kentucky.
                        History
                        The historic suppression of fire has resulted in a lack of periodic, natural fire in our forest. The absence of these low intensity fires has increased the risk of large fire events and has negatively impacted the health of our forests. As part of an effort to use fire as a resource management tool, the Daniel Boone National Forest is reviewing existing resource management and fire management plans to develop an integrated fire planning strategy.
                        Controlled fires are used on public lands in order to improve forest health, and reduce large wildfires. Controlled fire is used only under appropriate conditions and at appropriate sites. The Forest Service has identified areas where controlled fire can be used as a management tool.
                        Historic Role of Fire:
                        Fire plays an important and critical role in influencing vegetation and the lifecycles of trees and plant communities. Many species are dependent on fire.
                        The historic suppression of fire has resulted in a lack of periodic, natural fire in our forest. The absence of periodic, low intensity fires have increased the risk of large fire events and has negatively impacted the health of our forests.
                        Due to our successful prevention and suppression efforts, fire patterns were markedly altered during the past century. In the absence of fire, massive insect and disease epidemics and various other forest health problems have proliferated.
                        Need for Controlled Burning:
                        Controlled burning will help the Forest Service achieve improved forest and rangeland health and will help reduce the threat of large fire events.
                        Controlled burning allows the Forest Service to control the effects of fire, its location and intensity.
                        Controlled burning can be managed or controlled to reduce the intensity and magnitude of bigger wildfires by reducing the accumulation of flammable fuels.
                        Wildfires threaten public safety, impair forest and ecosystem health, and degrade air quality.
                        Wildfires can pose serious threats to public health and safety, as well as to air quality. Because the fires are uncontrolled, they pose significant threats to the safety of firefighters and general public and destroy property. The intense or extended periods of smoke associated with uncontrolled fires can also cause serious health problems and significantly decrease visibility. Controlled burning is used to minimize the emissions and adverse impacts of smoke on public health and the environment.
                        What is “Controlled Burning”?
                        Controlled burning is any fire intentionally ignited to meet specific land management objectives, such as to reduce flammable fuels, restore ecosystem health, recycle nutrients, or prepare an area for new trees or vegetation. Controlled burning is a management tool that when used under specifically controlled conditions will help land stewards manage forests and rangelands for multiple use.
                        Land management agencies have done a tremendous job educating the public about the dangers of wildland fire and reducing the number of human caused fires. However, it is important to realize that not all fire is bad. In fact, many of our ecosystems are dependent on fire.
                        Fire historically crept through these areas with low intensity.
                        Every 5 to 15 years, fire regenerated the forest and cleansed the understory of potential hazardous fuels. These historic fires were not the devastating wildfires of recent years.
                        Frequent cool fires acted as a natural agent reducing surface fuels and all but eliminated large, stand replacing, fire events that have become too frequent during the last three decades.
                        Fire exclusion practices have resulted in forests being plagued with a variety of problems, including overcrowding resulting from encroachment of species normally eliminated by fire; vulnerability of trees to insects and disease; and inadequate reproduction of fire resistant species. In addition, heavy accumulation of fuel — dead vegetation of forest floors– can cause catastrophic fires, threaten public safety, impair forests and ecosystem health, and degrade air quality.
                        The Forest Service has made it a priority to reintroduce fire into fire dependent ecosystems to help promote ecosystem health. Controlled burning is viewed by the land management agencies as an agent of change that helps “mother nature” return an ecosystem to its historic range.
                        When to Use “Controlled Burning”
                        Understanding fire is a science. The ability to know when an ecosystem is ready for controlled burning is science. When a land management agency restores fire to a given area, they first must define the objectives that the fire would achieve. There are also many elements of nature that must be just right to meet the objectives of controlled burning, from both dead and live fuel moistures, air temperature, to wind speed and humidity. This is referred to as the “burn window,” the preplanned condition targeted for burning. Due to the uncertainty of these natural elements, fire specialists monitor the critical elements of nature.
                        Controlled Burning and Air Quality
                        How fire affects air quality depends on many factors, including weather conditions, such as wind and humidity; the scope and severity of the fire; and the type and quantity of fuels burned.
                        Smoke contains a number of pollutants. Tiny particles created from the smoke is a concern because it can cause serious health problems. Smoke also adversely affects the clarity of our air, which in turn, affects the distance and sharpness of what we see.
                        Unplanned or unwanted fires can pose serious threats to public health and safety, as well as to air quality. Because these fires are uncontrolled, they can pose significant threats to the safety of firefighters and the general public, as well as destroy property.
                        On the other hand, planned or managed fires, are used to minimize the emissions and adverse impacts of smoke on public health and the environment. Many techniques are used to manage the impacts from smoke, including scheduling burning during favorable weather conditions and controlling the amount of fuel and acreage burned. In addition, all planned fire activities are already subject to state air quality regulations.
                        Fuels in your National Forest
                        Fire has been a natural part of this forest’s ecosystem for a very long time. Throughout time wildfires ignited and burned naturally through the forest. Some were caused by lightning and some were intentionally started by Native Americans. These low intensity fires in the past kept the forest floor free from the natural annual build up of tree needles, dead grass, thick brush, and dead trees. As a result, fire has shaped vegetation patterns and wildlife distributions in the national forests.
                        The next time you are camping, hiking or driving in your national norest notice how much limb wood, brush, and dense thickets of small trees cover the forest floor. This build up of fuel feeds wildfires. Today, fires that are not caught when they are small quickly build in size and fire intensity into catastrophic wildfires.
                        The Forest Service uses controlled burning as its way to put fire back into the ecosystem. As you read on you’ll discover the value of controlled burning in your National Forests.
                        Nature’s way of recycling
                        Fallen trees and limbs left to rot on the forest floor will decay at a very slow rate. In fact, large logs can take more than 100 years to decompose. This process is aided by the numerous species of bacteria, insects, and wildlife that live in the decomposing materials. All this rotting is one way that nature recycles nutrients back into the soil. Pine needles decompose very slowly. It takes more than a year for 10% of the pine needles to decay. As a result, year after year, pine needles continue to build up until they are eliminated by fire.
                        Faster recycling occurs during a fire. Gasses are released into the atmosphere in the form of smoke. In the burned area, nitrogen and other nutrients remain and are leached back into the soil as rain soaks the ground. This is nature’s way of rapidly recycling nutrients. Unfortunately, when there’s too much fuel on the ground and it’s burned in an intense wildfire these benefits are often missing. Intense fires tend to scorch the ground and kill the trees above.
                        Which is better, slow or fast recycling?
                        Slowly decomposing materials release nutrients steadily into the soil. This continuous release helps to maintain growth over a long period of time. Decomposition can last indefinitely as long as dead material on the forest floor continues to accumulate. In other areas of the world, a wildfire may happen once every 600 years. In these areas, only decomposition will supply needed nutrients between wildfires.
                        Wildfires cause fast nutrient recycling. An abundant supply of nutrients helps new seedlings, brush, and grasses to grow quickly and become established following a wildfire. This is nature’s way of quick starting a forest. Most of the nutrients are quickly used up; however, more lasting effects occur when they are leached into the soil. It usually takes a few years for the supply of nutrients to return to normal levels.
                        The forest needs both slow recycling, from decomposition, and fast recycling from fires. However, fires ignited at the wrong time can quickly turn into catastrophic events.
                        Wildfires occurred every seven to 25 years in Kentucky’s forests prior to the early 1900s. Around 1915 national forest management policy viewed wildfires as destructive and began putting them all out as quickly as possible. Today we realize the important role fire plays in maintaining healthy national forests.
                        Why not use controlled burning everywhere?
                        Some places are not easy to conduct a controlled burn. These are locations where it may not be economical, feasible, or practical. Exact fire prescriptions are developed by fire managers before burning is allowed. These fire prescriptions are based on weather, moisture content of the fuels, and how the fire can be lighted (ignition patterns). There may only be 50 days in an entire year when an area meets the prescription.
                        Laws and regulations also determine when a controlled burn may be ignited. Air quality regulations play an important role. It’s not unusual for forest conditions to be in prescription and a no burn day due to poor air quality. Controlled burning takes place when laws, regulations, and forest needs are all in balance. Controlled burns also don’t take place when there are safety, health, and aesthetic concerns.
                        The ecosystem of this forest was developed with fire as one of the main sculptors of vegetation found there. Fire related processes need to continue to perpetuate this ecosystem.
                        Forests, Forest Fires, and Their Makers: The Story of Cliff Palace Pond
                        by Paul A. Delcourt, Hazel R. Delcourt, Cecil R. Ison, William E. Sharp, and A. Gwynn Henderson
                        This publication documents how two sciences, archaeology and paleoecology, came together in a research project that confirmed archaeologists’ ideas about the changing land use patterns of the First Americans along the western edge of the Appalachian Mountains.
                        Soil core studies from this site on the Daniel Boone National Forest show how American Indians used fire to manage the environment for over 3,000 years. This understanding of ancient practices will help guide forest management for the future.

                      • TZ

                        It is controlled and the amount of air pollution is minimal at best but nice try Zombie!

                      • hyperzombie

                        So CO2 is not pollution now? Burning 9x more fossil fuel is a total waste of resources.

                      • TZ

                        Oh please did read what I posted and check out the references in the article, it is far better then cancer causing pesticides in my ground water and FOOD! I prefer my babies not ingest pesticides daily!

                      • hyperzombie

                        Unlike you i do read the references.

                        “I prefer my babies not ingest pesticides daily!”

                        Bwhahaha, there are pesticides in all foods, all plants make them.

                      • TZ

                        Give it a rest Zombie…hahahahaha…..let me clarify….I do not want cancer causing synthetic pesticides in my child’s daily diet….get it now?

                      • hyperzombie

                        But it is OK to have even more “Natural” cancer causing pesticides in your child’s daily diet? Get it now, dumbass?

                      • TZ

                        “But it is OK to have even more “Natural” cancer causing pesticides in your child’s daily diet? ”

                        Like what Zombie please give examples?…take your language back to the trailer park…

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        Am I the only one frightened that she may have had children?

                      • hyperzombie

                        I think she is 70, too late for that.

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        with a name like Tifani, there is no way she is over 40. Up until white folks wanted to be more like another ethnic group, names were spelled normally (e.g. Tiffany).

                      • TZ

                        Wait did you read this part….”The main advantage of flame weeding lies in that no harmful waste is left on the ground; in fact, LPG burns forming water vapour and carbon dioxide only. The working principle of flame weeding is that this technique produces an intense heat that ‘boils’ weeds.
                        The carefully directed and controlled flame briefly passes over the weeds without charring them.”

                      • tinfoilhatttt

                        TX, the zombie ain’t gonna respond to what he’s too stupid to refute-I admire your tenacity though-

                      • tinfoilhatttt

                        No, moron, CO2 is NOT air pollution. It is vital to plant survival and growth [which is vital to mammals as plants “exhale” oxygen-you may have heard of this element?]

                        All the envirowackos with their phony carbon-credit schemes who claim CO2 is a pollutant are just that-wackos. Research historic O2 and CO2 levels, both were much higher in the past and the world survived and thrived-

                      • hyperzombie

                        Still using 9x more resources to do the same thing is a total waste of resources, pollution or not.

                      • Paleo Huntress

                        The nitrous oxide created by the application of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers is 300 times more damaging than CO2 and accounts for 74% of total U.S. N2O emissions. There is a larger picture.

                      • hyperzombie

                        Just as much NO2 is released by Organic fertilizers, and nitrogen fixing plants like legumes.

                      • Paleo Huntress

                        According to the EPA, manure and urine account for 5% of N2O emissions making synthetic fertilizers responsible for almost fifteen times the N2O as “organic” fertilizers. Nitrogen fixing plants takes the nitrous OUT of the air.

                        http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/n2o.html

                      • TZ

                        Oh wait Zombie…http://www.pirodiserbo.it/come-si-applica?lang=en ****what does this say!? “The main advantage of flame weeding lies in that no harmful waste is left on the ground; in fact, LPG burns forming water vapour and carbon dioxide only. The working principle of flame weeding is that this technique produces an intense heat that ‘boils’ weeds.”

                    • TZ

                      http://www.lpgasmagazine.com/propane-marketsagriculturefight-flame-weeding/
                      The moment was one for which Bob Berglund had waited nearly a year. Now that the moment had arrived, he wasn’t quite ready to embrace it.

                      Sitting atop a tractor, Berglund was preparing to let up on the clutch and drive into his cornfield to demonstrate how his brand-new, flame-weeding equipment worked. At the time, Berglund had waited eight months for the Maricopa County Air Quality Department to rewrite a law that would allow him to actually use the propane-powered equipment on Grandma’s Farm in Phoenix.

                      Through the process of having the law rewritten, Berglund’s desire to use flame-weeding technology caught the interest of air quality officials at the city, county, state and federal levels. On this particular day, Berglund had invited those officials, as well as representatives from the equipment manufacturer, to Grandma’s Farm for a demonstration. But now that demo time had arrived, Berglund feared he might set his cornfield on fire and lose favor for the flame-weeding equipment he’d fought tirelessly to use.

                      “Here I am with two acres of corn, and I’m scared to death to put the flames to it,” Berglund says. “The hardest thing I’ve done in my entire life was go through that cornfield on the tractor the first time. My leg did not want to let up on the clutch.”

                      Eventually, Berglund struck up the nerve to drive through the field and apply the flames. He didn’t burn his farm to the ground, and he’s been using flame-weeding equipment from Flame Engineering ever since. More importantly for the propane industry, Berglund’s use of the equipment shows there’s yet another opportunity for propane on the farm.

                      History of flame weeding
                      Flame weeding isn’t a new phenomenon to agriculture. According to Steve Koch, the director of Flame Engineering’s Agriculture Division, flame weeding was a popular method for field crops, fruits and vegetables beginning in the 1930s. By the 1950s and 1960s, however, a number of chemicals were made available, and they proved to be a more cost-effective way for farmers to control weeds.

                      Today, flame weeding is making a comeback on the farm – and for multiple reasons. There are, of course, environmental concerns with the runoff and particulate matter associated with chemicals. Also, weeds are building resistance to many of the chemicals companies have made available over the last decades. And there’s the emergence of organic farming operations, including Grandma’s Farm, that seek alternative methods to control weeds.

                      “Weeds have developed to the point where chemicals don’t always kill them off,” Berglund says. “So mankind develops stronger chemicals, and then the weeds get stronger. We’re breeding an era of weeds we’re not going to be able to kill.”

                      But propane-powered flaming, Berglund adds, is a definite kill. That’s a reason why he was attracted to the method. Unfortunately, as Berglund learned more about flame weeding, he learned there are some government misconceptions about the method.

                      One such misconception is that flaming entails lighting weeds on fire, which, if understood this way, is a proposal that probably scares off a lot of farmers.

                      Flame weeding doesn’t entail lighting any weeds on fire, though. Instead, the goal is to heat weeds to a kill temperature around 2,000 degrees. As Berglund puts it, flaming “blows up the molecules” inside weeds so they no longer grow. One advantage he’s seen to heating around 2,000 degrees is that a significant percentage of the seeds weeds set are fried, leading to cleaner fields and less time spent weeding in the years to come.

                      “In alfalfa, for example, there’s a possibility you can use chemicals five times in a season depending on different issues like insects,” Koch says. “You can’t use the same chemical for insects as you do on weeds, and so forth. Say there’s a severe patch of alfalfa weevils. If they’re hiding under a leaf, chemicals may not get them. But heating to 2,000 degrees makes them disappear.”

                      Obstacles to overcome
                      Despite flame weeding’s effectiveness, the method has experienced some resistance because of the misconceptions already described. Berglund experienced some of this resistance firsthand shortly after he discovered a Flame Engineering ad in a magazine.

                      The Phoenix Fire Department was Berglund’s first obstacle. The fire department initially told Berglund he would need a controlled burn permit at a cost of $135 each time he used the Flame Engineering equipment. Berglund made an appeal and shared Flame Engineering-produced video with the fire department, which quickly loosened its initial requirement and determined he could purchase a yearly permit.
                      Still unsatisfied with this decision, Berglund took his appeal to the assistant fire chief, who finally realized Grandma’s Farm wasn’t burning anything but rather scorching live weeds. The assistant fire chief issued Grandma’s Farm a letter stating no permit would be required, but he did stipulate that the farming operation get approval from the county’s air quality department.

                      According to Berglund, the air quality department claimed flame weeding fell into a gray area and that county regulations did not allow for the method. In this instance, Berglund again shared Flame Engineering’s demonstration videos, and he put the county in contact with the San Joaquin Valley (Calif.) Air Pollution Control District. San Joaquin Valley permits flame weeding.

                      After Berglund shared the videos with his county, he was asked to attend a formal meeting to present his case further. The meeting was not only with county officials, but with officials from the City of Phoenix, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and the Arizona Department of Agriculture.

                      Berglund stated his case again, shared the videos and ultimately had the regulations he needed altered changed.

                      “They were all pretty impressed with flame weeding,” Berglund says. “Of course, everyone’s concerned with groundwater contamination too, so they were really thrilled with it. Once we got the laws enacted and I purchased a two-row burner to pull behind my tractor, they wanted a demonstration.”

                      And that’s when Berglund, up on his tractor, hesitated to go through his cornfield and flame those weeds. He hesitated but for a moment, though, and toasted them with his propane-powered equipment.

                      “I was scared to death but finally got up the nerve, went through my corn and it worked,” Berglund says.

                      Expanding the equipment’s use
                      Berglund’s first experience flame weeding was more than two years ago. Acorn Gas Co. of Phoenix supplies propane to Grandma’s Farm, and Berglund estimates he burned about 200 gallons using the equipment in 2011. He’s now in his third season using the technology, and he’s expanded his use of it by adding propane-powered hand torches to his tractor-mounted equipment.

                      “Once my crops get too tall, I can’t run the flamer through them,” Berglund says.

                      There are other instances when crops need spot flaming treatments with hand torches. For example, Grandma’s Farm plants its squash close together with hopes that the squash will shade out any new weeds growing below. Unfortunately, the weeds still grow.

                      “What I do then is use a portable flamer that has about a 50-gallon propane tank that I have mounted onto the back of a [John Deere] Gator [utility vehicle],” Berglund says. “I’ll take a 30-foot hose and use a hand torch that we bought from Flame Engineering. I can physically walk between some of my plantings to do the weeding.”

                      Berglund more recently purchased a backpack torch with a small propane tank mounted on it so he can physically walk between plantings to weed.

                      “I’ve still got a lot to learn about [this technology],” says Berglund, who also uses propane to heat water and a stove in his farmhouse. “Every season I can do a little bit more with it.”

                      Niche or major opportunity?
                      Berglund (pictured above with wife Theresa) anticipates more farmers trying out flame weeding, as well, although a wholesale shift from chemicals to flaming is probably far-fetched.

                      “I think we’re going to see more of this as the years go on,” he says. “It’s hard to teach some of these old farmers new tricks, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the government starts pushing more of this because of problems with our groundwater. There’s potential for many crops – cotton, field corn. Time will tell, but this is adaptable.”

                      Flame Engineering’s Koch sees additional opportunities looming, too.

                      “We’re certainly going to continue to grow with the organic farmers,” he says. “I’m trying to get the row crop guys to consider using this as well because it seems to be so effective.”

                      Whether or not flame weeding becomes mainstream among farmers is to be determined. In the meantime, farmers like Berglund will continue to focus on best use of the equipment. One key to using the equipment effectively is letting neighbors know the flames shooting from your equipment are intentional.

                      “Every time we flame weed we’re supposed to alert the fire department,” he says. “They only called me one time, but they said one of the neighbors said it looks like there’s fire coming out the back of the tractor.”

                      See flame weeding for yourself
                      Want to learn more about the flame-weeding opportunity for the propane industry? Check out an assortment of Flame Engineering’s agricultural flaming videos at http://www.flameengineering.com/Video_Downloads.htm. Flame Engineering demonstrates the use of row crop flamers, alfalfa flamers and more.

                      Validation for flame weeding
                      The Propane Education & Research Council (PERC) has taken an interest in flame weeding and is collaborating with the University of Nebraska-Lincoln on several research projects to test the efficiency and efficacy of hooded flaming technology. Agricultural Flaming Innovations has secured patents and plans to commercialize its technology later this year through a partnership with Behlen Manufacturing. Demo units are going out now for testing. Nebraska-Lincoln is also developing a how-to manual to educate farmers, explaining how to effectively use flaming for weed control. Learn more about PERC programs and incentives for the farm at http://www.agpropane.com.

                      Top photo courtesy of the Propane Education & Research Council. Photo above right courtesy of Flame Engineering.

                      • hyperzombie

                        Funny, an article from the Propane industry saying how great propane weed burners are…

                        Biased much?
                        Flame burners are horribly inefficient, and they can’t kill grassy weeds, so you still have to burn more fuel to till the fields.

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        Operating a farm in Phoenix, environmentally irresponsible. Operating a flame weeder on a farm in Phoenix, doubly bad. Not only wasting water, but pumping out CO2. Does she read this stuff? (that is a rhetorical question)

                      • hyperzombie

                        And growing corn in Phoenix, is batshit insane. At least grow something of value, like fruits or veggies if you are going to waste huge amounts of water. Corn is easy to grow in the midwest without any irrigation.

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        With the price of water in PHX, that has to be some premium price corn. “Here, buy my locally grown, organic, flame weeded water wasting corn. Only $1.50/ear!”

                      • TZ

                        Bull this is another strawman argument and it does not help your corrupt biotech agenda in any way, shape or form! Funny how now because it is coming from the natural gas industry it is biased information but then when the biotech industry tries to convince the public GMOs are perfectly safe along with the cancer causing pesticides that is totally legit!!! Pathetic! Hypocritical BS!

                      • hyperzombie

                        You are just stupid. It is an article about propane in a magazine about propane, for people in the propane industry….Like come on the magazine itself is called lpg gas magazine.

                      • TZ

                        http://www.pirodiserbo.it/come-si-applica?lang=en Zombie…when you are WRONG you are really wrong! You are a daft foul mouthed Zombie….eat your poison it looks like it has done wonders for your complexion!
                        The main advantage of flame weeding lies in that no harmful waste is left on the ground; in fact, LPG burns forming water vapour and carbon dioxide only. The working principle of flame weeding is that this technique produces an intense heat that ‘boils’ weeds.
                        The carefully directed and controlled flame briefly passes over the weeds without charring them.
                        Brief exposure to intense heat causes the cell sap to expand and that in turn, disrupts cell walls and interrupts the intracellular feed flow. Nutrients do not reach the cell; within a day or two weeds wilt and die due to continuous evaporation caused by seared cuticles.
                        Flame weeding does not actually burn weeds, but rather after being treated using heat, flamed weeds undergo a change in pigmentation and the foliage green colour is highly enhanced. This is quite evident a couple of minutes after this method is applied as sap comes out of the cell.
                        The successful result of this method can be clearly seen some days after application as plants show leaf yellowing common of wilting. It is essential to know proper application times so that the heat applied reaches the correct temperature inside the plant thus reaching all cells and the final result is 100% effective.
                        If this method is used on plants at their early growth stage (20-25 days after emergence), it will only be necessary to apply heat at 90 – 95 °C for just one second in order to kill these seedlings.
                        Apply heat at 101 °C for one second on plants at other, more advanced growth stages.
                        So, in practice it is necessary to apply surplus heat and to vary exposure time to heat of the plants to be flamed. In brief, we can assume a flaming time over the ‘second’ in order to safely use a temperature above 100 °C on all plants.
                        As consequence of cell explosion after absorbing heat, weeds change colour abruptly to a darker shade. This shows the operator which application speed is adequate for the plants and that weeds have been properly flamed. In turn, this helps to optimise results regarding production and fuel consumption.
                        Ecologically speaking, flame weeding has an almost negligible impact on the environment.
                        Flame Weeding Application Method
                        As LPG burns to form water vapour and carbon dioxide, the flame used is transparent and releases almost no fumes. Therefore, any kind of non-burning pavement or coating can be flame-treated without colour altering
                        Heating is achieved by quickly passing torches over the layers underneath the surface. In general the temperature applied does not go over 50-60 °C, values that are easily found at the hottest hours in summer.
                        Therefore, damage caused on microflora and micro-organisms on the soil is minimal; there are no risks for operators and no toxic elements are released into the atmosphere.
                        As regards environmental health, slow application of flame weeding brings about a further advantage. When the surface of soil, pavement or concrete floor is flame treated at a slow speed, it reaches slightly high temperatures (80 – 90 °C). Therefore, it is well sterilised as there are not any pathogenic germs left.
                        By choosing this technology, costs are easy to estimate as this flame weeding technique does not pollute the environment, there are no extra after-treatment costs or disposal of toxic waste.
                        Gas consumption is directly linked to the type of equipment used and the height of weeds to be flame-treated. The most favourable condition to use flame weeding is on weeds at their early growth stages (1-10 cm height).
                        This is when the best results are achieved at full work speed, and as a consequence gas consumption is reduced when the same area is treated. Hand-held, portable flamers are very versatile. They are also easy to use, yet they entail higher consumption costs compared with equipment mounted on or pulled by a tractor.
                        Operating costs for tractor-powered flamers are minimised by the fact that they are insulated to contain heat, the main element in flame weeding. It is worth noticing that hand-held, portable flamers are generally used for small areas or where versatility in use and a compact structure are key factors.

                      • TZ

                        “The main advantage of flame weeding lies in that no harmful waste is left on the ground; in fact, LPG burns forming water vapour and carbon dioxide only. The working principle of flame weeding is that this technique produces an intense heat that ‘boils’ weeds.
                        The carefully directed and controlled flame briefly passes over the weeds without charring them.”

                      • TZ

                        Wait did you read this part….”The main advantage of flame weeding lies in that no harmful waste is left on the ground; in fact, LPG burns forming water vapour and carbon dioxide only. The working principle of flame weeding is that this technique produces an intense heat that ‘boils’ weeds.
                        The carefully directed and controlled flame briefly passes over the weeds without charring them.”

                      • hyperzombie

                        Well glyphosate breaks down to just CO2, water, nitrogen and phosphorus, all plant nutrients. But you have to use 9x more propane to do the same job.

                      • JoeFarmer

                        But, Kanawai the PhD says that glyphosate is an organophosphate!

                        So, it must be, like, true.

                      • hyperzombie

                        Oh I didn’t know that the all knowing Kanawai said that glyphosate is an organophosphate, we must bow down to the King of farming. If he says it it must be so..I will send my northern troops south to spread his knowledge.

                        LOL, he is such an idiot.

                      • obfuscate99

                        …as much as I hate to mention this, Kanawai is technically correct. Glyphosate is an organophosphate in pure chemistry terms (so is DNA, and a whole swath of organic compounds), however it is not an organophosphate ester and does not affect cholinesterase activity. In terms of pesticides, only the cholinesterase inhibitors are classified as organophosphates, and this can lead to confusion when you mix definitions.

                      • hyperzombie

                        Well, thanks for mentioning that.

                        But the great and wise Kanawai was referring to organophosphate pesticides, so he is still wrong.

                        Just like I would be wrong to claim that all GMO crops are Organic, because technically all living things are, but that is not the definition that we are using in the discussion..
                        And once again thanks for the definitions. 🙂

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        according to Cornell:
                        “While it can be described as an organophosphorus compound, glyphosate is not an organophosphate ester but a phosphanoglycine, and it does not inhibit cholinesterase activity.”

                        http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/dienochlor-glyphosate/glyphosate-ext.html

                      • obfuscate99

                        Notice how they indicate the organophosphate ester being key, as they are using the pesticide distinction. In organic chemistry, any compound containing one or more phosphate group, is an organophosphate. The problem is that different scientific and regulatory bodies use different definitions. According to the AAAS, IUPAC, and others, the organic chemistry definition is used. Regulatory agencies only are interested in the ester linked molecules with cholinesterase inhibition.

                        The link you provided is for a pesticide information database, and as such would be using that definition as opposed to a biochem or organic chem one.

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        Yes, I was simply pointing out that they make the distinction that chemically it is an organophosphorous as opposed to the term more commonly applied to the pesticide term organophosphate. That was all.

                      • TZ

                        Are you on drugs…no it does NOT!!! http://www.rag.org.au/modifiedfoods/roundup1.htm

                        Glyphosate degradation

                        Glyphosate is only degraded by bacteria, which vary in number and kind from location to location depending on the soil. Many bacteria do not degrade glyphosate and how complete it is degraded depends on the kind of bacteria that are present (51).

                        How speedily is this breakdown? It took 28 days to degrade 45 to 48 % of the original glyphosate in a sandy loam and/or sandy clay loam (49, 51). As a microbiological process this is at a snail’s pace. Contrast this with food poisoning where bacteria reach dangerous levels in a few hours under the right circumstances. Rapid microbiological breakdown would mean ‘done in a few days.’ However, complete degradation of glyphosate took 112 days in a shake flask culture. This is almost 4 months (49). Especially in a shake flask culture a rapid microbiological breakdown should not take more than a few hours, as this method provides maximal exposure of glyphosate to bacteria. This situation never occurs in the field.

                        Because of the slowness of degradation, microbiologists think that glyphosate breakdown occurs through ‘co-metabolism.’ This means that glyphosate is not essential for bacterial growth and most of the time bacteria leave it alone. This enables glyphosate to accumulate in soil even in the presence of bacteria that could degrade it (55).

                        Interim Summary: glyphosate

                        Glyphosate acts like a false phosphate in soil and plants. It blocks a biochemical pathway (shikimate pathway) and as a result the plant dies. Glyphosate is very stable, not rapidly degraded by bacteria and leaves residues in the soil.

                      • Paleo Huntress

                        It was the early publications from Monsanto that claimed that glyphosate breaks down easily in the soil and water.

                        For those claiming it’s safe because it’s (arguably) non-toxic to humans, consider that it is quite toxic to gut flora, and that there is a growing body of data demonstrating the pivotal role this flora plays in overall human health.

                        I avoid the use of antibiotics for mild infection because they’ve been shown to do so much damage to flora colonies in our guts. What kind of sense would it make to consume herbicide residues with the same properties?

                      • TZ

                        This part you may have missed…Wait did you read this part….”The main advantage of flame weeding lies in that no harmful waste is left on the ground; in fact, LPG burns forming water vapour and carbon dioxide only. The working principle of flame weeding is that this technique produces an intense heat that ‘boils’ weeds.
                        The carefully directed and controlled flame briefly passes over the weeds without charring them.” http://www.pirodiserbo.it/come-si-applica?lang=en

                • Michael McCarthy
                  • JoeFarmer

                    Wow, I had no idea Wizard of Id was still around!

                    I was probably in junior high when I’d read that and B.C. in the Des Moines Register. The Far Side, too, but I think Far Side started maybe when I was in high school.

                    • Michael McCarthy

                      BC is still around too. Gary Larson quit doing The Far Side ages ago, unfortunately. I just thought the Wizard was spot on with that one. The antis won’t get the joke in it.

                • hyperzombie

                  Organic is all marketing, they ban stuff that sounds unnatural, and approve others that are totally unnatural. They ban products that are very sustainable, like tetracycline for fire blight, but approve diatomaceous earth (we can make tetracycline forever, but diatomaceous earth is a finite resource).
                  They ban herbicides, yet approve flame weeders and soil sterilization.
                  Sometimes I think that I am living in Bizarro world.

                  • tinfoilhatttt

                    You, Sir most definitely ARE-

              • Paleo Huntress

                TZ, that may be the average backyard gardener’s premise, but organic commercial farmers use plenty of toxic organic pesticides. This is why even organic produce should be washed before it’s eaten.

                “Rotenone is produced from the roots of two tropical members of the bean plant family. It has been used as a crop insecticide since the mid-1800’s to control leaf eating caterpillars, and it often is recommended for flea beetle control on early season vegetables. It is six times more toxic than carbaryl, (sevin), a synthetic product, also effective for caterpillar and flea beetle control.”

                • TZ

                  Sorry that is not allowed in organic farming…http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9874504b6f1025eb0e6b67cadf9d3b40&rgn=div6&view=text&node=7:3.1.1.9.32.7&idno=7 The National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances
                  return arrow Back to Top

                  §205.600 Evaluation criteria for allowed and prohibited substances, methods, and ingredients.
                  The following criteria will be utilized in the evaluation of substances or ingredients for the organic production and handling sections of the National List:

                  (a) Synthetic and nonsynthetic substances considered for inclusion on or deletion from the National List of allowed and prohibited substances will be evaluated using the criteria specified in the Act (7 U.S.C. 6517 and 6518).

                  (b) In addition to the criteria set forth in the Act, any synthetic substance used as a processing aid or adjuvant will be evaluated against the following criteria:

                  (1) The substance cannot be produced from a natural source and there are no organic substitutes;

                  (2) The substance’s manufacture, use, and disposal do not have adverse effects on the environment and are done in a manner compatible with organic handling;

                  (3) The nutritional quality of the food is maintained when the substance is used, and the substance, itself, or its breakdown products do not have an adverse effect on human health as defined by applicable Federal regulations;

                  (4) The substance’s primary use is not as a preservative or to recreate or improve flavors, colors, textures, or nutritive value lost during processing, except where the replacement of nutrients is required by law;

                  (5) The substance is listed as generally recognized as safe (GRAS) by Food and Drug Administration (FDA) when used in accordance with FDA’s good manufacturing practices (GMP) and contains no residues of heavy metals or other contaminants in excess of tolerances set by FDA; and

                  (6) The substance is essential for the handling of organically produced agricultural products.

                  (c) Nonsynthetics used in organic processing will be evaluated using the criteria specified in the Act (7 U.S.C. 6517 and 6518).

                  return arrow Back to Top

                  §205.601 Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production.
                  In accordance with restrictions specified in this section, the following synthetic substances may be used in organic crop production: Provided, That, use of such substances do not contribute to contamination of crops, soil, or water. Substances allowed by this section, except disinfectants and sanitizers in paragraph (a) and those substances in paragraphs (c), (j), (k), and (l) of this section, may only be used when the provisions set forth in §205.206(a) through (d) prove insufficient to prevent or control the target pest.

                  (a) As algicide, disinfectants, and sanitizer, including irrigation system cleaning systems.

                  (1) Alcohols.

                  (i) Ethanol.

                  (ii) Isopropanol.

                  (2) Chlorine materials—For pre-harvest use, residual chlorine levels in the water in direct crop contact or as water from cleaning irrigation systems applied to soil must not exceed the maximum residual disinfectant limit under the Safe Drinking Water Act, except that chlorine products may be used in edible sprout production according to EPA label directions.

                  (i) Calcium hypochlorite.

                  (ii) Chlorine dioxide.

                  (iii) Sodium hypochlorite.

                  (3) Copper sulfate—for use as an algicide in aquatic rice systems, is limited to one application per field during any 24-month period. Application rates are limited to those which do not increase baseline soil test values for copper over a timeframe agreed upon by the producer and accredited certifying agent.

                  (4) Hydrogen peroxide.

                  (5) Ozone gas—for use as an irrigation system cleaner only.

                  (6) Peracetic acid—for use in disinfecting equipment, seed, and asexually propagated planting material. Also permitted in hydrogen peroxide formulations as allowed in §205.601(a) at concentration of no more than 6% as indicated on the pesticide product label.

                  (7) Soap-based algicide/demossers.

                  (8) Sodium carbonate peroxyhydrate (CAS #-15630-89-4)—Federal law restricts the use of this substance in food crop production to approved food uses identified on the product label.

                  (b) As herbicides, weed barriers, as applicable.

                  (1) Herbicides, soap-based—for use in farmstead maintenance (roadways, ditches, right of ways, building perimeters) and ornamental crops.

                  (2) Mulches.

                  (i) Newspaper or other recycled paper, without glossy or colored inks.

                  (ii) Plastic mulch and covers (petroleum-based other than polyvinyl chloride (PVC)).

                  (iii) Biodegradable biobased mulch film as defined in §205.2. Must be produced without organisms or feedstock derived from excluded methods.

                  (c) As compost feedstocks—Newspapers or other recycled paper, without glossy or colored inks.

                  (d) As animal repellents—Soaps, ammonium—for use as a large animal repellant only, no contact with soil or edible portion of crop.

                  (e) As insecticides (including acaricides or mite control).

                  (1) Ammonium carbonate—for use as bait in insect traps only, no direct contact with crop or soil.

                  (2) Aqueous potassium silicate (CAS #-1312-76-1)—the silica, used in the manufacture of potassium silicate, must be sourced from naturally occurring sand.

                  (3) Boric acid—structural pest control, no direct contact with organic food or crops.

                  (4) Copper sulfate—for use as tadpole shrimp control in aquatic rice production, is limited to one application per field during any 24-month period. Application rates are limited to levels which do not increase baseline soil test values for copper over a timeframe agreed upon by the producer and accredited certifying agent.

                  (5) Elemental sulfur.

                  (6) Lime sulfur—including calcium polysulfide.

                  (7) Oils, horticultural—narrow range oils as dormant, suffocating, and summer oils.

                  (8) Soaps, insecticidal.

                  (9) Sticky traps/barriers.

                  (10) Sucrose octanoate esters (CAS #s—42922-74-7; 58064-47-4)—in accordance with approved labeling.

                  (f) As insect management. Pheromones.

                  (g) As rodenticides. Vitamin D3.

                  (h) As slug or snail bait. Ferric phosphate (CAS # 10045-86-0).

                  (i) As plant disease control.

                  (1) Aqueous potassium silicate (CAS #-1312-76-1)—the silica, used in the manufacture of potassium silicate, must be sourced from naturally occurring sand.

                  (2) Coppers, fixed—copper hydroxide, copper oxide, copper oxychloride, includes products exempted from EPA tolerance, Provided, That, copper-based materials must be used in a manner that minimizes accumulation in the soil and shall not be used as herbicides.

                  (3) Copper sulfate—Substance must be used in a manner that minimizes accumulation of copper in the soil.

                  (4) Hydrated lime.

                  (5) Hydrogen peroxide.

                  (6) Lime sulfur.

                  (7) Oils, horticultural, narrow range oils as dormant, suffocating, and summer oils.

                  (8) Peracetic acid—for use to control fire blight bacteria. Also permitted in hydrogen peroxide formulations as allowed in §205.601(i) at concentration of no more than 6% as indicated on the pesticide product label.

                  (9) Potassium bicarbonate.

                  (10) Elemental sulfur.

                  (11) Streptomycin, for fire blight control in apples and pears only until October 21, 2014.

                  (12) Tetracycline, for fire blight control in apples and pears only until October 21, 2014.

                  (j) As plant or soil amendments.

                  (1) Aquatic plant extracts (other than hydrolyzed)—Extraction process is limited to the use of potassium hydroxide or sodium hydroxide; solvent amount used is limited to that amount necessary for extraction.

                  (2) Elemental sulfur.

                  (3) Humic acids—naturally occurring deposits, water and alkali extracts only.

                  (4) Lignin sulfonate—chelating agent, dust suppressant.

                  (5) Magnesium sulfate—allowed with a documented soil deficiency.

                  (6) Micronutrients—not to be used as a defoliant, herbicide, or desiccant. Those made from nitrates or chlorides are not allowed. Soil deficiency must be documented by testing.

                  (i) Soluble boron products.

                  (ii) Sulfates, carbonates, oxides, or silicates of zinc, copper, iron, manganese, molybdenum, selenium, and cobalt.

                  (7) Liquid fish products—can be pH adjusted with sulfuric, citric or phosphoric acid. The amount of acid used shall not exceed the minimum needed to lower the pH to 3.5.

                  (8) Vitamins, B1, C, and E.

                  (9) Sulfurous acid (CAS # 7782-99-2) for on-farm generation of substance utilizing 99% purity elemental sulfur per paragraph (j)(2) of this section.

                  (k) As plant growth regulators. Ethylene gas—for regulation of pineapple flowering.

                  (l) As floating agents in postharvest handling.

                  (1) Lignin sulfonate.

                  (2) Sodium silicate—for tree fruit and fiber processing.

                  (m) As synthetic inert ingredients as classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for use with nonsynthetic substances or synthetic substances listed in this section and used as an active pesticide ingredient in accordance with any limitations on the use of such substances.

                  (1) EPA List 4—Inerts of Minimal Concern.

                  (2) EPA List 3—Inerts of unknown toxicity—for use only in passive pheromone dispensers.

                  (n) Seed preparations. Hydrogen chloride (CAS # 7647-01-0)—for delinting cotton seed for planting.

                  (o) As production aids. Microcrystalline cheesewax (CAS #’s 64742-42-3, 8009-03-08, and 8002-74-2)-for use in log grown mushroom production. Must be made without either ethylene-propylene co-polymer or synthetic colors.

                  (p)-(z) [Reserved]

                  [65 FR 80637, Dec. 21, 2000, as amended at 68 FR 61992, Oct. 31, 2003; 71 FR 53302 Sept. 11, 2006; 72 FR 69572, Dec. 10, 2007; 75 FR 38696, July 6, 2010; 75 FR 77524, Dec. 13, 2010; 77 FR 8092, Feb. 14, 2012; 77 FR 33298, June 6, 2012; 77 FR 45907, Aug. 2, 2012; 78 FR 31821, May 28, 2013; 79 FR 58663, Sept. 30, 2014]

                  return arrow Back to Top

                  §205.602 Nonsynthetic substances prohibited for use in organic crop production.
                  The following nonsynthetic substances may not be used in organic crop production:

                  (a) Ash from manure burning.

                  (b) Arsenic.

                  (c) Calcium chloride, brine process is natural and prohibited for use except as a foliar spray to treat a physiological disorder associated with calcium uptake.

                  (d) Lead salts.

                  (e) Potassium chloride—unless derived from a mined source and applied in a manner that minimizes chloride accumulation in the soil.

                  (f) Sodium fluoaluminate (mined).

                  (g) Sodium nitrate—unless use is restricted to no more than 20% of the crop’s total nitrogen requirement; use in spirulina production is unrestricted until October 21, 2005.

                  (h) Strychnine.

                  (i) Tobacco dust (nicotine sulfate).

                  (j)-(z) [Reserved]

                  [68 FR 61992, Oct. 31, 2003]

                  return arrow Back to Top

                  §205.603 Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic livestock production.
                  In accordance with restrictions specified in this section the following synthetic substances may be used in organic livestock production:

                  (a) As disinfectants, sanitizer, and medical treatments as applicable.

                  (1) Alcohols.

                  (i) Ethanol-disinfectant and sanitizer only, prohibited as a feed additive.

                  (ii) Isopropanol-disinfectant only.

                  (2) Aspirin-approved for health care use to reduce inflammation.

                  (3) Atropine (CAS #-51-55-8)—federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the lawful written or oral order of a licensed veterinarian, in full compliance with the AMDUCA and 21 CFR part 530 of the Food and Drug Administration regulations. Also, for use under 7 CFR part 205, the NOP requires:

                  (i) Use by or on the lawful written order of a licensed veterinarian; and

                  (ii) A meat withdrawal period of at least 56 days after administering to livestock intended for slaughter; and a milk discard period of at least 12 days after administering to dairy animals.

                  (4) Biologics—Vaccines.

                  (5) Butorphanol (CAS #-42408-82-2)—federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the lawful written or oral order of a licensed veterinarian, in full compliance with the AMDUCA and 21 CFR part 530 of the Food and Drug Administration regulations. Also, for use under 7 CFR part 205, the NOP requires:

                  (i) Use by or on the lawful written order of a licensed veterinarian; and

                  (ii) A meat withdrawal period of at least 42 days after administering to livestock intended for slaughter; and a milk discard period of at least 8 days after administering to dairy animals.

                  (6) Chlorhexidine—Allowed for surgical procedures conducted by a veterinarian. Allowed for use as a teat dip when alternative germicidal agents and/or physical barriers have lost their effectiveness.

                  (7) Chlorine materials—disinfecting and sanitizing facilities and equipment. Residual chlorine levels in the water shall not exceed the maximum residual disinfectant limit under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

                  (i) Calcium hypochlorite.

                  (ii) Chlorine dioxide.

                  (iii) Sodium hypochlorite.

                  (8) Electrolytes—without antibiotics.

                  (9) Flunixin (CAS #-38677-85-9)—in accordance with approved labeling; except that for use under 7 CFR part 205, the NOP requires a withdrawal period of at least two-times that required by the FDA.

                  (10) Furosemide (CAS #-54-31-9)—in accordance with approved labeling; except that for use under 7 CFR part 205, the NOP requires a withdrawal period of at least two-times that required that required by the FDA.

                  (11) Glucose.

                  (12) Glycerin—Allowed as a livestock teat dip, must be produced through the hydrolysis of fats or oils.

                  (13) Hydrogen peroxide.

                  (14) Iodine.

                  (15) Magnesium hydroxide (CAS #-1309-42-8)—federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the lawful written or oral order of a licensed veterinarian, in full compliance with the AMDUCA and 21 CFR part 530 of the Food and Drug Administration regulations. Also, for use under 7 CFR part 205, the NOP requires use by or on the lawful written order of a licensed veterinarian.

                  (16) Magnesium sulfate.

                  (17) Oxytocin—use in postparturition therapeutic applications.

                  (18) Parasiticides—Prohibited in slaughter stock, allowed in emergency treatment for dairy and breeder stock when organic system plan-approved preventive management does not prevent infestation. Milk or milk products from a treated animal cannot be labeled as provided for in subpart D of this part for 90 days following treatment. In breeder stock, treatment cannot occur during the last third of gestation if the progeny will be sold as organic and must not be used during the lactation period for breeding stock.

                  (i) Fenbendazole (CAS #43210-67-9)—only for use by or on the lawful written order of a licensed veterinarian.

                  (ii) Ivermectin (CAS #70288-86-7).

                  (iii) Moxidectin (CAS #113507-06-5)—for control of internal parasites only.

                  (19) Peroxyacetic/peracetic acid (CAS #-79-21-0)—for sanitizing facility and processing equipment.

                  (20) Phosphoric acid—allowed as an equipment cleaner, Provided, That, no direct contact with organically managed livestock or land occurs.

                  (21) Poloxalene (CAS #-9003-11-6)—for use under 7 CFR part 205, the NOP requires that poloxalene only be used for the emergency treatment of bloat.

                  (22) Tolazoline (CAS #-59-98-3)—federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the lawful written or oral order of a licensed veterinarian, in full compliance with the AMDUCA and 21 CFR part 530 of the Food and Drug Administration regulations. Also, for use under 7 CFR part 205, the NOP requires:

                  (i) Use by or on the lawful written order of a licensed veterinarian;

                  (ii) Use only to reverse the effects of sedation and analgesia caused by Xylazine; and

                  (iii) A meat withdrawal period of at least 8 days after administering to livestock intended for slaughter; and a milk discard period of at least 4 days after administering to dairy animals.

                  (23) Xylazine (CAS #-7361-61-7)—federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the lawful written or oral order of a licensed veterinarian, in full compliance with the AMDUCA and 21 CFR part 530 of the Food and Drug Administration regulations. Also, for use under 7 CFR part 205, the NOP requires:

                  (i) Use by or on the lawful written order of a licensed veterinarian;

                  (ii) The existence of an emergency; and

                  (iii) A meat withdrawal period of at least 8 days after administering to livestock intended for slaughter; and a milk discard period of at least 4 days after administering to dairy animals.

                  (b) As topical treatment, external parasiticide or local anesthetic as applicable.

                  (1) Copper sulfate.

                  (2) Formic acid (CAS # 64-18-6)—for use as a pesticide solely within honeybee hives.

                  (3) Iodine.

                  (4) Lidocaine—as a local anesthetic. Use requires a withdrawal period of 90 days after administering to livestock intended for slaughter and 7 days after administering to dairy animals.

                  (5) Lime, hydrated—as an external pest control, not permitted to cauterize physical alterations or deodorize animal wastes.

                  (6) Mineral oil—for topical use and as a lubricant.

                  (7) Procaine—as a local anesthetic, use requires a withdrawal period of 90 days after administering to livestock intended for slaughter and 7 days after administering to dairy animals.

                  (8) Sucrose octanoate esters (CAS #s-42922-74-7; 58064-47-4)—in accordance with approved labeling.

                  (c) As feed supplements—None.

                  (d) As feed additives.

                  (1) DL-Methionine, DL-Methionine-hydroxy analog, and DL-Methionine-hydroxy analog calcium (CAS #’s 59-51-8, 583-91-5, 4857-44-7, and 922-50-9)—for use only in organic poultry production at the following maximum levels of synthetic methionine per ton of feed: Laying and broiler chickens—2 pounds; turkeys and all other poultry—3 pounds.

                  (2) Trace minerals, used for enrichment or fortification when FDA approved.

                  (3) Vitamins, used for enrichment or fortification when FDA approved.

                  (e) As synthetic inert ingredients as classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for use with nonsynthetic substances or synthetic substances listed in this section and used as an active pesticide ingredient in accordance with any limitations on the use of such substances.

                  (1) EPA List 4—Inerts of Minimal Concern.

                  (2) [Reserved]

                  (f) Excipients, only for use in the manufacture of drugs used to treat organic livestock when the excipient is: Identified by the FDA as Generally Recognized As Safe; Approved by the FDA as a food additive; or Included in the FDA review and approval of a New Animal Drug Application or New Drug Application.

                  (g)-(z) [Reserved]

                  [72 FR 70484, Dec. 12, 2007, as amended at 73 FR 54059, Sept. 18, 2008; 75 FR 51924, Aug. 24, 2010; 77 FR 28745, May 15, 2012; 77 FR 45907, Aug. 2, 2012; 77 FR 57989, Sept. 19, 2012; 80 FR 6429, Feb. 5, 2015]

                  return arrow Back to Top

                  §205.604 Nonsynthetic substances prohibited for use in organic livestock production.
                  The following nonsynthetic substances may not be used in organic livestock production:

                  (a) Strychnine.

                  (b)-(z) [Reserved]

                  • Paleo Huntress

                    Rotenone is not even mentioned in your post, TZ.

                    But it IS allowed in the US under Organic standards.

                    http://www.omri.org/ubersearch/results/retenone

                    • TZ

                      What I posted was from the USDA…those are ALL the allowed and prohibited pesticides… Rotenone is now not on the list…apparently it was banned from use in organics in 2005…

                      • Paleo Huntress

                        Rotenone is not prohibited, the maker simply stopped making it in the US so actions to restrict it were halted. As of 2012, it was still perfectly legal to use.

                        http://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Rotenone%20proposal.pdf

                        Regulatory History
                        In March and April 2006, registrants of rotenone in the U.S. requested voluntarily
                        cancellation from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of all livestock,

                        Crops: Rotenone
                        residential and home owner uses, domestic pet uses, and all other uses except for
                        piscicide uses. A data call-in was issued in 2004 requiring a sub-chronic (28-day)
                        inhalation neurotoxicity study to further investigate the results of independent studies in
                        animals that led to Parkinson’s Disease-like symptoms. At the time the study was
                        required, rotenone had registered uses for dust products in agricultural and residential
                        settings which were of particular concern for inhalation exposure. However, when all
                        agricultural and residential uses, and all food uses were voluntarily cancelled in 2006,
                        this requirement was waived.”

                        I think that regardless of whether this particular substance is still in use or not, there are many other organic pesticides that are toxic, and that was the point that I was making. I’m a big fan of organics and I buy them preferentially (and grow them myself), but organic simply doesn’t mean “safe”. Natural substances can also be quite toxic.

                      • TZ

                        Organic means that they try to avoid pesticides at all costs but in an emergency if needed they can NOT contaminate the crop, soil or water…I happen to know that there are NO organic pesticides that are as toxic as those used in GM or conventional crop farming. I also know that those pesticides allowed in organic farming degrade quickly which is why they are allowed….I think that is great that you support organic agriculture as it has been the way we farmed for centuries and is the most sustainable form of farming.

                • justin moreau

                  This organic gardener uses 0 chemicals and my garden looks better than any one I have seen.

                  • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

                    That’s impossible. You can’t do a single solitary thing without chemicals.

                    • justin moreau

                      Ha hah ahhaha lolo holoool hahahha lolol. God does it every day look at the lush forests.

                      • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

                        Don’t bring my title into things.

                        Everything is chemicals.

                    • tinfoilhatttt

                      God can-and does…

                      • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

                        I do not. Everything is chemicals.

                  • GMO Roberts

                    Don’t get out much do you.

                  • Paleo Huntress

                    That just isn’t true, Justin, All kinds of “organic” chemicals are used in organic farming.

                • disqus_k3oycamN0W

                  Huntress, there is a huge difference between real organic, which small farmers grow without any chemicals, the way it was done for centuries, and commercial organic.
                  For example the cheap “Horizon Organic” milk is produced by unscrupulous conglomerate Deans Food on a mega-farm with 10000 cows. Somehow they bought organic certification. A lot of similar cases.

                  • Ag Boy

                    No there isn’t.

                    Once your farm has been certified organic and you follow organic farming practices you are then an organic producer. It does not matter if you have 1 or 100,000 cows you are still organic.The size of operation does not determine organic status.

              • Warren Lauzon

                Actually no they don’t degrade faster.

                • TZ

                  Yes they do…and they are far less toxic! Period!

        • disqus_k3oycamN0W

          Great picture, huntress
          I would suggest Cynthia D. place her open mouth under the stream (D stands for ” Dura” – a fool in Slavic languages)
          Bill Carey can take turns with her

          • Zampolit

            Sounds like you’ve experienced taking turns under streams yourself. That’s a great picture too.

            • disqus_k3oycamN0W

              No, I avoid pesticides and all Monsanto products. like plague. But what happened to you after you took turn drinking that RoundUp? In your picture you are floating in a greenish slimy mass, disintegrating . Did you drive your truck into Monsanto corn field, poor Billy?

              • Warren Lauzon

                Do you know what Monsanto products are?

                • justin moreau

                  POISON

                  • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

                    Wow. Scintillating. How long did it take you to come up with that kindergarten response?

                    • justin moreau

                      honest question honest answer. Your they only one swindling on here shill.

                      • justin moreau

                        And yes my kindergartener is smart enough to know that monsanto is evil as well.

                      • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

                        lmao. The word I used was scintillating which means witty; brilliantly clever. I was being facetious, which means not meant to be taken seriously or literally.
                        Also, try going back to school & paying attention in both science and English classes. Both will help wonders.

        • hyperzombie

          Why is the guy in the pic using gloves and and a respirator to pour water in a tank?

          • JoeFarmer

            That’s obviously staged, or a photo taken out of context.

            You don’t need anywhere that level of PPE to use RoundUp.

            The backwards ball cap is a clue, too. We tend to wear our ball caps with the bill toward the front in these parts, even the kids.

            If I were tank-mixing Gramoxone and RoundUp, I would be wearing a respirator and neoprene gloves, but not a Tyvek suit.

            So my vote is, phony pic.

            • hyperzombie

              I know it’s staged. So phony it is ridiculous. I don’t know if it is only a Canadian thing, but Roundup here is always colored.

              • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

                (hoarse whisper) That’s racist. 😉

                • hyperzombie

                  So funny….

                  • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

                    Just a little. I gotta mock the SJWs, and I hoped you would have guessed that I wasn’t serious.

              • Paleo Huntress

                Here int he US, RoundUp is a pale amber color and the image above would certainly fit the bill.

                • hyperzombie

                  Does it look pale amber to you? If it does you should buy a new monitor.

                  • Paleo Huntress

                    I don’t need a monitor, I used to use it. Yes, it does look pale amber.

                    • hyperzombie

                      Well you better see an Optometrist.

                      • Paleo Huntress

                        It’s foamy, gets that way as air rushes back up through the liquid to replace what’s been poured out.

                      • hyperzombie

                        Still doesn’t look like foamy horse piss, and why are you arguing about this? If you have used Roundup, you know that you don’t need all that PPE. You need the same PPE that they recommend for a hammer, gloves and goggles.

                • disqus_k3oycamN0W

                  Shills are catching at the straws here. They are instructed to praise pesticides, and they are jumping trying to outdo each other to earn higher bonus.
                  I wish I could arrange “pesticide tasting” for them ( like wine tasting) and record the whole procedure on utube. That would be funny

              • JoeFarmer

                Interesting. RoundUp or generic glyphosate here has no dye.

                I wonder why that is? Trying to keep bogus product out of your country/province?

                • hyperzombie

                  Well everytime that I bought it is was dyed the color of “Morning Pee” or “Strangled Smurf Blue” I am fairly sure that these are the official names of the colors.

                  • JoeFarmer

                    Maybe that’s a Canada thing to preserve purity of product?

                    I can buy Chinese glyphosate here, but I don’t. I only buy glyphosate from Albaugh (AgriStar) which is made in MO, or Monsanto which is made in IA.

                    Too many horror stories about railcars of Chinese glyphosate with chunks of wood floating at the top, etc. I have a strict policy of not buying any crop chemical that I don’t know where it came from and who made it.

      • JoeFarmer

        Good catch. Lasso hasn’t been available for years. Can’t remember when it was discontinued, but it was a long time ago.

      • GMO Roberts

        Because it is part of the brain washing.

    • terraton

      Undoubtedly, Monsanto will do everything in its unlimited legal budget power to stop California and any individuals who stand in their way. It’s exactly what the wireless industry is doing—using the legal system and their considerable financial resources to continue to propagate their flawed and dangerous “safety” assurances to the public. If people only knew what’s been going on for the last 15 years.

      • Terry Hill

        Your tin-foil hat might be a little tight there… Maybe you should learn to read a financial statement.

        • Zampolit

          That first sentence was part of his doctoral dissertation. “unlimited legal budget power”! I did not lol. I almost defecated.

        • Laura Palmer

          your stupidity is showing Terry (or is it your shilliness showing?)
          You and your passive aggressive attacks. Monsanto profits plunged 15% this last quarter. YAY!!!

          • Zampolit

            I wouldn’t recommend you calling people out for being stupid. Not when you display a lack of understanding of passive-aggressive behavior. Yay!

            pas·sive-ag·gres·sive
            adjective
            of or denoting a type of behavior or personality characterized by indirect resistance to the demands of others and an avoidance of direct confrontation, as in procrastinating, pouting, or misplacing important materials.

          • Kenny Sakry

            Obviously the majority of the growing season is over. Of course profits are lower.

            • Dave

              Profits are lower because Monsanto is losing law suits, spending a fortune trying to outlaw (yes OUTLAW) GMO labeling by making it illegal for states to require GMO labeling, and the number of countries outlawing GMO’s overseas is growing. It also didn’t help their bottom line when WHO declared, because of REAL independent research, that glyphosate is a carcinogen.

          • Terry Hill

            Wow Laura… “My stupid”?
            Really?
            My comment was a pretty obvious swipe at the comment “unlimited budget power”.
            Your ignorance is astonishing if you think that Monsanto – a PUBLIC COMPANY – somehow has an unlimited budget to pay off shills and suppress the truth.
            This idiotic conspiracy theory demonstrates the total lack of financial understanding of antis… as a public company, they are legally required to declare all financial dealings, and their profits are then either taxed or distributed to shareholders (returned to investors) as dividends.
            Discrepancies of even a few thousand dollars would have the IRS so far up their butts they’d be squirming for months.

            And apart from your financial/economic ignorance and penchant for conspiracy theories, please enlighten me on why you think I’m a shill, or how you assume that I’m somehow a supporter of Monsanto – as opposed to a supporter of facts and truth over stupidity and ignorance (and moronic conspiracy theories)??

          • Moparman

            Terry Hill must work for Monsanto you can tell by his puckered up lips 🙂

            • Terry Hill

              Haha. No, I don’t. I don’t work for any biotech or agri-business. In fact, I work in education – hence why facts are more important to me than fear and nonsense beliefs.

              • disqus_k3oycamN0W

                Of course you do not WORK for biotech. You SHILL for them

                • Terry Hill

                  Oh snap – straight to the “I have no defensible or supportable facts, so SHILL!”
                  No, I don’t shill for anyone.
                  I could call you a ‘shill for big organic’, but what does that prove?
                  Just because someone has an argument they can defend against your cult-like beliefs, you really shouldn’t jump straight to ‘shill’ as if that’s a clever comment. It’s actually just childish, and ruins any credibility you think anything else you might say ‘might’ have.

              • Dave

                Monsanto loves guys like you. You believe every word from their paid off scientists

                • Terry Hill

                  How many scientists do you think they’ve ‘paid off’ in the little conspiracy theory echo chamber you live in?
                  Because I believe the 2000+ other studies, from universities, scientists and tax-payer funded, government research organisations (from outside the US) that also support GMOs and the general safe use of glyphosate.
                  But you seem to think that, because a meme or a FaceBook group or a pro-organic company trying to sell you their product by scaring you about the science you are either wilfully ignorant of, or simply too stupid to attempt to understand, is a MUCH more reliable and untainted source.
                  Right.
                  I’m currently studying biology – and through understanding the actual science (facts) I don’t fear either. Maybe you should try stop being so blinded by the cult-like dogma of nonsense presented by ‘Big Organic’.
                  Combined, ‘Big Organic’ is worth $300 Billion this year – how much is Monsanto making again? Oh yeah, far less. So who has more money to burn to influence the scientifically illiterate…?)

        • Colophon

          I don’t know why Monsanto is made out to be some kind of massive evil megacorp. It is not a large company by global standards. Its market cap is lower than, say, Caterpillar. Unlimited budget? Yeah right.

          • Dave

            Not evil? Sending reps out to trespass in farmers fields to take samples of their crops to check if they have any of their patented GMO plants, finding some and then suing the farmers? Happened to an organic canola farmer. Guess what, the farmer had enough support to fight the evil giant and he won his case, in fact the court found in the farmers favor because his canola had been contaminated by Monsanto’s GMO canola. Or how about the Multi billion dollar settlement Argentina farmers got from Monsanto. They weren’t satisfied selling them the seeds, they demanded a cut of the profits from the finished crops. Not evil for infiltrating government watchdogs organizations like the EPA and the FDA? Both are a revolving door of Monsanto executives. Wake up!

        • Moparman

          And your dark sun glasses is making it hard for you to see the truth or is it Monsanto’s round up getting to your brain and not making you think right

      • Moparman

        They have been paying the EPA off for many many years it people like Terry Hill that believe anything he hears

      • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

        “Unlimited legal budget?”

        • justin moreau

          Thats because the Syngenta CEO has morals and knows that Monsanto wants to poison everyone.

          • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

            No, dumbass: They’re competitors. As it says at the bottom. And, if Monsanto wanted to poison everyone, how would they stay in business?

          • Ag Boy

            Syngenta is one of the largest chemical companies in the world. They sell an entire portfolio of ag chemicals including a glyphosate version and GMO seed products. Golden Harvest and NK brands are just two of the seed companies that they market GMO corn and soybean seed trough.

            One of the reasons Monsanto wanted Syengenta was to acquire their extensive chem portfolio. This would have given Monsanto the freedom to operate with future plant and chemical combinations and not have to continually negotiate with the patent holders.

            • justin moreau

              And take over the food market even more so they could poison even more people.

            • justin moreau

              Sorry if my above statement is untrue I have just never heard of syngenta paying people off and not doing the proper research on their products. And I have never heard of one of their products proven to cause cancer.

              • Ag Boy

                The point is that you want to blame Monsanto for all the evils of the Ag world and you did NOT know Syngenta (15.1 billion in sales for 2014) a giant in the Ag industry sells the same Ag seed/chem products as Monsanto. To be that out of touch with the Ag community really casts doubt on many of your other dubious claims you have posted concerning Monsanto.

                • justin moreau

                  Selling because it’s high in demand and manufacturing are two different worlds. Your comment is so out of touch with my comment that I question the reality you live in. Maybe you are new to English, or reading.

                  • justin moreau

                    Like you know anything about farming. You grew up in a concrete jungle. I was raised on a farm and do accounting work for an ag based business.

                    • justin moreau

                      shame shame shame

                    • Ag Boy

                      Justin,

                      I grew up on a farm, have an Ag degree from Iowa State University, and sell seed to farmers everyday (30+ years in the seed business). If you want play who knows more about the technologies that Ag companies are employing today, I’m ready to play.

                      Ask me a question.

                    • GMO Roberts

                      And still you have never heard of syngenta?

              • GMO Roberts

                That just proves you don’t actually do any research, you just listen to crap you are told to on the Internet.

          • GMO Roberts

            LOL, so you think their gmos are ok? You are all for atrazine then? Just because it comes from syngenta?

        • justin moreau

          Not every scientist just the ones that they pay to do studies in their favor.

          • justin moreau

            big difference between a hundred thousand and billions

          • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

            So, zero. You’re slowly learning. That is good.

    • Marty Russell Woodcock

      This is farming today. Growing food to give us cancer.

      • hyperzombie

        Yep that would be a great plan, kill all the customers. You folks are insane.

        • Laura Palmer

          Another shill. How transparent. I hope your 50 cents a comment gets you your pabst blue ribbon beer and a lap dance.

          • Zampolit

            Your specialty Laura? Yay!

          • hyperzombie

            50 cents for a lap dance and a beer, what strip joint do you work at?? And can I get directions?

            • Paleo Huntress

              Why is it that the best a man can come up with to insult a woman is to turn her into a bimbo?

              • hyperzombie

                She turned herself into a bimbo, nothing to do with me.

                • Paleo Huntress

                  Disagreeing with you, doesn’t make her a bimbo. If you have a criticism of her opinion, stick to her opinion. You lose credibility when you start slinging misogynistic mud.

                  • FaunaAndFlora

                    To be fair, there is a difference between disagreements and insults. Or do you think calling someone a shill who spends money on cheap beer and lap dances was meant to be a complement? Seems that the best this woman could come up with to insult a man was to turn him into a sexist boor instead of addressing his opinion. Methinks you should apply the same standards to Laura Palmer.

                    • Paleo Huntress

                      You make a fair point… I missed the “lap dance” suggestion.

                  • disqus_k3oycamN0W

                    Zombie is not misogynist, her skeleton just hates people who did not eat GMO and stayed alive. Envy.

                  • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

                    misogynistic* If you’re gonna throw around retarded words, you might want to spell them properly.

                    • Paleo Huntress

                      Go you.

                      • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG
                      • Paleo Huntress

                        You win the intrawebz. Go you again!

                        As long as you know you’re gender ignorant. A huntress is a girl, not a guy.

                      • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

                        And you’re etymologically ignorant. Guy, as I’ve used it, is gender neutral.

                      • Rob Bright

                        idiot…

                      • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

                        Don’t be so hard on yourself.

                      • Paleo Huntress

                        Don’t be ridiculous, “poor little guy” is never gender neutral.

                        In the context of “Hey you guys…”, it could be. You didn’t use that context.

                        Nice back-pedal though. 😉

                      • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

                        Once again, you prove my point about etymology. Keep it up.

                      • Paleo Huntress

                        As you wish, Buttercup.

                  • hyperzombie

                    If calling me a corporate troll, doesn’t make her a bimbo what does?

                    • Paleo Huntress

                      I’d say that dressing like a stripper and sleeping with everything with legs could make a woman a bimbo.

                      Calling someone a corporate troll is not gender or morality specific.

                      • hyperzombie

                        “I’d say that dressing like a stripper and sleeping with everything with legs”

                        That is not the definition of a bimbo..
                        It is an attractive woman of limited intelligence. There are many other words to describe a woman that dresses like a stripper and sleeps with everything.

                      • Paleo Huntress

                        bimbo
                        [bim-boh]

                        3. an attractive but stupid young woman, especially one with loose morals.

                        Unabridged. Random House, Inc.

                        How are you privy to her appearance?

                      • hyperzombie

                        So now you are saying that I was too nice, and complimented her on her looks? How evil of me.

                      • JoeFarmer

                        She needs to replace the, “H” with a “C” in her screen name.

                      • JoeFarmer

                        How about you man up and tell me what you know about farm glyphosate and how to apply it?

                        Is glyphosate an RUP?

              • disqus_k3oycamN0W

                Why do you think hyperzombie is a man? She was a woman before she rotted after drinking some RoundUp. Look at her picture. Monsanto likes hiring this type as shills. BRAIN ROTTED AWAY – they are the asset for the company

            • disqus_k3oycamN0W

              She will not hire you to work in her strip club. Nose rotted and fell off. Customers will suspect STD. They will not guess glyphosate did it to you

            • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

              Hmm. That might not be a good place to visit, you know? There’s a reason those prices are that low…

        • expat

          No, just make them sick enough so that the pharmaceutical companies can earn a ton by trying to cure them (but not quite). THAT would be bad business.

          • hyperzombie

            A conspiracy wrapped in a conspiracy, how novel.

    • justin moreau

      Bill Gates one of the largest Monsanto share holdershttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjj4Iq-rsNg

      • disqus_k3oycamN0W

        Vaccinator Billy Gator, Life on Earth terminator

      • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

        youtube videos equal the truth now? Well, I have one question for you: “Do you want to know, what it is?” https://youtu.be/zE7PKRjrid4

    • justin moreau
      • J. Randall Stewart

        My cows are more fertile than ever. I think you are naive, perhaps you are gullible.

        You are listening to bad sources.

        • Michael McCarthy

          Or he’s being paid to post piles of propaganda. Yeesh.

        • Laura Palmer

          you are a liar or being paid by monsanto (who are going down)
          Better jump ship before you are left behind.

          • J. Randall Stewart

            I raise potatoes, alfalfa, triticale, oats, corn, grazing beef and conventional dairy. I farm with my father, brothers and adult sons. We farm 70% non-GMO, compost thousands of tons per year, and raise some crops organically, meaning compost is the only input.

            I raise non-GMO crops for a non-GMO customer.

            We had records yields and record milk production last year. Last year US dairy farmers produced the cleanest milk ever recorded, and the most milk per cow ever recorded.

            I plant mostly a corn that is BMR, Monsanto does not sell that type. The alfalfa seed I buy is not by Monsanto. I have almost no dealing with Monsanto, but what I do with them, they are a decent supplier.

            I’m willing to discuss any aspect of this respectfully and transparently. Ask me anything.

            • Zampolit

              Your restraint in responding to the ad hominem attacks of these people is to be commended. My preference is fighting fire with fire.

            • simong02

              Where do you find the patience to deal with people like Laura Palmer? But seriously thank you for doing an important job I am too arrogant/lazy/angry to help with myself.

              • Colophon

                “Monsanto” is just a lazy shorthand for idiots to use for “technical stuff I am too stupid to understand”. They hate science, they hate education, but they are happy to eat cheap food, have safe housing and good healthcare, and “do their research” online using the products of science. Lunatics the lot of them.

            • Rickinreallife

              It’s great to contrast your courteous, patient, detailed posts with the accusation grenades that get thrown your way. I enjoy reading what you write.

              I have no doubt that Laura would get an entirely different understanding if she were able or willing to spend a month with you.

            • Paleo Huntress

              Are you separating conventional plant residues and manures from organically grown residues and manure when you compost?

              • J. Randall Stewart

                No. Certified Organic producers don’t either.

                http://www.extension.org/pages/18628/managing-manure-fertilizers-in-organic-systems#.VfwKEvlViko

                To be clear, I’m not Certified Organic nor do I have any desire to be. My land is better when I can balance the manure and compost overload with synthetic inputs. My crops that are raised organically are done so because that is how it works out best for that crop.

                I use everything available, including biological inputs.

                • Paleo Huntress

                  No land is better with synthetic inputs.

                  Perhaps your production is better, perhaps your profits are better, but not your land– not ever.

                  So the answer is “no”. Thank you.

        • justin moreau

          Are you buying cattle or do you raise your own. This takes about 3 generations of gmo fed animals/people. Look at the infertility rates in our country. I bet your abortion rate is also higher than 30 years ago.

          • J. Randall Stewart

            That is a fair question.

            The vast majority of our cattle were born and raised here. Beef cows have a calf every year, and its not uncommon for a beef cow to be 10 years old, some occasionally get to 14 yrs old. Dairy cows have a calf every 14 months, it isn’t uncommon to have a 8 year old milk cow, but its rare to have a 12 year old milk cow.

            We have 15-20 generations of cattle that have been fed GMO feed.

            The sterility thing is a crazy myth. Some farmers might believe it, but some farmers believe in aliens and that the government has a satellite that tracks only them. These farmers are in the extreme minority.

            Anyone claiming this is misinformed and gullible. Reproduction is a huge deal that is tracked closely.

            Just think about it: Does it even make sense?

            http://www.thefarmersdaughterusa.com/2014/12/asktfd-do-gmos-make-pigs-sterile.html

            • heavyhanded

              Must you pretend cowboy Josh Randall “Wanted dead or alive” post a link with the same name of a TV series 50 years ago called “the farmers daughter” You are a joke!

            • heavyhanded

              What is your opinion on COOL…cattle boy?

              • J. Randall Stewart

                Good question.

                I’m not a fan of it. I don’t know a lot about it.

                What is your opinion?

                • heavyhanded

                  You are not a fan of what? So you really don’t raise cattle? If you do, you would know how to respond. But, that would require you to admit you do want labels on beef, pork, and poultry. It must hurt to be a liar and walk around your home with that smell!

                  • J. Randall Stewart

                    You are being childish. Why do you assume that people are only in favor of laws that benefit them financially? Is that your mentality?

                    I’ll answer your question, then our discussion is over due to your shtick. We run a cow-calf operation; it is not the major focus, my brother is the primary decision maker on the beef cattle, they graze in grass pasture during the spring and summer, and in late fall/winter they graze on alfalfa fields after the last cutting.

                    Your juvenile comments and personal attacks are understood. Unless you can act mature, our conversations are finished. I refuse to have further discussion with you at your level of rhetoric–you win: take home whatever prize you imagine is appropriate.

                    • heavyhanded

                      That is no answer.. That was both denial and juvenile… You are a bumbling idiot! What purpose do you serve commenting on the internet? My prize should be.. you stop your posting pro gmo lies forever!

                    • heavyhanded

                      Cattle boy …are you still using Zilmax? Do you know what Zilmax is? For those that don’t it was formally called Zilpaterol, that was a failed ASTHMA drug for humans and Merck decided to sell it to cattle ranchers about 2007 as a steroid to add to cattle feed as way to add big weight to cattle (mostly muscle) in the last 8 weeks of their life. But what happened was the some of the cattle could not walk as their legs could not stand the added weight and would fall AKA ” Downers” and cattle would be shocked to move and dragged to their death. I am not PETA! I love steak!

                      • J. Randall Stewart

                        I wonder why Kanawai Mamalahoe didn’t jump in here, since he claims to run 5,000 cattle. He should have helped you understand the difference between a cow/calf operation and a finishing operation and which one would use a steroid or growth hormone.

                        Instead, he upvoted your question, so I wonder: does this mean that neither one of you know which of the two operations would use a steroid?

                        The answer is in the type of operation, and I’ve told you what operation we run. I am willing to help both of you understand the difference in a respectful and transparent manner. Would you like more information, or can you figure it out from here?

                      • heavyhanded

                        First, you are avoiding as a cattle boy the issue of COOL. Second, which of the four multinational beef processors that control 85% of our beef do you have contract with?

                      • J. Randall Stewart

                        Again, the fact that we’re cow/calf would tell you that question is irrelevant.

                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cow-calf_operation

                        In short, we sell at auctions or to brokers, the weaned calves then move on to the finishers, typically feedlots.

                        I don’t think you understand this very well.

                      • heavyhanded

                        So what your saying is you don’t care what happens after your sale right? Most of these feedlots are controlled and contracted by the big 4 packers that control 85% of USA beef. Let us back to the original questions…….You want to prevent American consumers from labeling foods containing GMO,s ……but you cant commit to an answer of your stand on COOL… so then you don’t give a shiiiiiit what and how your cattle is fattened up..do I have your bullcrap position correct? I do!

                      • Ag Boy

                        COOL identifies the point of origin of production of the beef animal. Just as “Made in the USA” or “Made in China” let’s you know where the product was produced. That is true with GMO seed too. Each bag has what country it was grown in.

                        GMO technology however describes a novel trait insertion that does not material change the properties of the grain. Your are comparing apples to oranges.

                      • heavyhanded

                        You are talking to an expert on COOL,…the House voted to repeal COOL and has been sent to the senate and awaits their vote…What you as a little boy that cant understand is that we are talking about denying information to the American consumer to make an informed choice….same as your toxic industry and the GMA want to keep to keep americans in the DARK!

                      • Ag Boy

                        No, I understand quite well what the issues are surrounding labeling. I work in the Ag industry and the enormous added cost for tracking GMO’s for a no valid scientific reason makes no sense.

                        PS. If something has not been repealed then it still is the law, correct?

                      • heavyhanded

                        The problem you people have is that consumers want their food labeled , that would then pressure retailers to put pressure the GMA and that would put demands on farmers to get rid of gmo crops, and in turn end Monsanto and others promoting and selling this gmo lie.

                      • GMO Roberts

                        Yes consumers really want it labeled don’t they.

                        California – voters said NO
                        Washington – voters said NO
                        Oregon – voters said NO
                        Colorado – voters said NO
                        Arizona – voters said NO

                        Five to zero. Kinda says it all don’t it.

                      • J. Randall Stewart

                        If you want to know what I think, just ask. Your assumption is not correct.

                        You didn’t answer my questions, I’ll ask again. Do you think people are only in favor of laws that benefit them financially?

                      • heavyhanded

                        Are you brain dead, or kicked in the head? ANSWER the real questions…

                      • J. Randall Stewart

                        I am not answering questions where you are being a jerk. Therefore, you will never know if I have suffered a kick to the head.

                        Are you unwilling to answer questions?

                      • heavyhanded

                        Stop little boy with childish questions and answer my questions that have significantly more importance in the real world…

                      • heavyhanded

                        Why would anyone believe a paid gmo liar like you, as opposed to KM?

                      • J. Randall Stewart

                        Check out his comments, then check out mine.

                        Mine are full of ag-related experiences. He hasn’t said a single word, (edit: ag details) other than his amazing numbers claims.

                        If I’ve said something that doesn’t ring true, name it. Maybe I’m wrong, maybe I’ve made a mistake, maybe I’m right.

                        Your knowledge is your own responsibility. I have no obligation to convince you of anything.

                      • Kānāwai Māmalahoe

                        Our ranch has been in operation since 1888 we work with the rest of the island’s ranchers to provide fresh local pasture raised beef without any steroids or growth hormones.

                        We process them all here on island at a family owned operation. I don’t think J. Rand has ever seen a cow and that’s why you have him so frustrated.

                        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/29a587a714f1ac251d3ea55271d0acbbd6f04ae768f1b21f8f7e4f9c00bbbd3b.jpg

                      • Bruce__H

                        Which European Commission Report contains the quote shown in the image you posted?

                      • Kānāwai Māmalahoe

                        The 1999 report. Report on Public Health Aspects of the Use of Bovine Somatotrophin – 15-16 March 1999

                      • Bruce__H

                        I can’t find the quote in that report.

                        Maybe I have the wrong version of the report or some shortened version. Can you supplly a link to a version that contains the quote?

                        By the way … the version I accessed is at http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scv/out19_en.html

                      • Bruce__H

                        Have you been able to locate the quote you cited (the one beginning “Avoidance of rBGH dairy products …”) in the European Commission Report you told me about?

                        Is the quote perhaps from somewhere else?

                      • Bruce__H

                        What is your current view of the quote you posted in an image a while ago?

                        The quote, one you attributed to a European Commission report, ran “Avoidance of rBGH dairy products in favor of natural products would be the most practical & immediate dietary intervention to … (achieve) tha goal of preventing cancer.”

                        I can’t find this passage in the source you directed me to and I am starting to think it has never been part of any European Commission report. What do you think? Are you able to find it elsewhere?

                        Why do you choose not to answer on this point? I think it is a legitimate question.

                      • Bruce__H

                        Kanawai Mamalahoe:

                        The quote that appears in an image you attached to an earlier post never appeared in the report you have cited. In fact I can’t find the passage you quoted anywhere in any European Commission report.

                        Please either clear up the confusion or retract the citation.

                      • Kānāwai Māmalahoe

                        Perhaps you can conduct more of your own research, instead of requiring it to be spoon fed, the quote is indeed from the EU Report in 1999. The EU and most of the developed world, except America bans the use of rBST.

                        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bf77e4590ddb40b6b3a0621397a08bb5c0b821e21e409972eca1756a5eff8af3.jpg

                      • Bruce__H

                        I am happy to hear that the quote is from the 1999 EU Report! I couldn’t locate it there though. Could you please direct me to the part of the report it is in? Also, since it may be the case that different versions of the report exist on different parts of the internet, I would be grateful if you could supply a link to the version you are using (I am a little worried that I am seing some sort of executive summary and not the full report). I am using the following link, please point out if it is different from yours

                        http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scv/out19_en.html

                        Thanks!

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        Bruce, I have also attempted to uncover this quote. I cannot find the word intervention anywhere in the document. I am attaching a document that may be the true origin.

                        http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/93/3/238.1.full.pdf

                      • Jason

                        Yes.. that quote came from this response to a study on insulin like growth factors (IGF). You’ll notice the very last line of the quote actually comes from the conclusion of the report, but notice how they left out some text, instead using ……. in it’s place. The actual quote from the study they are referencing says this:

                        ” Currently unknown are the feasibility and validity of implementing dietary interventions to reduce IGF levels with the goal of preventing cancer. Studies that address this issue and the dose–response relationship between food intake and levels of IGFs in circulation may be of value in developing programs for cancer prevention and control.”

                        In other words, the study says that the validity of this is completely unknown. But, by removing that text you get a nice little sciency-sounding quote that appears to be backup up by a study.

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        So Kanawai’s little infographic is less than truthful? To quote Blanche Deveraux, “Well I am stunned, just stunned”.

                      • Jason

                        I know… big shocker. Not only is the quote attributed to the wrong people, but it’s intentionally misrepresented.

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        I think Joe Farmer said it best, “Truth and activism rarely intersect”

                      • heavyhanded

                        So Martin Luther King was not a truthful activist? But you McCartoon will quote a little nothing called fake joey as if his fffnn bullcraaaap has any truth in the real world?

                      • heavyhanded

                        More ? tobacco ,lead, asbestos, activists led the way to stop these poisons…Fool …

                      • Bruce__H

                        Mr McCarthy, I see you have been down the same path as I have.

                        12 days ago I first saw the quote in an image attached to one of Kanawai Mamalahoe’s posts. I wondered about it. I could see it was supposed to be from an EU Commision report but I didn’t know which one. So I asked KM and right away he directed me to the 1999 “Report on Public Health Aspects of the Use of Bovine Somatotrophin – 15-16 March 1999”. Like you, I looked it up and within several minutes determined that almost none of the words in KM’s quote were taken from this report. So I wrote a further post telling KM I couldn’t find the quote, giving him the version of the EU report I had accessed, and asking foir his help. No answer.

                        I asked again … no answer again. And again …again no answer.

                        I thought ‘give him some time’. So I waited 5 days and asked again, this time informing other readers that he was refusing to answer. No answer.

                        Once more I tried, this time asking him to retract the citation if he couldn’t give information about its source. Finally …. an answer!!

                        But the answer consisted of a reaffirmation that the EU Commission report was the correct source. How can MH think this report is the source of this quote when it isn’t? Has he not read it?

                        No. He hasn’t. 12 days ago, when I first found that the EU report didn’t contain the quote KM claims I typed it into Google. Within another minute or so I was at the same Journal of the National Cancer Institute letter to the editor that you have found. Obviously, this is the source of the quotation. In it, the letter writer, Samuel Epstein MD, twice hijacks a passage from a 2000 paper by Yu and Rohan (J Nat Cancer Inst 92:1472) to fit his own agenda.

                        Here is the original Yu and Rohan passage from their article … “Currently unknown are the feasibility and validity of implementing dietary interventions to reduce IGF levels with the goal of preventing cancer. Studies that address this issue and the dose–response relationship between food intake and levels of IGFs in circulation may be of value in developing programs for cancer prevention and control.”

                        And here is the result when Epstein firt quotes it (with original Yu and Rohan marterial set off in double asterisks and Epstein’s context in quotes) …. “In conclusion, Yu and Rohan … emphasized **the feasibility and validity of implementing dietary interventions to reduce IGF levels with the goal of preventing cancer.**”’ Not a very accurate rendition!

                        Furthermore here is result the second time that Epstein tries to quote the Yu and Rohan (again set in Epstein’s context) … “‘Avoidance of rBGH dairy products in favor of natural products would thus appear to be the most practical and immediate **dietary intervention to… [achieve] the goal of preventing cancer**”. Wow! Poor Yu and Rohan!

                        This second version is how Epstein chose to end his letter. But before doing that he stuck in an almost unconnected thought ….”converging lines of experimental and epidemiologic evidence … have incriminated excess IGF levels in rBGH milk as risk factors for breast and colon cancers. Confirmation of these concerns by an international expert committee prompted the January 2000 European ban on the marketing and sale of rBGH milk” And voila, we now have the spurious connection between the EU commission work and Epsteins mangling of Yu and Rohan’s work that KM has carelessly reproduced.

                        I found all this out 12 days ago. Does Kanawai Mamalahoe know about it all? I doubt it. I think to him the original image was just an exotically coloured picture that aligned with his biases. I don’t think that his curiosity or respect for evidence and accuracy extend so far as to search for the correct version of this information even if he knows it is meaningless. I fact I hope he didn’t realize how mistaken the quote is because if he did it means that he has been conning everyone, including those who upvote him, for almost 2 weeks. I am hoping he is incompetent rather than malevolent.

                        PS. Epstein is wrong about why the EU banned rBGH (recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone) milk. It wasn’t because of concerns about cancer in humans. It was because of painful side effects for the cows.

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        I’ve followed the interaction on this subject since you first brought it up. Unfortunately, this individual will rarely provide any sustained dialog (a fact which I am sure you are aware of), so I decided we should move the conversation to the truth. Interestingly, I received a comment from another poster on this after posting my comment to you.
                        I have no doubt that he is educated and likely has actually read the document from the EU commission. It has been my experience that, regardless of what he knowledge he may have on this, he isn’t interested in providing the whole picture. On multiple occasions he has referred to 2,4-D as “Agent orange minus the dioxin (supposedly)” and “The human liver rice being grown by Ventria in Kansas”. While there is some shred of truth in these statements, they are deliberately misleading.
                        And as you will note, he will never miss an opportunity to comment on the “damage” that GE (and Monsanto) is causing to Maui. This is likely because he has a vested interest in the island, as his family likely owns 1/2 it.

                        So, my take is that he is malevolent, rather than ignorant or incompetent.

                      • heavyhanded

                        Is that picture of jerry springer?

                      • Jason

                        Taking your advice, I did my own research. What I found was a bit different than what you portrayed. The quote has nothing to do with the European Commision. It was from an opinion piece written by Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., University of Illinois, School of Public Health. In his piece he says:

                        Avoidance of rGBH dairy products in favor of natural products would appear to be the most practical and immediate “dietary intervention to….. (achieve) the goal of preventing cancer”.1
                        http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/93/3/238.1.full.pdf

                        Notice there are quotes around the ending section. But oddly…they decided to leave out some text of this quote. Why, I wonder? I decided to check the citation to see what was removed. Much to my surprise, here’s what I found that the actual quote said:

                        Currently unknown are the feasibility and validity of implementing dietary interventions to reduce IGF levels with the goal of preventing cancer. Studies that address this issue and the dose–response relationship between food intake and levels of IGFs in circulation may be of value in developing programs for cancer prevention and control.
                        http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/92/18/1472.full

                        Seems to have a bit of a different meaning now, doesn’t it?

                        I thought you’d like to know this because I know that you, like me, share a passion for the truth. Right?

                      • Bruce__H

                        Kanawai Mamalahoe:

                        Do you have a dairy farm associated with your cattle operation? Is that why you are interested in rBST?

                      • J. Randall Stewart

                        Nice to see you hanging out again, KM.

                        Lets talk! You’ll figure it out in a hurry. I’m not frustrated at all, I’m simply not going to dive into this particular pig-pen style with this commenter–I’d rather just stay with the facts. Plus, it is beneficial for people to figure out things for theirself—in this case he can figure out why a cow/calf operation is highly unlikely to use a steroid.

                        I do spend the majority of my time with crops and machinery–but lets talk cattle. Lets talk about your breeding methods. How do you select, and what procedures do you use? What do you use to cover, and what is your clean up strategy? How often do you calve? How does your climate influence your decisions? Do you graze your cattle on your potato fields after harvest to minimize waste?

                        You said crossbreds in your original 5,000 cow claim. What is your crossbred strategy? What lines are you crossing into, and back out of?

                        Have you considered setting up a methane digester?

                        Lets have a conversation! This is a great way to determine if your amazing claims are true or fiction.

                        What about your potato crop? Rounds, russet, what skin type, and any specialty colors? I’ve tried a few specialty colors, I could comment on them, but for the last several years it has been all russet varieties.

                        As to the rBst meme (here we just call it BST, just our slang here) …… We never used it. I don’t have anything against it particularly, but our processor simply asked us not to use it, so we didn’t. We also measure our animals daily production as one of the metrics to tell us if something is wrong with that animal, and we were slow to adopt because we weren’t really convinced it was better overall for our management style.

                        Tell us about the USDA processing requirements. I don’t know much about that.

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        Oh look, here’s the cattle ranch in Maui in operation since 1888.
                        http://haleakalaranch.com/
                        Owned by the Baldwin family
                        http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304640104579489551277657772
                        no 5000 head of cattle, though, this says 1400

                      • J. Randall Stewart

                        There is a reasonable chance KM is one of the heirs. From his writing, one can tell that he is well educated, which wouldn’t be unusual for a person of that opportunity.

                        I’m all in favor of him telling us what he knows. I don’t really care if it is 36 acres or 36,000 acres, if it is a PhD or elementary school. A person is only what they know. I know a few kooky PhD’s, and I know a HS dropout is is enormously intelligent (but can’t write well).

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        I’m not disagreeing, I’m just looking to see if he responds to the nugget.

                      • Kānāwai Māmalahoe

                        We have been fortunate to stand on the shoulders of giants. Our climates range dramatically and the Brahman influence helps the genetic balance to handle the high humidity of many pastures. From the 50s to 70s the seed stock was primarily Hereford with Brahman influence introduced in the 80s. The market trend toward British types in the late 90s led to Angus bulls being crossed with the Brahman and now the majority are angus plus.

                        In terms of production, the Angus cattle gain 1.7 pounds per day, the Brangus cattle gain 2.2 pounds per day, and the Angus Plus cattle gain 2.5 pounds per day. So, that genetic balance seems to work in our climate.

                        The rotational grazing eliminates the need for Bayer or other chemical cover/cleanups; however, it also largely eliminates our ability to take advantage of methane digesters or the lagoons that are a major resource. If you add that water to your windrows with a sprayer to increase indigenous micro-organisms it will increase your success in composting.

                        We do finish cattle on a variety of fallow fields to help improve both the health of the soil and the taste of the beef. The cattle finished on harvested cane and pineapple fields provide a flavor equivalent or superior to grain finished beef.

                        USDA processing is like all things USDA, in my experience who is in your field, plant or office has a huge impact on the quality of assistance. Fortunately, in my experience, the vast majority of the people in the USDA are amazing and provided a great deal of assistance.

                        I do wish we had lagoons and here are some links about that incredible resource. Not only are lagoons a source of NPK but also the beneficial micro-organisms including photosynthetic bacteria, probiotic bacteria and lactic acid similar to those commercially sold as EM developed by a Japanese researcher, if not already familiar with that product you should try it.

                        http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100DOTV.txt

                        http://alfalfa.ucdavis.edu/+symposium/proceedings/2001/01-123.pdf

                        http://animalwaste.okstate.edu/extension-program/pss-2245web.pdf

                        http://www.extension.org/pages/72744/fertilizer-value-of-swine-manure:-a-comparison-of-a-lagoon-and-a-deep-pit-slurry-system#.Vfe_13i9LCQ

                        http://water.epa.gov/type/watersheds/named/msbasin/upload/2006_8_25_msbasin_symposia_ia_session8.pdf

                      • GMO Roberts

                        1.7 pounds per day? You know as much about raising cattle as you do papaya if that is the best you can do.

                      • J. Randall Stewart

                        What do you know about digester’s and lagoons?

                      • J. Randall Stewart

                        Just come clean with what your real experience is. I’d be able to trust something you say. It is clear to anyone with a working knowledge the mistakes you made in this and many other comments.

                        If you’d just come clean, I could respect the portion of knowledge that you likely really do know.

                        Just for starters, anyone with a working knowledge of cattle would instantly know what the terms “cover” “catch” “slip” “cleanup” mean. I really didn’t expect you to bungle that answer as badly as you did, you surprised with how badly you fumbled with that.

                        At this time, I don’t feel much need of mentioning the many other area’s where your lack of knowledge is showing.

                        Just come clean. Please quit pretending. I’d like to trust something you say, but I just can’t.

                      • Kānāwai Māmalahoe

                        I can’t trust anything you have ever said. Not just your total lack of knowledge on cattle or my answer. You haven’t shown any knowledge just obfuscation common to firms hired by Monsanto such as Ketchum. What county is your supposed farm? How many acres are your various operations?

                        You have accused me because I don’t engage you on the internet for hours. I accuse that you are a paid troll, I would like to believe you are a real farmer; however, your thousands of comments in just months and their content both suggest you are no more than a paid troll. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fc5c362a70cf5f7c3dc524ee613eb47f46617aec6adf4151abef8b9b83c59bf5.jpg

                      • heavyhanded

                        Nice kick in the balls… Fake cattle boy wont get off the floor from that for a while!

                      • J. Randall Stewart

                        Explain how you bungled those industry standard terms so badly.

                        You thought “cover” and “cleanup” were some chemical Bayer terms?

                        Really?

                        I’m asking that you show some knowledge.

                        You haven’t shown any working agricultural knowledge.

                        Just come clean.

                        Let’s talk. What do you want to discuss?

                      • Kānāwai Māmalahoe

                        Bayer does indeed make a cover called cleanup and seeing as the GMO industry admits to hiring the same PR firms to obfuscate conversations as the tobacco firms, I am quite confident that you are a paid troll. You say your brother is the cattle guy, maybe he uses it or similar cleanup beyond ivomec.

                        https://www.valleyvet.com/ct_detail.html?pgguid=5b4f2a5c-efb8-4914-aab6-20a8a8ad485b https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6d0901d6390dc3da1d4de565b3a7bb62f89b43f6db01b672d229b1de7b4a2364.jpg

                      • J. Randall Stewart

                        Cover
                        Catch
                        Cleanup
                        Slip

                        Not chemical term by Bayer. How could you have fumbled this so badly?

                        Those weren’t even trick questions, they can easily be Google searched.

                        How many acres I farm means little in this setting, I can share what I do and my experience. I farm in the western united ststes. There are many things I don’t know, and if I’m wrong, please correct me.

                        I’m not a cattle expert, but I sure as heck know what cover, catch, cleanup, and slip mean.

                        I also know steroids are not used in cow/calf operations.

                      • Kānāwai Māmalahoe

                        You can go back to your original question, you never mentioned Slip (pregnancy detection) or Catch what we would call chutes or simply roping. You said: “What do you use to cover, and what is your clean up strategy?” I answered. You are wrong Bayer does make the chemical cover called cleanup, I posted a link in the other comment you made with the same question. When I here cover, I think of cover crops not chemicals but if you are involved in cattle, our operations are drastically different.

                        You said it alright…”I’m not a cattle expert”-fake name aka J. Stewart

                        You are most likely a Monsanto troll and no amount of photos of your iPad next to GMO alfalfa or BMR corn will change that…

                        Why are you afraid to tell the most basic information of your farms county and acreage…you make your tired 70% non-Gmo 30% GMO comment enough. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8b25648bf05a26d4ebba11e73ed7313535a2d9f65f1e5248e9ec739463a225e3.jpg

                      • J. Randall Stewart

                        Here was my question to you: Lets talk about your breeding methods. How do you select, and what procedures do you use? What do you use to cover, and what is your clean up strategy?

                        These are common terms used industry-wide
                        Cover (breed)–“Did the bull cover the cows?”
                        Catch (get pregnant)–Did the cow catch?
                        Cleanup– what you do to cows who didn’t catch (get pregnant), they get a bull who does the cleanup, or the “cleanup” can be done by AI (ai means artificial insemination)
                        Slip– miscarriage, “She slipped the calf”

                        A quick google of these terms together brought up this discussion on a message board:
                        http://bcowtalk.runboard.com/t12161

                        Just come clean. I’m not accusing you of anything, I’m interested in what you really know.

                        I will share what I know. If I make a mistake, I’m open to correction.

                        There is no need for you to make assumptions about me–just ask and I’ll tell you what I do and how I do it. Even ask me about mistakes I make, I’ll tell you.

                        As to your questions on exactly where I am and how large of a farm: Exactly where I farm or how many acres is not important–knowledge is important.

                        I’m not comfortable with some of the creepy people knowing where our operation is(the kind of people who post threatening things like killing or destroying property). I’m in the Western United States. I raise alfalfa, potatoes, triticale, oats, corn, grazing beef and conventional dairy.

                        You seem to be well educated, but I haven’t seen you demonstrate any working knowledge. I’m not saying you don’t have any knowledge –I’m saying you haven’t demonstrated any.

                        I’m interested in the huge cane farm and in the ranch you have attached to–I don’t care what your real involvement is.

                      • J. Randall Stewart

                        I’m not a cattle expert. I have helped pull calves, doctored baby calves, built and fixed cow corrals, tubed bloated cattle, helped save a bloating steer by sticking it with a knife ( I didn’t run the knife), I’ve loaded cattle, herded cattle, moved cattle, fed cattle, ran the TMR, set up squeeze chutes. I don’t like riding horses, and I’m more of a crops and machine guy.

                        You seem to be a graphic type of guy, so I’ll attempt to keep you updated with some graphics today.

                        We are harvesting alfalfa and corn. I’m not personally on a machine, and if breakdowns are routine, I can get some graphics for you today.

                        Any requests?

                        I’m interested in finishing on cane and pineapple, will you share about that?

                        Ps that was not GMO alfalfa. Just ask, I’ll gladly let you know.

                      • J. Randall Stewart

                        I’m sharing graphics with you today, and I’ll explain this one.

                        The blue jug is inoculat, it is microorganisms that help preserve the feed as it ferments.

                        The little scooper (**1) full of the powder is the microorganisms. I’ll mix seven scoops per 2 1/2 gallon jug. (**2) Each scoop does 50 tons of forage.

                        We use a Dhornman innoculant setup, it will inject about a gallon per hour while the forage harvester works.

                        You’ll notice you’re along for the ride today, your most recent post is on my iPad as a personal touch. You’re visiting me via Disque comment proxy, 🙂

                        This is kinda fun sharing as I go, Feel free to share back about finishing cattle on cane and pineapple. I’m interested.

                        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9bdca212a641b32cf1c114e7250056efb98b49de2ce893247b611037259908c4.jpg

                        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2220f4ed7af90bce11800f11ad057c2a81fd4ed77a8959e6200eeff8742e1315.jpg

                      • hyperzombie

                        Totally cool, thanks for the pics.

                      • J. Randall Stewart

                        I was having a pretty good day that day, zero problems. A good day to have KM visit, but I got a little more grumpy the next few days. Things changed the next few days….nothing really bad, just a little more than typical problems. The only spud digging right now is with a shovel.
                        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9fd91d8dc94375708811f4bf37292ef0d2382bcd8dbd9f95bd680988a498a7de.jpg

                      • hyperzombie

                        Don’t you worry about compaction with the trucks driving in the field?
                        And shovel spuds are the best spuds, if you work for them they always taste better.

                      • J. Randall Stewart

                        Everyone I know around here uses trucks.

                        I just attended the great University of YouTube for several minutes, and now I’m an expert in midwest silage, too. They all use trucks. No exceptions. Ever. 🙂

                      • hyperzombie

                        “I just attended the great University of YouTube for several minutes, and now I’m an expert in midwest silage”LOL so funny…,
                        We use trucks here as well, but you can see the tracks for at least year afterwards…compaction sucks.

                      • JoeFarmer

                        FWIW, everyone around here does that for silage, too. Occasionally with a straight truck, but not very often.

                        We run our semis in the fields for corn and beans, too. Ground pressure with 1,000 bushels of corn is actually less than a 1,000 bu. grain wagon.

                      • J. Randall Stewart

                        Is Claas taking over the spfh market there?

                      • JoeFarmer

                        I’m right in the heart of Deere country. Deere has 4 major manufacturing plants in IA, 2 smaller plants plus several other parts manufacturing operations, so there’s tons of green equipment around. But I am seeing more and more Claas equipment around here.

                        Without sales figures, but just based on what I see for combines around here, Deere is #1, followed by Case/IH, then New Holland. I probably see more Claas combines than Gleaners, though these days.

                      • J. Randall Stewart

                        I like visiting ag places, and my wife is a real trooper about coming along instead of taking a real vacation. So instead of somewhere nice, we’ve gone to Iowa in the winter. We went on up to the Ames and drove around after hours. And Harsewinkle Germany, Claas factory. Not really exotic destinations in Jan-Feb. We flew into DesMoines, did Ankeny and Ottumwa. We’ve also done Waterloo and Moline on another “vacation.” It replaced a Florida or Hawaii trip.

                        All of the spfh’s are made within a few hundred miles of each other, JD, Claas, Krone in Germany, New Holland in Belgium. Claas is really popular most places, some farms run all JD, but Claas spfh. I visited with a farmer from Israel, he ran JD tractors and Claas choppers, too.

                        JD hung onto the ōld design way too long–maybe everyone else got the good ideas first and patented them or something. They’ve really lost some credibility in this area for not acknowledging the many problems they had, mostly due to outdated design.

                      • JoeFarmer

                        “So instead of somewhere nice, we’ve gone to Iowa in the winter.”

                        You are a master of understatement!

                      • JoeFarmer

                        Excellent picture! Cool W900B, too – nice pinstriping.

                      • J. Randall Stewart

                        I have some more for you. This is triticale planted after harvesting corn. We’ll apply lagoon water to this field, but we wait until it’s about 5″ high.

                        Here is some triticale seed in the planter, we ll plant more after we finish this field of silage corn.

                        I’ve had fun giving you a tour today.

                        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/776c95cc2dadefb71357dc63542439a96e4350d04db52bf0c4fbb5465018aea2.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d5cf0d1f15238effdd462b7e946a849a725686f6af4f3923027b15ec8aaf3a20.jpg

                      • J. Randall Stewart

                        I’m sharing a graphic with you, too.

                        This is my iPad with your most recent post. It has been placed in BMR corn. BMR is a conventional -bred trait that has less lignin in the leaves and stalk.

                        This means the cow can get the fiber she needs for her rumen mat, yet the fiber is not wasted, it is digested (it’s nutrition, not waste).

                        BMR corn is a cool concept, but there are challenges with raising and using it. Want to know what those challenges are?

                        One evidence of BMR is the brownish tint you see on the plant.

                        I’m sharing this from the middle of my corn field from my Samsung smart phone. Pretty cool that we can communicate from anywhere.

                        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/06ff8dd9cb0d9f560a1ad37b4c87d039fec10b6a686a3e4646c01a8a3d9cb01b.jpg

                      • J. Randall Stewart

                        You seem to really like graphics, here is another one I can share with you. Yep, that is you on my iPad again.

                        This is last cutting alfalfa. This is ready to be baled, we’ll bale when the humidity has brought in the correct amount of dew. This keeps leaves in the bale, otherwise, the plunger will knock s bunch of them off, and the bale won’t be as solid.

                        We use 3×4 square baler. Did you know that the baler monitor tells us which side of the windrow (the row with the dry hay in it) to hug? I hear the new Deere baler squares up the bale on its own without the operator making any adjustments.

                        Tell me about finishing cattle on pineapple and cane fields. I’m sincerely interested

                        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8717172f337bdbe59be7beec2943c8f2bca8e23feda6389cef8a63f0a69c63d4.jpg

                      • hyperzombie

                        There is no market for big squares here. Do you need big horsepower to run the 3×4 baler? I was just thinking that the bails are about 1600 lbs, plus what is in the hopper and the weight of the baler it self, you are yanking around some serious weight. With a 150 Hp tractor would the tail wag the dog, if you know what I mean?

                      • J. Randall Stewart

                        It’s not as bad as you’d think, we use 4755/4760 on a baler. I rented a baler with tandem axles, rear axle steered in t he field. It was great. It was on a Challenger 5-something, 160hp, handled it really well.

                        What cattle/breeding terms do you use for Cover, Catch, Cleanup, Slip?

                      • hyperzombie

                        I have a 4560 although a bit smaller it should be able to do the job. Are big squares faster that rounds? Even with bale net?

                        I only bale a few hundred rounds a year anyway, mostly for myself and a few locals. I like the idea of big squares, easier to stack in a small place and they take up far less room. I hate it in the spring when I have all the dead grass under the bales, I hate wasting land.

                        “Cover, Catch, Cleanup, Slip?”

                        Sounds like Upholstery terms,,, Just kidding, I have heard them before from some Swiss immigrant farmers that live near here (they are conspiracy loons as well, but I will save that for another day)
                        We just use:
                        Cover=Served
                        Catch=Safe
                        Cleanup= many different terms, like “WTF, off to the auction for you stupid cow.” Then “re served”
                        Slip=Many different swear words followed by “I cant believe that I do this for a living I should have became a Doctor like my Mom wanted” Or the more common “dead drop”

                      • J. Randall Stewart

                        I’m having a good time sharing my day with KM. I wish I had thought of this sooner, do yoy have any requests for some graphics from me? 🙂

                      • hyperzombie

                        Yeppers, show some pics of harvesting the BMR corn, and how it is stored. Oh and spud pics.

                      • GMO Roberts

                        You prove that you have no real interest in conversations as you feel the need to post your billboards at every opportunity. What do you get out of trying to destroy your own neighbors?

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        So, Greg Friel makes most of the decisions on the cattle for you? What input does Don Young provide? Is Peter Baldwin your father?? If so, would that make you Jeff, Duke or Chris?

                      • heavyhanded

                        Your passionate values about the environment are unquestioned…. except by the dirty machine that hires men of little moral value!

                      • Bruce__H

                        For those reading Kanawai Mamalahoe’s post here, especially those of you who upvoted it…..

                        I asked Kanawai Mamalahoe to supply a source for the quote that appears in the image he attached to the post. He promptly sent a citation. But to the best of my knowledge this turns out to be mistaken. Indeed I suspect that the quote never existed in the form displayed in the image and that no European Commission report has ever said any such thing. I have asked Kanawai Mamalahoe a number of times since for clarification but to no effect. He hasn’t answered once.

                        Is this really what those of you reading these posts want to see on these discussion boards? I think Kanawai Mamalahoe now realizes that his citation is inaccurate and that the quote is probably mistaken. He seems not to care. He doesn’t seem care whether it is true or not, he doesn’t want to answer my questions about it, and he doesn’t seem to care about any of you either. Stay misinformed! … that seems to be the attitude.

                        Kanawai Mamalahoe. I ask again. What is your present view of the quote purporting to come from a Eurpean Commission report? Do you think it is accurate? Let’s figure this thing out.!

                      • Bruce__H

                        A number of us have looked into the quote you show in the image attached to your post (the quotation that begins “Avoidance of rBGH dairy products …”) and found that it is inaccurate. It turns out to be a garbled version of a passage that appears at the end of a letter from Samuel Epstein MD, to the editor of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (2001) 93:238. In the passage, Dr Epstein first refers to the 1990 European Commission report and then, in the next sentence and in a completely different context, issues a statement that is almost like the one you show. Dr. Epstein never meant to indicate that the European Comission had said this.

                        I view of all this, will you now tell people here that the quote is mistaken?

                        Where did you get the image? What was your source?

                      • Bruce__H

                        You have now had sufficient time to read and digest the information that the quote you have shown never came from the European Commission Report you say it did.

                        Not only is the attribution mistaken, it is clear how the mistake came about. Comments originally appearing in a letter sent to the editors of a medical journal, has been garbled so that you are now saying something that the letter writer, Samuel S Epstein MD, never intended to say. I would have thought that you would want to clear this all up if only out of respect to Dr Epstein who you are now misquoting.

                        Isn’t it time to just say “oops” and retract this information?

                      • GMO Roberts

                        Because KM has been proven a liar, and what Randal is saying is correct. Why would a cow/calf operation ever use it?

                      • JoeFarmer

                        I wonder how many irrigation pump horsepower the methane digester and generator for 5,000 of Kanawai’s cattle can power?

                      • FaunaAndFlora

                        Cattle who can’t walk will die within a few days. A drug that would cause even “some” cattle to become incapacitated would lose money for a feedlot and therefore would likely be discontinued, especially after laws were passed to prevent using downer cows. Also, the cattle feed you are referring to would have only been fed to animals in a feedlot. Someone who is running a cow/calf operation relies primarily on pasture and hay as feed.

                        Edit: One more thing… every one of the videos I have seen that showed “downer cows” presumably being dragged to slaughter in feedlots and meat packing yards were Holsteins, meaning they were dairy culls and not cattle that were raised specifically for meat.

                      • heavyhanded

                        Are you cattle boys’ mommy? What do you know about ZILMAX? Tell us why Tyson told their contracted ranchers that they would no longer buy cattle fed with Zilmax?

                      • hyperzombie

                        “Merck decided to sell it to cattle ranchers about 2007”

                        Ranchers are normally cow/calf operations and don’t feed out cattle. Ranches raise cow calf pairs selling the steers and the unwanted heifers, normally in the fall. They are raised to market weight by others. But you would know that if you knew anything about farming.

            • hyperzombie

              “Some farmers might believe it, but some farmers believe in aliens and that the government has a satellite that tracks only them.”

              Oh, so you know my neighbors? LOL… Crazy hippies.

              • J. Randall Stewart

                I have a neighbor that converts all assets to silver. He he is convinced all cash and check s will soon be worthless.

          • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

            Abortion is a medical procedure, so, it would have nothing to do with a breeding method for plants.

            • TZ

              You might want to really know what you are talking about before you chastise another who obviously does know what they are talking about!

              http://www.partners-in-reproduction.com/reproduction-cattle/abortion.asp

              Abortion in cattle

              Definition

              Incidence

              Diagnosis

              Causes

              Prevention

              Definition of abortion in cows

              Abortion in the cow is defined as foetal death and expulsion between day 45 and day 265 of pregnancy.

              top

              Incidence

              Most cattle herds suffer an abortion rate of 1-2%. A single abortion, is thus no great cause for alarm.

              An annual abortion rate up to 5% is considered to be normal. This figure excludes most abortions occurring during the second and third month of gestation as these often go undetected.

              An abortion rate in excess of 10% is considered an abortion storm.

              top

              Diagnosis

              The diagnosis of the cause of abortion is difficult and in only 20-30% of cases is a diagnosis made.

              Read more about Samples for diagnosis.

              top

              Causes of abortion

              Non-infectious causes
              – genetic
              – environmental: temperature
              – nutritional: phytotoxins including mycotoxins
              – iatrogenic: administration of abortifacient drugs

              Infectious causes
              – general infections with high fever
              – specific infections such as brucellosis, BVD etc.

              For detailed information see Table of infectious causes of abortion

              top

              Prevention of abortions

              Proper hygienic and biosecurity measures in the cow’s environment and feed storage

              Isolation of aborting cows and immediate removal of aborted materials

              Systematic evaluation of the feed for mycotoxins and other phytotoxins

              Adequate immunization against infectious diseases causing abortion

              Maintenance of adequate breeding and treatment records to avoid insemination of pregnant cows and administration of drugs that may cause abortion to pregnant cows.

              • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

                Spontaneous abortion, or miscarriage, is different from regular abortion. Since that important word (spontaneous) wasn’t there, they were speaking of the medical procedure.

                • Paleo Huntress

                  According to my vet friend, the term “abortion” is used almost exclusively to mean miscarriage in animals. The phrase “spontaneous abortion” is used only for people.

                • TZ

                  Are you daft? He was talking about spontaneous abortion in reference to cows….do you have a reading comprehension problem!? That was my point your comment was idiotic…

      • Michael McCarthy
      • TZ

        Thank you great info!

      • hyperzombie

        So funny, you do realize that if GMOs made hogs sterile, there would be no commercial hogs today…

        • Paleo Huntress

          “You do realize that if cigarette smoking caused lung cancer then all smokers can expect to get lung cancer.” <– analogous claim

          You do know that Hep C is the most common cause of liver cancer, 95% of the people with liver cancer had Hep C first– and yet, only 10% of the people with Hep C develop liver cancer.

          See how it's just not an all or nothing thing? GMOs could make hogs sterile AND there could still be commercial hogs today…

    • justin moreau
    • justin moreau
    • justin moreau
    • justin moreau
    • justin moreau
    • justin moreau
    • justin moreau
    • justin moreau
      • Paleo Huntress

        This is absolutely disgusting. What kind of fairytale must a person live in to think that this is the normal behavior of a honest corporation?

    • justin moreau
    • justin moreau
    • Victoria Patro

      Article doesn’t state what the list means. Does it mean they can no longer use it? I’d assume.. but..

    • Darby_Forever

      OMG NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! (yawn)

    • justin moreau

      The number one way to fight this is to buy as much organic food as you can and avoid the others as much as possible.

      • FarmersSon63

        You are more likely to die from eating organic foods.
        There have been over 100 deaths from eating organic foods containing deadly pathogens in the last 5 years.
        There has not even been a single confirmed illness or death from eating minute amounts of pesticide residues on foods in 80 years.

        • justin moreau

          FALSE where do you get this crap

          • justin moreau

            Those deaths were caused by MONSANTOs gmo crops that contracted new strains of deadly viruses. Because monsantos gmo crops exist there are now new vaccine immune viruses that are killing people by the thousands in remote countries. SEE I CAN COME UP WITH A BUNCH OF BULL TOO non farming Farmersson63. Your boot has probably never touched anything but concrete.

            • Abe

              LOL Actually your spot on. Genetically modified E-Coli is used in aspartame. The waste product gets used in the farm fields. My guess would be it could actually find it’s way into organic fields. Depends I guess on how big of a shyster the salesman is.
              BTW Did you play for the twinkies?

              • Terry Hill

                …and there is evidence of far greater presence of e-Coli on ‘organically’ farmed produce as it is fertilized with animal waste. Hence why there are far more recalls on organic products – they’re more likely to kill you!

                • Abe

                  Unless you use your own livestock waste or some one you know and trust, you wouldn’t really know what’s in it. I guess that’s why one should clean there produce before eating it. Of coarse there’s no way you can clean a BT toxin, or any chemical that’s part of the plant.

            • Warren Lauzon

              OK, that was the most WTF comment I have seen in weeks. GMO crops make people vaccine immune – got it.

            • J. Randall Stewart

              Because monsantos gmo crops exist there are now new vaccine immune viruses that are killing people by the thousands

              I sense you are not rational–or else you are gullible.

          • FarmersSon63
            • justin moreau

              The first article is about an E coli outbreak. So now are you trying to say that Monsanto has products that will protect us from E coli? What a freaking idiot.

              • FarmersSon63

                Any time you use feces for fertilizer you are asking for food poisoning and death. Especially crops that grow and mature in contact with the feces containing soil. Listeria, E. Coli, Salmonella and many more horrible pathogens.
                Why anyone would take the risk of buying organic food is beyond idiotic.

                • Paleo Huntress

                  Do you have evidence that it is organic farmers applying manure directly to their crops that are responsible for disease outbreaks? My research shows that crops may become tainted by the direct application of raw (un-composted) manure (generally it’s produce from outside the US) and from runoff of improperly stored manure.

                  Most of the outbreaks I found listed at the USDA were occurring in conventional produce, not organic.

                  • Ag Boy

                    Unfortunately people have died from poor organic farming practices!

                    Google these articles.(sorry, could not get the links to paste)

                    2011 Germany E. coli O104:H4 outbreak

                    3,950 people became ill in Germany and 53 DIED. 800 may have issues that cause kidney damage.

                    The E. coli was found present in ORGANIC fenugreek sprouts.

                    2006 North American E. coli O157:H7

                    The article describes how three people died and 31 sustained kidney damage after eating organically grown spinach contaminated with E.coli. It pointed out that the spinach grower did not use the best practices to ensure the safety of their organically grown spinach.

                    • Paleo Huntress

                      Germany is Germany, I’m not interested in what they do in other countries, just here in the US.

                      The North American E Coli outbreak was traced to “an Angus cattle ranch that had leased land to spinach grower Mission Organics. The report found 26 samples of E. coli “indistinguishable from the outbreak strain” in water and cattle manure on the San Benito County ranch, some within a mile from the tainted spinach fields. Although officials could not definitively say how the spinach became contaminated, both reports named the presence of wild pigs on the ranch and the proximity of surface waterways to irrigation wells as “potential environmental risk factors.” The reports also noted that flaws in the spinach producer’s transportation and processing systems could have further spread contamination. Paicines Ranch is not under investigation for its alleged role in the outbreak.”

                      Please tell me how conventional spinach would have fared differently on the same land? It appears that a thorough investigation was done and that their composting practices were not at issue, though I’m sure that they were scrutinized, given the type of outbreak.

                      • Ag Boy

                        A conventional spinach may not have fair better. Agreed.

                        No I do not have a source to sight but intuitively the use and high reliance of manure in organics has a higher risk factor than synthetic fertilizers. Manure in vegetable type crops requires a more intense and precise management than just buying fertilizer from your local Ag retailer.

                      • Paleo Huntress

                        I think that much of what we intuitively believe, is just wrong. Regardless of whether you believe synthetic fertilizers are safer or not, they do nothing for the soil. Compost builds SOIL, not just fertility. It adds organic matter, micro-bio-diversity, trace minerals and provides water-retention properties. I understand what you’re saying about what would seem to make sense, but if this type of mismanagement were rampant or common, it would be front-page news.

                        I don’t believe a good case has been made for the claim that organic foods are less safe than conventionally raised.

                      • Ag Boy

                        But it is rampant.

                        I can’t speak to veggie crops but I have extensive experience with row crops (corn & soybeans). There are very few manure resources in most of the corn belt. Farmers rely solely on synthetic fertilizers. Technologies like the ability to variable rate N-P-K and micros has helped to raise record crops. New and improved tillage equipment help growers do a great job of incorporating crop residue to improve soil tilth and structure.

                        Manure does have positive attributes, but it is not necessary to improve soil productivity. Fields in the corn belt are becoming more productive each year without the use on manure.

                      • Paleo Huntress

                        You seem to be getting away from the topic of this particular sub-thread, specifically the safety of foods grown by organic farmers, versus those grown by conventional farmers using synthetic inputs.

                        You appear to be referencing manure only, but I’m referencing compost that includes manure. And in many cases, farmers using integrated systems may actually rotate in ruminating animals for a season or two rather than just spreading compost. But anyway, I digress.

                        The other night I was watching a documentary on the restoration of prairie lands in the corn belt, specifically Illinois. This land had been practically destroyed by corn-farming. The researchers brought in wildflower an tall-grass seeds to restore the plant-life, but the restoration didn’t kick into full gear until they brought back the bison. Seems that most of the data today shows that livestock animals have an integral role to play in improving soil fertility and reducing global warming, whether we like it or not.

                        And according to the report ‘Losing Ground’, America’s corn belt is losing topsoil 17 times faster than government estimates. (The USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service estimated an average loss of 5.2 tons per acre per year in Iowa and 3.9 tons per acre per year across the Corn Belt.) Ruminants can slow that loss by as much as 80%.

                        I can’t speak to your production, but I don’ believe that production speaks to soil health at all. I think it makes more sense to ditch the corn, grow pasture and just graze the cows on the land. I realize that solution isn’t ideal for you as a corn-farmer. =(

                      • Paleo Huntress

                        I also want to take a moment to thank you for the respectful exchange. I really appreciate your polite responses.

                  • FarmersSon63

                    http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_24362315/colorado-brothers-plead-guilty-cantaloupe-listeria-outbreak-that

                    and

                    https://www.yahoo.com/health/1-dead-nearly-300-sickened-in-salmonella-1252467992911926.html

                    and

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Germany_E._coli_O104:H4_outbreak

                    The problem, very few farmers are following the USDA’s compost treatment requirements:

                    “Producers using an invessel
                    or static aerated pile system must maintain the composting materials at a temperature between
                    131 F and 170 F for 3 days. Producers using a windrow system must maintain the composting materials
                    at a temperature between 131 F and 170 F for 15 days, during which time, the materials must be turned
                    a minimum of five times.”

                    • Paleo Huntress

                      The first link you share doesn’t even mention manure.

                      The second link goes to a story about tainted cucumbers imported from MEXICO.

                      The third link goes to a story about an outbreak in GERMANY.

                      The question was, do you have evidence that it is organic farmers (US, since we’re taking about US organic standards) applying manure directly to their crops that are responsible for disease outbreaks?

                      • FarmersSon63

                        What other source of organic fertilizer do you think they are using?

                      • Paleo Huntress

                        I’m not sure what you’re asking. Who is the “they” that you refer to in your question?

                      • FarmersSon63

                        Do you have the memory of a gnat?

                      • Paleo Huntress

                        I referenced Mexico, Germany and the US. And while my brain is far larger than that of a gnat’s, it still doesn’t afford me with mind-reading capabilities.

                        Wouldn’t it have been simpler to just answer the question?

                      • FarmersSon63

                        Let me see if I can dumb this down a bit more for you.
                        If the organic growers did not use manure for fertilizer, what are you proposing that they used?
                        Keep in mind that manure is by far the majority fertilizer used on organic crops.

                      • Paleo Huntress

                        I’m sure they use manure… in their compost.

                        I’m sure they use bone meal and blood meal and many other organic inputs as well.

                        The question remains, where is the evidence that organic farms are more likely to produce tainted food?

                        This should not be so hard for someone so intent on calling every else a moron. Go to the CDC and produce the files that show more outbreaks traced to American organic farms.

                        Here, I’ll even simplify it for you.

                        http://www.cdc.gov/

                    • Paleo Huntress

                      What is your source for this claim?

                      “[V]ery few farmers are following the USDA’s compost treatment requirements”

                      • FarmersSon63

                        You obviously have never been to a farm.
                        Nobody uses the certified pile or windrow systems in composting their manure or compost.
                        That is why we so many food poisonings and deaths.

                      • Paleo Huntress

                        The CDC keeps track of the sources for all food-borne disease outbreaks. If you’re correct, it will be easy enough to evidence. Quit telling me that you just know because you’re a farmer and provide some proof.

                      • FarmersSon63

                        Get out in the country and visit a farm for your first time.

                      • Paleo Huntress

                        I spent my childhood weekends playing at my grandparent’s farm, and I visit the local farm where I purchased my animal food once or twice a week.

                        If you had anything at all that resembled evidence, you’d just share it.

                        You are simply wrong.

                      • FarmersSon63

                        I showed you three.
                        Read them.

                      • Paleo Huntress
        • Terrafurtive

          Can you give us one peer reviewed study showing long-term, low exposure to glyphosate doesn’t harm humans? And your study should begin about 2012, what happened in the previous 77 years isn’t relevant…

          “Glyphosate use skyrocketed after seeds were genetically engineered to tolerate the chemical. Because these seeds produce plants that are not killed by glyphosate, farmers can apply the weed killer to entire fields without worrying about destroying crops. Between 1987 and 2012, annual U.S. farmuse grew from less than 11 million pounds to nearly 300 million pounds.”
          reference: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/150422-glyphosate-roundup-herbicide-weeds/

          I know I’m your Guinea pig, wish it wasn’t so.

          • FarmersSon63

            It is against the law to do toxicity studies on humans, because you would have to kill humans to determine the toxicity level.

            That is why studies were done on livestock and other mammals.

            Here is a summary of hundreds of safety studies done by an independent source:

            http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf

            They concluded that GMO’s do not pose any more risk than non-GMO’s.

            • Terrafurtive

              Thanks for answering my rhetorical question. We are unwilling test subjects for the long-term dangers or lack thereof for glyphosate. The amount of glyphosate entering our food supply is staggering, and increasing as more “roundup-ready” crops are introduced.

              This article and discussion is about glyphosate, why is your reference about safety about GMO crops?

              • hyperzombie

                “The amount of glyphosate entering our food supply is staggering”

                Do you have any evidence of this?

                • Terrafurtive

                  Do some homework. Try a search of:
                  accumulates in GM soy
                  annual use of glyphosate

                  • Terry Hill

                    Try using logic.

                    More Round-Up ready crops being planted = less use of other herbicides and increased use of the herbicide that the crop is resistant to.

                    It’s not rocket science. It’s basic math.
                    Less Round-Up ready crops = More use of other pesticides, less use of Round-Up
                    MORE Round-Up ready crops = More use of Round-Up, LESS use of other (more toxic) herbicides.

                    Surely someone with a legitimate Ph.D. (i.e. not a Ph.D. is some fringe pseudoscience) would understand a basic correlation?

              • Zampolit

                The biggest dangers to us from our food supply are food-borne pathogens. E coli, listeria and the like. Huber was supposed to have identified one from glyphosate over 4 years ago and has banked money talking about it but won’t produce it or allow it to be tested. Odd. About your PhD. You’ll probably have to link your transcripts and Diploma to convince anyone here of your credentials because I’ve read your stuff and if you’re a PhD then I’m the Queen of Sheba. Your profile is brand new. Someone call your lame azz out on your last alias? Thanks for the entertainment.

                • Terrafurtive

                  Like most of your 108 comments I’ve just suffered through, you don’t really have anything original to contribute. What’s the matter? Education envy?

                  • Zampolit

                    Perfect illustration. Thanks

              • Zampolit

                Even though you may spew bile at me I have to point this out to you. Your sentence from above – “We are unwilling test subjects for the long-term dangers or lack thereof for glyphosate. ” is terrible. Scientists don’t write like that. Particularly Doctors of Science. Maybe you could ask for a mulligan and rewrite it.

          • Terry Hill

            Why is it you think Glysphosate-based pesticides are so evil, yet you don’t complain about rotenone, an often and widely used ‘organic’ pesticide, that’s been PROVEN to be far more toxic to humans than any synthetic pesticide, by several factors??
            Because you’re just jumping on the anti-science bandwagon, and doing what you’re told like a good follower?
            LOL – you want a long term study but not one before 2012? Oh, so any long term exposure studies on low exposure are going to be ‘different’ before then?? WTF? Do you even science, bro?

            • Terrafurtive

              Not your “bro”.
              After my Ph.D. from UCSD, I’ve worked 30 years doing basic science research in cancer.
              See below my answer to your monsanto shill-bro, farmerson63.

              • Terry Hill

                What discipline is your PhD in? Chiropractic? Homeopathy?

                Because if you were any type of actual scientist as you claim, you’d be competent to read and understand peer reviewed and published research, via Elsevier or any other academic publishers you have access to through your alumnus.

                Plus, you wouldn’t be posting links to National Geographic stories on increased use of a single pesticide to support your argument, because you’d understand that the rise in use of glyphosate correlates with the rise in use of glyphosate resistant seeds, hence a corresponding drop in the use of other, more harmful but less efficient pesticides. Of course more of the most efficient product is going to be used, but the important figure is the overall pesticide use per acre/hectare. Only looking at the overall national usage out of context is simplistic cherry picking at it’s worst.

                As a ‘claimed’ scientist, I’d expect you would have developed the ability for basic deductive reasoning and you could easily understand this.

                It is also pretty pathetic for a ‘claimed’ scientist to play the ‘shill’ card at anyone with a more logical, reasoned counter-argument.

                You fail the science test.

                • Terrafurtive

                  Glyphosate is an herbicide. You could do some homework on the difference between herbicide and pesticide.
                  There’s no deduction involved, the facts are well known, my legitimate scientific background isn’t an issue and you’re the only one flaming it without any facts. What are your qualifications to evaluate scientists? Do you sit on journal and grant review panels?
                  US farmers use 380 million pounds of glyphosate per year, this increased with roundup ready plants, and is documented to increase as weeds become resistant. More resistance, more glyphosate, understand? Ten years ago, the glyphosate usage was one tenth the amount of today. The gyphosate enters the plant tissue and you eat it. GM soy and corn have reached 100% penetration in the US market, so all the food products with soy and corn in them (and that’s a lot) have residual glyphosate. The beef and pork you eat are fed with GM soy and corn, so you eat that too. You think it’s harmless, I think there’s no proof it’s harmless, and I have no choice but to eat it.
                  Monsanto is in it for the money, 1.5 billion dollars a year. They don’t care about a safe food supply, except to limit their liability to lawsuit.

                  • Ag Boy

                    Both herbicides and insecticide are consider as pesticides. They both get rid pests whether it is an insect or a weed.

                    • Terrafurtive

                      yes, correct on this point

                  • Terry Hill

                    Again, you’ve proven you have ZERO actual scientific knowledge in the are in which you are trying to assert some intellectual authority. You’ve also employed Gish Gallop in an attempt to inundate and dilute the discussion with tangential points.

                    1. The term ‘pesticide’ includes insecticides and herbicides. Thank you for proving my assumption that you’re not an actual scientist. Further, your avoidance of the answer highlights your appeal to authority fallacy that your claimed degree somehow makes you more knowledgeable in this discussion. At least if you Ph.D was in an actual science, you’d be capable of deductive reasoning.

                    2. I have two degrees already, but am currently studying biology through Carnegie Melon.

                    3. Again, you seem incapable of discriminating between the increased usage of Round-Up correlating with the increased planting of Round-Up ready seeds. It is the most basic of mathematics.

                    4. Basic biological principles show that for any new herbicide, simple genetic mutations will lead to basic resistance. It occurs with every plant and every herbicide. Please provide some links to support your implication that somehow resistance has led to increased use. Also, if you wish to support this argument, please support this with evidence that use of other pesticides hasn’t reduced – because they have. I’ll show you the simple math behind this, as you seem to fail to grasp it:

                    More Round-Up ready crops being planted = less use of other herbicides and increased use of the herbicide that the crop is resistant to. As I’ve posted already, the actual important figure is use per hectare/acre – overall pesticide use per acre is GREATLY REDUCED over 20 years ago.

                    It’s not rocket science. It’s basic math.
                    Less Round-Up ready crops = More use of other pesticides, less use of Round-Up
                    MORE Round-Up ready crops = More use of Round-Up, LESS use of other (more toxic) herbicides.

                    5. As glyphosate breaks down in the environment in around four weeks to some basic amino acids, please provide some links to the peer-reviewed studies showing how glyphosate enters/persists in the plant. I found one article in an activist journal that made claims but provided no science to support it.

                    Also, while you’re at it not finding any of these, please provide any links you might have to peer-reviewed studies showing also that this glyphosate is in any way toxic to humans. You’ve made the claim (again, if you WERE an actual scientist, you’d know that it is up to you to prove the null hypothesis as you claim it’s ‘never been proven’) hence show me the evidence. Any scientist knows that absolutes are not provable – you cannot prove water is safe 100%. You cannot prove air is safe, 100%. To make such a claim as ‘it has never been proved 100%’ is intellectually weak and unscientific.

                    • hyperzombie

                      Excellent reply, And even I, who fell a bit short of graduating grade 12, knows that a pesticide can be a herbicide, insecticide, fungicide, and a number of other *cides.

                    • Terrafurtive

                      More gmo crops = more glyphosate used is the only intelligible thing you’ve said. You can fill pages with words but haven’t said anything. Why are you posting? You can’t even quote me right. Are you in shill training and your handlers have neglected you?

                      • Terry Hill

                        It’s a shame your comprehension levels are so low.

                        Your claim: Glyphosate is being used! More glyphosate use is bad. Why? What IS your point?
                        My counterpoint: More glyphosate use is easily explained.

                        Again, as a Ph.D I’d have expected I wouldn’t need to spell this out for you.

                        Overall less pesticides, and less harmful pesticides, are being used as a result of resistant crops. But you missed that. Oh, and that persistence of glyphosate that causes any harm to humans or animals is not a thing that actually exists.

                      • Terrafurtive

                        Handlers, reel this guy in, he’s hurting your cause.

                      • Terry Hill

                        Yes, everyone who shoots gaping holes in your argument is a shill. Because calling people shills excuses you from actually having to respond.

                        You’ve employed every single play in the conspiracy theorist play book. Congratulations.

                        Do you have any refutations to add, or any more arguments to put forward, or have you run out and now rather than deal with the cognitive dissonance, you’ll keep yelling ‘Shill’?|

                        By the way, you brought up your ‘qualifications’ (your Ph.D) to somehow legitimise your comments as coming from authority. If you choose to introduce this into an argument as if it has any relevance, you need to be able to back it up.

                        It’s been fun calling you out on all your crap.

                        Keep on avoiding. Keep on redirecting. Keep on dodging answers and repeating the same destroyed arguments. Because everyone else is a shill and only YOU know the truth.

                      • justin moreau

                        It does not really matter. The truth is out. The general public hates Monsanto with a passion. Soon so will all farmers. Fields dying out four weeks early because of round up build up. Conventional fields having the same amount of weeds as the GMO. The only reason GMO seeds will sell here next year is because there is not enough non GMO seeds to go around.

                      • Terry Hill

                        Please state a single source of your assumptions?
                        Farmers don’t hate Monsanto… try speaking to one who isn’t on the Natural Foods payroll. Any one will do.
                        ‘The general public’ – you mean the rest of your propaganda-reliant, science-denier friends? I’ll admit that big Organic know marketing – it’s always easier to scare people than educate them… And while the organic food business continues to use blatant lies and propaganda to demonise GMOs in general, and Monsanto – as it has become an ‘easy target’ for them to point their mindless minions towards (based on tranches of easily refuted lies and made-up stories that, if you had the slightest inkling of reasoning ability, even you would also be able to see through) – science and the broader scientific and international farming communities where these ‘big organic’ companies aren’t so powerful, agree that GMOs are nothing to fear and Monsanto is just another agri-business.
                        Monsanto sell more conventional seeds each year than GMO – do you even realise that? Or are you so blinded by the propaganda down the rabbit hole that you haven’t even bothered to investigate for yourself?

                      • Paleo Huntress

                        “try speaking to one who isn’t on the Natural Foods payroll.”

                        Considering that a farmer who hates Monsanto is probably an advocate for natural foods, the point you believe it would evidence becomes fallacious.

                      • Terry Hill

                        Are you from a farming family?
                        I am, and so is my wife. We know lots of other farming families, all of whom are on large farms and all of whom have little opinion either way of Monsanto, or Sygenta, or any other agri-business company, other than they are suppliers of products.
                        Like the local supermarket doesn’t ‘Hate’ Kellogg’s or Coca Cola.
                        A farmer who ‘hates’ Monsanto is one who has been indoctrinated by the woo-woo train of propaganda from the organic food industry, and enjoys milking the extra profits from selling their ‘organic’ foods to gullible city folk hipsters for a healthy mark-up.

                        ‘Organic’ is to food what homeopathy is to medicine. Unscientifically supported trendiness supported by ignorance and fear-mongering, attempting to devolve society.

                      • Moparman

                        Yes don’t you love how you have to by your seed off Monsanto every year for corn, soy beans, sugar beets, and other crops they just want you to know who your god is.

                      • Terry Hill

                        You don’t understand at all. You have to buy seed of every seed company. Crop seeds are too expensive to harvest from the existing crops and aren’t always successful.

                        If it’s not Monsanto – who also sell organic seed – it’s any other seed company. It’s FAR more economical to buy new seed than attempt to harvest seed yourself.

                        Just because you can do it in your little tomato plants at home in the ‘burbs, doesn’t mean you can do it large scale, economically, for commercial farming.

                        It’s REALITY. It’s been like this for 60+ years. Ask a farmer.

                      • Paleo Huntress

                        And yet Monsanto requires that those that purchase their seed sign an agreement promising not to save the seed produced after each harvest for re-planting, or to sell the seed to other farmers.

                        If it was too expensive anyway, why would they bother? Why do they go into farming communities and go after the seed-cleaners first? How do seed-cleaners make a living when harvest seeds are too expensive to plant?

                        I’d love to ask a farmer, do you know any who haven’t drunk the Monsanto Kool-Aid yet? Because right now you’re just a really big voice representing a really small position. One.

                      • Terry Hill

                        Your ignorance and myopic perspective astounds me.

                        Ask me.
                        My family grows mostly wheat. There is no GMO wheat. We buy seeds every year from Pacific Seeds.

                        Unlike you, and half the farming and science illiterate types on here, I support the science. It allows less land to provide more people. Like it or not, the food science that provides this is also being used to help farmers grow drought resistant crops that will allow more crops to grow in Africa and feed that continent.

                        Oh, and these GM crops are being developed by UN-grant, but a group of Australian universities and the government research community. No corporate involvement.

                        But GMOs are bad, right?

                      • Paleo Huntress

                        I know there is no GMO wheat… on the market. There is GMO wheat spilling into farmer’s fields though.

                        Your claim is, “Crop seeds are too expensive to harvest from the existing crops”

                        Kewl. So they’re too expensive for YOU. What is your evidence that they’re too expensive in general? Because the evidence to the contrary is that Monsanto is threatened enough by the practice of seed-saving that they go after seed-cleaners and farmers who save seed. How could a practice that isn’t financially feasible for most farmers be something that Monsanto wastes its time with?

                        Things that make you go, “Hmmmmmmm….”.

                      • Terry Hill

                        Again, your ignorance of farming is front and centre.
                        Commercial crop farmers buy their seeds EVERY YEAR. Even conventional or organic seeds.
                        It is extremely (prohibitively) labour intensive, time intensive and costly to ‘harvest’ seeds from existing crops every year without dedicated machinery. It’s far more economical to buy seed each year than to harvest, separate and store (when crops are rotating for seasons) every year.
                        That’s why it’s done.
                        And again, Monsanto is one of a dozen seed producers and sellers.
                        Seriously Moparman, you need to actually research both sides to develop both a balanced view and understanding, as well as a decent argument if you don’t agree.

                      • Paleo Huntress

                        Because you say so? Again, a farmer who hates Monsanto is probably an advocate for natural foods, and there were natural food advocates and organic farmers before RoundUp ready seeds made their way to market.

                      • Terry Hill

                        So YOUR circular argument is correct. Right, gotchya.
                        What is your point? That the <1% of farmers out there who are pro-organic and anti-Monsanto are correct?
                        I have no problem with farmers who want to grow organic. I have no problem with people who want to eat organic.
                        I have a problem with farmers and consumers of organic when they attempt to demonise science to 'scare' the naïve and uneducated into eathing THEIR product because, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, somehow THEIR food is safer and better.
                        Because it isn't.
                        It's just more expensive and less efficient.

                      • Paleo Huntress

                        I made my point quite clearly. Your criteria set up a logical fallacy. I wasn’t even commenting on the larger subject, just making the observation that the restrictions you placed on Terafurtive’s ability to respond set-up a false conclusion.

                      • Zampolit

                        No he’s not. He’s exposing yours and doing it well.

                      • Zampolit

                        That shill training gambit was the single-most awesome comeback ever in the history of phoney PhD’s with pseudo-scientific training I have ever read. You’re not really Cletus are you?

                      • Terrafurtive

                        Envy,n. Emulation adapted to the meanest capacity. Ambrose Bierce.

                      • Zampolit

                        Education, n.: That which discloses to the wise and disguises from the foolish their lack of understanding.

                        Ambrose Bierce

                      • Terrafurtive

                        Not an original thought rolling around anywhere?
                        Sure can Google though!

                      • Zampolit

                        No need in dealing with you. The best possible outcome interacting with someone like you is to expose you for the fraud you are.

                      • Terrafurtive

                        You can really throw those zingers, I mean it really hurts! I’m crying…
                        But what did this have to do with glyphosate.

                      • Zampolit

                        Say now, you’re trying to slide one of those scientific rhetorical questions by me aren’t you?

                      • Terrafurtive

                        Just can’t stay on topic, it’s too big for you.
                        I love the smell of Troll in the morning.
                        “Dawn take you all…”

                      • Zampolit

                        No point in engaging in a meaningful discussion with someone with your bona fides. You’re not capable of much more than parroting and barking. And the specious claim to hold a doctorate of some sort? There doesn’t seem to be a general consensus supporting that. No one seems to be defending you. Why do you suppose that is?

                      • Terrafurtive

                        “No one seems to be defending you”.

                        26 to 1.
                        This is your defense? You should have at least two up votes, where are your friends Tom and Bert?
                        I hope you’ve seen your own point, made that all by yourself? Now try to follow your own advice.

                      • Zampolit

                        You just don’t get it. With every inane comment and retort you post you put the lie to your PhD claim. PhD’s don’t engage with people at this level, in this manner. Pretenders like you do.

                      • Terrafurtive

                        Oh, and your only defender is shill-bro! Maybe he’s Bert. You are good!
                        What’s that I hear? Stony silence…

                      • Zampolit

                        Don’t need any affirmations Einstein. Get that ‘herbicides are pesticides’ mystery right in that massive processor mounted between your ears yet doctor?

                      • Terrafurtive

                        Of course you don’t need affirmations, that’s something intellectuals look for. The originality of your posts are truly stunning, where do you come up with the wit? Unfortunately, the Google of zeros that represent your brain cells are to the right of the decimal point.

                      • Zampolit

                        There it is again. Your responses are almost child-like in their petulance. Not at all representative of someone alleging your education and work experiences doctor.

                      • Terrafurtive

                        Digging in the thesaurus again? Since you don’t work with PhDs, like I do, you wouldn’t know how intellectuals engage. Pretty funny lot actually, and they’re laughing hilariously at you right now! Would you like, say sixteen, up arrows in the next half-hour? Or down arrows?

                      • Zampolit

                        No thesaurus, basic vocabulary. Thanks once again for underscoring the assertions being made about your credentials. Are you sure you can spare the time away from that basic cancer research Einstein? In between guffaws, maybe the intellectuals there can help you learn more about herbicides and pesticides eh?

                      • Terrafurtive

                        I’m running 4 western blots, splitting 2 cell lines, a cell culture experiment testing drug efficacy, getting a quote for a xenograft animal study and the usual daily lab stuff. And I can engage a peanut at the same time!

                        Just did a straw pole among a mix of 18 Phds, grad students and techs, all doing cancer research in breast, colon and prostate, with NIH, Susan Komen, NCI funding by the way, published in peer-reviewed journals.

                        Those who think eating food with residual glyphosate for the indefinite future is a good idea = 0

                        Those who think eating food with residual glyphosate for the indefinite future is a bad idea = 18

                      • Terrafurtive

                        Whoa, and now the study is peer-reviewed, everyone feel free to cite!!

                      • Terrafurtive

                        Oh man, I accidentally up arrow’d my own post, my bad, but it doesn’t invalidate the study!

                      • Zampolit

                        Too thin doc.

                      • Terrafurtive

                        This is where you boast your credentials. (snickering in the background)
                        Like, oh, I can two-finger the keyboard and google like mad, makes me an expert in all things scientific.

                      • Zampolit

                        I’m a retired truck driver.

                      • Terrafurtive

                        And?

                        By the way, your popularity is gaining on mine, but here’s a graph of the diversity of votes you’ve gotten, looks fishy, can you interpret a scientific graph?

                      • Zampolit

                        You cracked wise about my credentials. Pretty simple. Retired truck driver. Nothing more, nothing less. A scientific graph could represent something like a chart tracking temperature over time. Like the one someone misread that led to your conception? I can science bro.

                      • Terrafurtive

                        Tell me, Mr. I can science, without googing, which chi-square test would you evaluate the variance of your popularity data above, then do it.

                      • Zampolit

                        Don’t give a damn about popularity. Used the I can science line as a spoof as a previous commenter did earlier in this thread. Thought someone as sharp as you profess to be would pick that up. I guessed wrong.

                      • Zampolit

                        Stuff the rest.

                      • Terrafurtive

                        Stuff? That’s a solution, brilliant! Why, any freshman science major could do the above basic analysis of data. So when you say the following, really all over the place in fact, in multiple posts, it proves you have no scientific ability to evaluate any scientific data and should shut up about science. That means stop posting here.

                        Quotes from Bill Carey posts:

                        “Can you link me to specific peer-reviewed studies that
                        positively connect those behavioral changes in animals to ingesting toxin-laden
                        GM feed please? That would be fascinating.”

                        “What you aren’t capable of is making the
                        distinction between what you believe to be true and what is generally held to
                        be true by consensus in the scientific community. If you were able to discern
                        that difference, you’d be more careful with the sources you cite. ”

                        “By the way, a researcher at Washington State University debunked that MAM thing
                        about glyphosate in breast milk in an actual study.”

                      • Zampolit

                        MintPress News removed my rebuttal. I’m honored.

                      • Terrafurtive

                        I’ll spell it out for you, trucker pwned by scientist. Your role here is spellchecker, so do it quietly and stay out of the way of the big kids.

                      • Zampolit

                        Between the spellchecker role and watching you preen I’ll be busy. Your PhD fixation couldn’t be something along the lines of stolen Valor could it?

                      • Terrafurtive

                        And Michael McCarthy is your significant other, right? Sure loves to up arrow you!

                      • Zampolit

                        Keyboard courage from an anonymous PhD. Phoney prck. Flag that you sacless pos.

                      • Terrafurtive

                        Of course, vulgarity is the refuge of the pwned. Thanks for wasting my time proving you’re unqualified to post on this topic and know nothing about any science. You’re an idle waster, stop bothering intelligent people. Find a forum on using dyed heating fuel and how to get away with it as fuel for your semi, or something else you’re expert at.

                      • Zampolit

                        Whoa, I forgot about googing. What is that?

                      • Terrafurtive

                        I’m guessing McCarthy is your alter ego? That’s person 2 driving up your popularity.

                        Coming out of your shell? The conception point is finally something original, did someone help you with that?

                        Like your shill-bro Terry, I’m not your bro.

                      • Zampolit

                        It’s straw poll not pole. You’d think someone of your stature and eminence would want their name known.

                      • Terrafurtive

                        No, I hit them with it, to get the correct response.

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        Out of curiosity, what is their opinion on consumption/exposure to the following for the indefinite future:
                        Fecal matter
                        Arsenic
                        Mercury
                        Lead
                        Cadmium
                        Formaldehyde
                        Ozone
                        UV

                      • Terrafurtive

                        should I add cigarette smoke, asbestos and hormone replacement therapy to the list?
                        Polls don’t come cheap, how much are you gonna pay?

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        You’re the one claiming to have been in room with 18 PhD’s. I gave you a list of items with everyday exposures, you gave me 1 possible and 2 unlikely.

                      • Terrafurtive

                        You certainly didn’t read my post right. Getting anything else wrong?

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        oh, excuse me, a mix of 18 Phd’s, grad students and techs. Since I wasn’t looking at the post a moment ago, I merely remembered the number of people. As far as the other items being everyday exposures, no.

                      • Terrafurtive

                        How about adding diesel exhaust, benzene and radon. Or lots of other things that no one thought was going to cause cancer, but now we know they do. Strategy? Limit the exposure, or put head in the sand?

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        since when does fecal contamination cause cancer?

                      • Terrafurtive

                        Your list, not mine. Although some might consider listening to bullshit as carcinogenic.

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        You’re right. My list. I provided a list of substances which we are exposed to on a daily basis in quantities similar to glyphosate exposure, except perhaps UV. You alleged that they were a list of carcinogens, when fecal matter and mercury are not carcinogens. Please let me know when you have the results of your survey.

                      • Terrafurtive

                        You know, you have a >4000 post history, so instead of telegraphing your clearly biased opinion why not be out with it? I’m a scientist, if you want to discuss glyphosate exposure which is what this forum is about, get on with it! Are you like Bill Carey, or do you know anything?

                        my list: cigarette smoke, asbestos and hormone replacement therapy, diesel exhaust, benzene and radon. It’s your survey, you can do what you want to…

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        Actually, this forum is nothing about glyphosate exposure. It is about California labeling roundup cancer causing. Is roundup glyphosate or a formulation containing glyphosate? BTW, did I say you weren’t a scientist? Nope. I said you alleged to be in a room with all of these people, so I was looking for a similar poll on some other things. Obviously you’re not interested in taking the poll of my list because the minimal daily exposure to those things, like glyphosate, isn’t harmful and you know it.

                      • Terrafurtive

                        I see, just like the troll Bill Carey. You can’t even begin a discussion because you’re so full of yourself. You have a prejudice which distorts your ability to think, your opinion on anything is worthless.
                        Actually

                        BTW

                        Obviously

                        These are troll words. Why not engage with you poling buddy, Bill, he loves wasting time.

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        Wait, who is the one that has to brag about their PhD or being a scientist? Hmmm.

                      • Terrafurtive

                        “No brag, just fact”
                        WB
                        Being a scientist is nothing to be so envious about, really. I didn’t know people were so jealous about it, but you exude it. You have no idea of how much real work goes into a grant application and the data to support it. Get a clue, you wouldn’t want my job. Go back to your expert Google searching.

                      • Terrafurtive

                        “Actually, this forum is nothing about glyphosate exposure.”

                        Glyphosate used ten times!

                        In large yellow print in the middle of the article:

                        “Case-control studies of occupational exposure in the
                        U.S.A., Canada, and Sweden reported increased risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma
                        that persisted after adjustments to other pesticides.”

                        So full of yourself you can’t read the article. Stop wasting my time.

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        You kill me. How many times? Ah, I love getting someone’s goat. But what does it say again? Occupational exposure, not residual exposure? Well glory be, those are pretty different.

                      • Terrafurtive

                        Read again, residual is your word, used only by you in this context. Please look at yourself, you want to believe something so bad your mind makes it up. Your a typical forum poster that just blathers on and on. Find something important to do, because what you’re doing isn’t. If you want to rise above a nobody, enter into an intelligent discourse.

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        Read again. Hmm, occupational exposure. Who does that apply to? Those whose occupation involves the use of the product. What exposure level would that be? Would residual exposures be covered under that?
                        Still having problems with the use of your and you’re, I see.

                      • Terrafurtive

                        Are you brain injured, residual is a word used only by you. All the straw men you build from that is an embarassment. I left the your in there as a test, you passed. Now like Bill Carey, your role is to be spell checker, so do it quietly and leave the science to the qualified.

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        Right. Again, you wanted to discuss glyphosate exposure. And rather than address the distinction, you refer to it as a straw man. Well done.

                      • Terrafurtive

                        “This forum has nothing to do with glyphosate exposure”
                        Remember what you posted? So don’t discuss it, please go somewhere else where someone might be interested in your subtle “distinctions”, do you have an original thought anywhere, or like your “up arrow” friend Bill you just waste people’s time? I think he’s missing your attention, by the way, why don’t you give him another one, I know he likes it.

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        No, I don’t remember posting that, I am brain injured, remember? But nowhere did I ever say I didn’t want to discuss it. Oh, are you putting words in people’s mouth? Or are you deliberately avoiding discussing the subject which you in fact wished to discuss?

                      • Terrafurtive

                        please find another forum, you aren’t capable of an original thought. I’m not interested in you. But here’s a chance. Of your 4000+ posts, show me the one that really makes you shine, you know, shows off your intellect.

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        You know, I’m giving you every opportunity to discuss glyphosate, yet you continually deflect. Oh, and there’s the name calling. And sure, I’ll go through 4000 posts for you. Or not. How about this, you can search them yourself since I don’t lock my comments. Have fun with that kitten.

                      • Terrafurtive

                        OK, 4000+ posts by M McCarthy = vacuous, confirmed by author.
                        We’re halfway there. As someone passionate about glyphosate, give me one scientific article (I can find on PubMed) that really speaks to you, you know says something you think is just obviously true.

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        Seems to me you are the one that wanted to discuss glyphosate exposure, so it should be up to you to find an article to discuss. Or some aspect of it. Right.

                      • Terrafurtive

                        The only question left is do you have the smarts to be posting on this forum. Prove it. I don’t think you can. It’s a simple thing, pick a paper you’re an expert at, go ahead, do it, it’s easier than the two-finger googling you usually do for facts. You’re like many others here, lots of blather and no substance. So put up or shut up. You have no business posting on this forum, you have no scientific sensibility, so shove off. Really, look how much time you’ve wasted to get here, which currently is nowhere.

                        I have posted some questions about long term, low dose, human exposure, so go there and respond with a cogent scientifically supported opinion. So far, the response is to bring up the fact that drinking roundup is harmless, something utterly unrelated. See if you can be different.

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        Look, I’m not the one that was whining on here like a little beatch about “chronic low level exposure”. How about YOU find something in the literature in this regard to discuss, rather than continually deflect and insult. You won’t, I’m sure I’ll get another gem of a response though. BTW, I never said a single word about drinking roundup, not even sure where you came up with that one. And, for the record, you are not the forum police, responsible for determining who is or is not worthy of posting on this forum. So, cut the *hit, Mr. “PhD”.

                      • Terrafurtive

                        No, I’m not the police. The most they can do is arrest and jail you. I say this humbly, you are not worthy, go bother someone else.

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        Right. So no paper on chronic low level exposure? Not even something on non-monotonic dose response for any substance?

                      • disqus_k3oycamN0W

                        O, yes, and for Michael McCarthy I would advice to serve GMO for breakfast with a side of Fec matter. Do not tell him that there is not much difference between GMO and F matter.

                      • disqus_k3oycamN0W

                        o you really want to convince Billy or McCarthy that eating GMO is a bad idea?
                        I think it is very good idea if THEY eat their GMO. I would even pour them some Diet Coke to wash it down.

                      • disqus_k3oycamN0W

                        Do not crush Billy with thesaurus. He can not tell it from tyrannosaurus after drinking some glyphosate

                      • disqus_k3oycamN0W

                        You have your own Monsanto PhD, Billy.
                        Yours is Pile Deeper kind

                      • justin moreau

                        Some one call Monsanto they are not fufilling their contract. lol

                      • disqus_k3oycamN0W

                        He doesn’t need much defence. from you, Billy.
                        You are already underwater.

                      • Terrafurtive

                        Please skip to where Bill Carey is pwned!

                      • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

                        Or call out when he shows what a dumbass he is.

                      • disqus_k3oycamN0W

                        Can you turn in that picture of yours so we can evaluate the dumbness of your-ass? You look like Mondanto sprayed you with too much of their weed killers

                      • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

                        Scintillating retort. How long did it take for you to come up with it? And by the way, dumbass, that’s not my picture. It’s a drawing.

                      • disqus_k3oycamN0W

                        You definitely drunk a lot of glyphosate !.

                        Began to stammer with word “dumbass” in every post.
                        Do not collapse benind your drawing, GMO-eater

                      • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

                        ROFL. Poor dolt. Everything people eat is a GMO. It’s pretty sad when the best insult an idiot can come up with is “You eat food.” smhl

                      • Paleo Huntress

                        That simply isn’t true.

                        GMO is NOT defined as hybridization or selective breeding.

                      • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

                        It is clear you slept through, or just cut, your science classes in school. GMO is short for Genetically Modified Organism. When you hybridize, selectively breed, or induce mutations through chemicals or radiation, you are modifying the genetics of a plant. You’re just being random, and careless about it. When you splice genes, you’re being precise. It’s akin to using a minigun (selective breeding/hybridization/mutagenisis) versus a sniper rifle (gene splicing).

                      • Paleo Huntress

                        And yet, still not.

                        GENETIC ENGINEERING IS NOT AN EXTENSION OF CONVENTIONAL PLANT
                        BREEDING; How genetic engineering differs from conventional breeding,
                        hybridization, wide crosses and horizontal gene transfer

                        Genetic engineering is not just an extension of conventional breeding. In fact, it differs profoundly. As a general rule, conventional breeding develops new plant
                        varieties by the process of selection, and seeks to achieve expression of genetic material which is already present within a species. (There are exceptions, which include species hybridization, wide crosses and horizontal gene transfer, but they are limited, and do not change the overall conclusion, as discussed later.) Conventional breeding employs processes that occur in nature, such as sexual and asexual reproduction. The product of conventional breeding emphasizes certain characteristics. However these characteristics are not new for the species. The characteristics have been present for millennia within the genetic potential of the species.

                        Genetic engineering works primarily through insertion of genetic material,
                        although gene insertion must also be followed up by selection. This insertion process
                        does not occur in nature. A gene “gun”, a bacterial “truck” or a chemical or electrical
                        treatment inserts the genetic material into the host plant cell and then, with the help of
                        genetic elements in the construct, this genetic material inserts itself into the
                        chromosomes of the host plant. Engineers must also insert a “promoter” gene from a
                        virus as part of the package, to make the inserted gene express itself. This process
                        alone, involving a gene gun or a comparable technique, and a promoter, is profoundly
                        different from conventional breeding, even if the primary goal is only to insert genetic
                        material from the same species.

                      • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

                        Yeah, consumers union isn’t a good source for anything except bullshit. When you can, look up evolution.

                      • Paleo Huntress

                        Ahh, I see. You don’t like the info so you attempted to discredit the source.

                        The author is Dr. Michael Hansen, who served on the USDA Advisory Committee on Agricultural Biotechnology, on the California Department of Food and Agriculture Food Biotechnology Advisory Committee. He was appointed to a FAO/WHO Joint Consultation on Genetically Engineered Animals. He co-authored ‘Pest Management at the Crossroads’, and advises the FAO on pesticide and agricultural policies in developing countries.

                        Try again.

                      • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

                        I don’t need to discredit anything. They’ve done a fine job themselves. Unlike you anti-science advocates, I don’t mind being wrong, and even welcome it.

                        You’re is called an appeal to authority. Just because he may have done those things, doesn’t mean anything. Especially when you consider that searches for his name in research libraries turns up nothing…

                      • Paleo Huntress

                        And yet, you didn’t provide any science, you provided your opinion– and you’re nobody.

                        I provided the opinion of an expert, and you claimed the source was no good, which would tend to contradict your claim that I’m appealing to authority, as it was YOU who took exception to reputation of the source.

                        However, feel free to offer “science” that proves that genetic engineering is identical to conventional breeding, hybridization, wide crosses and horizontal gene transfer. I would certainly consider that more valid than my expert’s opinion.

                        When one searches for his name properly, a great deal more than “nothing” turns up. Dr. Hansen is pretty widely published.

                        https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22MK+Hansen%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C22

                      • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

                        and you’re nobody. Aww. Now you hurt my fweelwings.

                        However, feel free to offer “science” that proves that genetic engineering is identical to conventional breeding, hybridization, wide crosses and horizontal gene transfer. Let’s test your claim. Here’s a great place to start: http://amzn.com/0451529065

                      • Paleo Huntress

                        What a specious and ridiculous claim.

                        If you have to go back to Darwin’s Origin of Species to back your claim, you clearly have nothing valid to share. Darwin doesn’t discuss Genetic Engineering and as such makes no claims and offers no data regarding the similarities or differences between it and conventional breeding, hybridization, wide crosses and horizontal gene transfer. You can keep insisting it does, but my four year old used to insist it was going to be warm enough to go swimming in February, and just like you, he was wrong– and stomping his foot and getting red in the face didn’t change that.

                      • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

                        I suggested Origin of Species because that’s where I suggest everyone begin who doesn’t understand evolution. Its that simple, and if you don’t understand that, I can’t begin to educate you on something more complex like bio-engineering.

                      • Paleo Huntress

                        I read it in college and I’m married to a biologist and this is a common topic of debate.

                        I think you should work on your own education before expanding out into that of others. I recommend starting with learning how to correctly cite your sources.

                      • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

                        Re-read it. And this time, try to learn from it. If you are married to a biologist, I suggest you stop trying to debate them, and start trying to learn from them.

                      • disqus_k3oycamN0W

                        Do not expose too loud though. GMO causes stomach irritation and belching

                      • disqus_k3oycamN0W

                        Do not expose too loud though. GMO causes stomach irritation and belching

                      • disqus_k3oycamN0W

                        “Nothing can be disguised from Bill Carey!
                        Especially after he drunk glyphosate and fell from his truck in green pool!”

                        Bierce Ambrosia.

                      • disqus_k3oycamN0W

                        “Nothing can be disguised from Bill Carey!
                        Especially after he drunk glyphosate and fell from his truck in green pool!”

                        Bierce Ambrosia.

                      • disqus_k3oycamN0W

                        Another truck driver PhD evaluator surfaced from the under green stream

                      • disqus_k3oycamN0W

                        Another truck driver PhD evaluator surfaced from the under green stream

                    • disqus_k3oycamN0W

                      Why you are so hysterical about his PhD? So much bla-bla-bla in response.
                      You like your GMO- gobble up them, all the way to the nursing home, nobody forbids you.

                      I consider them crap, do not eat any processed and GMO food – good for me.

                      • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

                        Actually every food you eat is processed. That’s how it does from a living thing to your meal.

                      • Terry Hill

                        Because he trumped his ‘two Ph.D.s’ as ‘authority’ to shut down any arguments… only I called him out on it. I also called him out on his other factual errors… in response to which he changed topic and then disappeared. Like the cornered rat he is.
                        Of course.. ‘bla-bla’ must be what you hear whenever evidence contrary to your cult-like beliefs is put before you. It allows you to retain your blissful, wilful ignorance in the face of facts.
                        Luckily, science doesn’t care about what you believe, and facts are still facts. Your ignorance of science (“I consider them crap” – based on what?) must have been the same pointless fears your great-grandparents rolled out when that scary ‘electricity’ became harnessed by science.
                        “Ooh, I don’t trust no elec-trickery! I’ll sit in my room and slowly die of carbon monoxide poisoning by burning candles. Science is scary… Oooh”

                  • J. Randall Stewart

                    nd is documented to increase as weeds become resistant. More resistance, more glyphosate, understand?

                    This is false. If we find resistance, we change “Modes of Action”. More if the same Mode of Action escalates the problem.

                  • Zampolit

                    It’s you that needs to learn the difference. Just Google it Doctor. Just in case you need some help o learned one. A herbicide is a pesticide. Repeat slowly, a herbicide is a pesticide. Cutting and pasting and pretending doesn’t signify much. How do you think Monsanto can keep 30,0000 people in evil servitude making those poisons? Legitimate scientific background? I love these comment sections. Thanks.

                  • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

                    $1.5 billion a year. Sure is a lot. Yet, not when you compare it to Whole Food’s $5 billion per year. Why do i bring up Whole Paycheck, you might be wondering? They’re the marketing geniuses behind the “GMOs are bad” thing.

                    • Terrafurtive

                      GMO’s are part of another story, this one is about glyphosate. Personally, I think it’s a stretch to think a GM plant is dangerous by itself. Glyphosate has much more risk potential.

                      • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

                        Ever hear of LD50? In toxicology, the median lethal dose, LD50 (abbreviation for “lethal dose, 50%”), LC50 (lethal concentration, 50%) or LCt50 is a measure of the lethal dose of a toxin, radiation, or pathogen. The value of LD50 for a substance is the dose required to kill half the members of a tested population after a specified test duration. LD50 figures are frequently used as a general indicator of a substance’s acute toxicity. A lower LD50 is indicative of increased toxicity. In short, high number = good, low number = bad.

                        Let’s look up some LD50s, shall we? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fabadb7a202433345ed3d21196b65385b0e5fec4df4f6e92c94bacde5af24239.png

                        Hunh. Look at that: Glyphosate is number five on the list (going top-to-bottom from lowest LD50 to highest). It’s safer than table salt, baking soda, and aspirin. It’s also much safer than Rotenone which is used on organic crops. Yet, no one is complaining about that one. I wonder why?

                      • Terrafurtive

                        Damn, what a disappointment. I could overlook the unbidden sermon on LD50, except for the insulting trollish delivery, “Every hear of…”, “Let’s look up some…shall we?” etc. Please, go to the sharps container, take out a needle and stick it in you bloated belly, when all the hot air has escaped, come back.
                        My post was about long term, low dose, human exposure. Why the sermon on short term, high dose, lab animal exposure? Didn’t read my post? Or is it something to avoid by misdirection? Either way, it’s two strikes in my book.

                      • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

                        *facepalm* How did you miss the part where I talked about how long it’s been on the market?

                        F
                        o
                        u
                        r
                        t
                        y
                        f
                        u
                        c
                        k
                        i
                        n
                        g
                        y
                        e
                        a
                        r
                        s
                        There is your long term, low dose exposure. In 40 years, there has been, are you ready for it? – zero harms caused by glyphosate when used properly. Get it now?

                      • Terrafurtive

                        Pretty rude when want to be. It’s not very becoming and erodes your credibility. Vulgarity is the refuge of the pwned. Every monsanto shill likes the 40 years. You don’t take into account that of those forty years, it’s only very recently been applied to 90+ percent of all soy and corn crops in the US. Look at my post, you forgot to read it before engaging mouth. If you’re not interested in what that new level of exposure to humans (and I include you too) then you have no scientific curiosity.

                        You responded to a post of mine where I discussed gyphosate toxicity you said that “We have thousands of them” articles I presume. Pubmed shows only 2007 citations for glyphosate and 751 for glyphosate AND toxic*. Maybe you have an expanded source? Just give me one paper I can find on Pubmed that really rocks your boat, you know, says what you believe.

                        What’s the progress on your deflation task…You still sound pretty full of yourself?

                      • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

                        Deflation task? Um… what?

                        This may seem difficult, but, if you follow the directions, you’ll be able to figure it out: 1) Click the link. 2) Read the article until you see the hyperlinked 1783 studies. 3) Click that link. 4) A spreadsheet file will be downloaded to your computer. 5) Open that file. It will have all the data you need to find each study listed.

                        Here’s the first link: http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/08/with-2000-global-studies-confirming-safety-gm-foods-among-most-analyzed-subject-in-science/

                        Now, as for my language, you can take your attempt at tone policing and shove it where the sun doesn’t shine. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b0b4c99b4d74602962370bf419a5c95e549f13a833b8b86ce65b4f23883f48dd.jpg

                      • Terrafurtive

                        It was a simple request. But your ego stands large and in the way. One paper. Do it, it’s easy, surely you can pick one from your top ten list you use for ammunition. I think you’re feeling some fear of being exposed as a Go.D. that’s doctorate in Google.

                        Use whatever language you want, your rudeness shows your immaturity. Scientifically, you sound like an idiot. Can you give us anything other than lots of words and vertical writing with no substance. Still haven’t addressed my post with a single original thought. I’ve seen this a lot here, empty brains churning out junior high debate team drivel. Try to say something important, prove to us you can. Anything scientific from your brain at all?
                        Please.

                      • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

                        Impressive word salad. Needs more croutons & bacon bits. Also of use to you: Reading comprehension. RIF, after all.

                      • Terrafurtive

                        Well, there we go, the poser is revealed. Our coffee boy has no grasp of scientific literature.

                        Strike one, apprentice troll (not even very good at that).
                        Strike two, can’t respond to a simple scientific proposal, but can puke out
                        links to his parent organization as if that were an original thought. The
                        parent org, who’s name is forgettable, but I think it’s the GMO Klux Klan, has
                        a collection of 1700 sources. A quick look at Pubmed shows > 44,000
                        references to keywords “genetically modified organism”. The reader can draw
                        their own conclusion. Strike three, he’s a pretender in the scientific world, clearly without a creative brain cell or an original idea.
                        You are wasting the time of people who have legitimate health and safety concerns.
                        Please find a forum you can contribute to, like “how to look smart when you’re not, for junior high debate teams”

                      • TZ

                        Sorry I have to disagree…Abstract

                        The aim of this review is to examine the relationship between genetically modified (GM) crops and health, based on histopathological investigations of the digestive tract in rats. We reviewed published long-term feeding studies of crops containing one or more of three specific traits: herbicide tolerance via the EPSPS gene and insect resistance via cry1Ab or cry3Bb1 genes. These genes are commonly found in commercialised GM crops. Our search found 21 studies for nine (19%) out of the 47 crops approved for human and/or animal consumption. We could find no studies on the other 38 (81%) approved crops. Fourteen out of the 21 studies (67%) were general health assessments of the GM crop on rat health. Most of these studies (76%) were performed after the crop had been approved for human and/or animal consumption, with half of these being published at least nine years after approval. Our review also discovered an inconsistency in methodology and a lack of defined criteria for outcomes that would be considered toxicologically or pathologically significant. In addition, there was a lack of transparency in the methods and results, which made comparisons between the studies difficult. The evidence reviewed here demonstrates an incomplete picture regarding the toxicity (and safety) of GM products consumed by humans and animals. Therefore, each GM product should be assessed on merit, with appropriate studies performed to indicate the level of safety associated with them. Detailed guidelines should be developed which will allow for the generation of comparable and reproducible studies. This will establish a foundation for evidence-based guidelines, to better determine if GM food is safe for human and animal consumption.

                        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412014002669

                      • TZ

                        Most studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters.#1367 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18989835
                        etc.”

                      • TZ

                        http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(99)00093-8/fulltext Crops genetically modified to have reduced susceptibility to pests are promoted as a solution low food yields in developing countries. The motive of these promoters is profit, not altruism. Monsanto one of the largest developers of genetically modified crops, has developed a grain that gives an improved crop and is sterile, so instead of keeping back some seeds for the next year’s sowing, farmers must return to the supplier for more.

                        In view of this unbridled commercial approach to genetic modification, it is perhaps not surprising that companies have paid little evident attention to the potential hazards to health of genetically modified foods. But it is astounding that the US Food and Drug Administration has not changed their stance on genetically modified food adopted in 1992 (http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/fr92529b.html). They announced in January this year, “FDA has not found it necessary to conduct comprehensive scientific reviews of foods derived from bioengineered plants…consistent with its 1992 policy”. The policy is that genetically modified crops will receive the same consideration for potential health risks as any other new crop plant. This stance is taken despite good reasons to believe that specific risks may exist.

                        For instance, antibiotic-resistance genes are used in some genetically modified plants as a marker of genetic transformation. Despite repeated assurances that the resistance genes cannot spread from the plant, many commentators believe this could happen. Of greater concern is the effect of the genetic modification itself on the food. Potatoes have been engineered with a gene from the snowdrop to produce an agglutinin which may reduce susceptibility to insects. In April last year, a scientist, Arpad Pusztai, from the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, UK, unwisely announced on television that experiments had shown intestinal changes in rats caused by eating genetically engineered potatoes. He said he would not eat such modified foods himself and that it was “very, very unfair to use our fellow citizens as guineapigs”.

                        A storm of publicity overtook Pusztai. He was removed from his job, a sacrifice that did not quell public alarm in the UK or in Europe. Last week (May 22, p1769) we reported that the Royal Society had reviewed what it could of Pusztai and colleagues’ evidence and found it flawed, a gesture of breathtaking impertinence to the Rowett Institute scientists who should be judged only on the full and final publication of their work. The British Medical Association called for a moratorium on planting genetically modified crops. The UK Government, in accordance with national tradition, vacillated. Finally, on May 21 the Government came out with proposals for research into possible health risks of genetically modified foods.

                        Shoppers across Europe had already voted with their feet. By the end of the first week in May, seven European supermarket chains had announced they would not sell genetically modified foods. Three large food multinationals, Unilever, Nestlé, and Cadburys-Schweppes followed suit. The Supreme Court in India has upheld a ban on testing genetically modified crops. Activists in India have set fire to fields of crops suspected of being used for testing. The population of the USA, where up to 60% of processed foods have genetically modified ingredients, seem, as yet, unconcerned.

                        The issue of genetically modified foods has been badly mishandled by everyone involved. Governments should never have allowed these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing for effects on health. The companies should have paid greater attention to the possible risks to health and of the public’s perception of this risk; they are now paying the price of this neglect. And scientists involved in research into the risks of genetically modified foods should have published the results in the scientific press, not through the popular media; their colleagues, meanwhile, should also have avoided passing judgments on the issue without the full facts before them.

                    • TZ

                      http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/earnings/earnings.asp?ticker=MON

                      I am sure he meant to say Monsanto’s annual income is 15 billion… Whole Foods is a fraction of the size of Monsanto! Monsanto has an enterprise value of $43 billion and Whole Foods has a value of $11 billion.

            • Jason

              I actually LOL’d at “do you even science, bro?”

          • Jason

            Out of curiosity, given that Roundup has been used for around 40 years, why was 2012 selected as a start date? Aren’t long term tests prior to that just as relevant?

            • Terrafurtive

              My point is that the real massive dose of glyphosate on our food crops didn’t begin until the invention of roundup-ready crops, beginning early 2000’s. Before that the compound didn’t enter our food-web very much because if you sprayed the food crops, you killed them. We are the long-term test subjects, I just hope you care about that.

              • hyperzombie

                The application rate for Roundup has always been the same. GMOs don’t change the amount used, just the timing.

                • JoeFarmer

                  Right. It’s not like when a RR GM crop got deregulated they said, “Ya, use as much RoundUp as you want!”

                  This is what just makes me shake my head. They think glyphosate is free, or something, and us farmers are just chomping at the bit to spray it all over the place…

                  • hyperzombie

                    Oh, come on everyone knows that if you buy Monsanto seed they send you a supertanker full of free Roundup so you can flood the fields with evil chemicals. A Million, no a billion oz per acre.

                    • JoeFarmer

                      Those tanker trucks of Roundup help hide where the real money is, and that’s chemtrails!

                      • hyperzombie

                        Shhh, don’t tell anyone. I already ordered my Lambo pick up truck

                      • JoeFarmer

                        Heh! I just learned recently that Lamborghini was originally a farm equipment maker, before they branched out into supercars.

                        Imagine a Deere supercar with those funny Lambo doors, pretty hilarious. Seats would probably be yellow leather…

                      • hyperzombie

                        So funny, and a 3 point hitch would be standard with a JD supercar.

                      • JoeFarmer

                        I went through a supercar phase.

                        I always wanted a DeTomaso Pantera. So, 25 years later, I bought one. Seemed like a sound concept, Italian designed car with a Ford 351 Cleveland motor and ZF transmission.

                        Let me tell you the ways that concept failed. Panteras were mid-engine cars. So the engine was ahead of the rear axle and right in your ear. But it wasn’t the concept that was bad, it was the execution. Panteras had the radiator in the front. Engine behind you, how do you think they plumbed the engine cooling system?

                        Yeah, they ran hoses in the rocker boxes to feed the front-mounted radiator. And what happens to old radiator hoses? They start to weep. In the rocker boxes that had absolutely no corrosion protection. So your first clue that you had a cooling system problem is when the car started to dip between the front and rear wheels.

                        Yeah, when the rocker boxes rusted, the whole spine of the car was lost. Guess how much money I made parting that car out? But I looked cool driving it for a few months.

                        This is why now I buy old dentside Ford pickups to work on and ’67-’72 el Caminos. I’ll buy a bumpside Ford if it’s in otherwise good condition, but only if it’s 2wd. Lesson learned.

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        Sure you wouldn’t rather one of these?
                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKJIbaEKa3o

                      • hyperzombie

                        Although that thing looks kind of neat, it is not dangerous enough, I will stick with the old fashioned regular snowmobile.

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vQNh9lxYgY

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        Yeah, I knew a kid that was riding a snowmobile and never came home. Snowmobile + high speed + barbed wire = dead

                      • hyperzombie

                        same goes for every other motor sport, motorcycles included. The key to being safe is not to run into fences.

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        Yes, well, sometimes you’re riding down a path in the woods that you’ve been down many times and a barbed wire fence was put up at some point that wasn’t there before. If I remember, the owner of the fence got sued by the parents because there was no flag on the wire to mark it’s presence.

                      • hyperzombie

                        Well normally if you put a barbed wire fence across an known travel pass there are many posts and even more wire. I think this is a case of someone that wanted hurt a traveler snowmobile or otherwise.
                        I have hit many fences in my life in the dark, it stops the machine and the person launches over the fence. That is my experience.

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        That could have been. It was just 2 strings of wire, the lower one happened to be just at neck height.

                      • JoeFarmer

                        You’re lucky, then.

                        There have been a lot of snowmobilers in Iowa killed over the years by hitting the standard 3 wire farm fence. Typically at night, while racing, with alcohol involved.

                        Typical 3-wire fence height is 38″ here, maybe they are lower up north?

                      • hyperzombie

                        “hitting the standard 3 wire farm fence.”

                        Only 3 wires? WT heck. Standard here is 4 wires and top wire is 42 to 46 inches. But we get a crap pile of snow here, so the 4 wire fence quickly becomes the 2 wire fence. I think this is the difference. We still lose many snowmobilers every year because of fences. well drunkenness mostly. One last year hit a train in broad daylight, and yes booze was a factor.
                        horse owners are the worst with their stupid one wire fences, so hard to see.

                      • JoeFarmer

                        I forgot to consider snow cover vs. fence height, duh.

                      • hyperzombie

                        Why are your cows so lazy,, they can’t jump a 3 ft wire. Do you give them sedatives… Just kidding, no cows jump. they just plow through the fence.

                      • JoeFarmer

                        Or Armco barriers.

                        When you see an old biker in a bar missing part of a limb, that’s usually what caused it.

              • Jason

                I suppose that’s true, but tests would be no less relevant prior to that time period.
                As an FYI… glyphosate was commonly used as a descant on wheat crops and was (is) heavily used in orchards to keep weeds down. So, while GMO crops certainly advanced the use of glyphosate, it was used in food crops prior.

          • Zampolit

            Did you get that herbicide being a pesticide thing worked out yet Einstein? Tough scientific concept to get your mind around.

            • Terrafurtive

              Oh, so original. Insightful, really. Keep posting!

              • Zampolit

                Thank you.

              • disqus_k3oycamN0W

                Bill Carey is slimery . Inside, out and around
                (Look at his picture)

          • disqus_k3oycamN0W

            You can avoid GMO
            I do not eat any sugar, soy, corn, canola oil, any processed or packaged food (because those are made with those 4 ). No wheat products -it is spayed with glyphsate before harvest for desiccation. No conventional animal products- only organic that I carefully researched and checked. For example, cheap Horizon Organic milk is owned by Deans Food – lying magacompany notorious for use of GMO rBGH, animal cruelty. and hated by their farmers and workers. 10000 cows crowded to produce this “organic” milk.
            I buy a lot from small local farmers and european imported food.

            It is healthy diet, try it. I keep normal weight without any effort on it

          • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

            We can give you thousands. The better question would be: Would you be able to understand them? The average person can’t.

            By the way: Look up the pesticides that glyphosate replaced and how much more deadly they are. Then ask yourself, “Why am I worried about something that is safer than what I didn’t care about?”

            • Terrafurtive

              Finally, someone who can think. Good questions about my post. I agree the old stuff is way more dangerous in lab animals and in documented human exposure. I’m pretty sure the amount that found its way into our food supply was minimal. Today, HT soy and corn plants have reached 90+% saturation in US farming. This means 90+% of all soy and corn get herbicide applied directly to the plant. The herbicide reaches every part of the plant including the part we eat (this is the beauty of Roundup, it’s a genius invention, I love it, I use it in my yard!). So now, unlike all previous versions of herbicides, our food supply has residual herbicide in it. Is it a lot or a little? This should be carefully determined. Soy and corn products are in most of the things I eat, when I look at the product labels. Even peanut butter has soy oil replacing the peanut oil and corn syrup to sweeten it up for American palate. I eat three meals a day, which is a constant low exposure to residual herbicide. No breaks, I eat every day. Is this dangerous? This should be carefully examined. The experiment is on us, we’re the test subjects. Will glyphosate turn out to be like BHT added to our breakfast cereal and harmless, or like cigarette smoke we once thought was harmless but causes cancer.

              • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

                It has been tested. Extensively, both before it came on the market, and since. It is safer than salt, baking soda, and freaking caffeine (which is in coffee, tea, and soda). Despite what those who wish to sell you something that doesn’t work want you to believe, there’s never been any harm linked to proper use of glyphosate. It’s been on the market for 40 years.

                So, tell me: What studies do you think they should do that you think they haven’t done?

        • disqus_k3oycamN0W

          OK. You and the list of trolls who upvoted eat GMO with pesticides and synthetics. Those who know what crap GMO and glyphosate are, eat healthy food. I do not eat any sugar, soy, corn, canola, packaged food, wheat products, and conventional animal products. Eat my share of those and read Monsanto studies about “proven” safety of GMO for dessert
          Someone should serve as a repository for all junk produced in America.
          Thanks to you and your 6 “likers” for volunteering.

          • FarmersSon63

            You have been eating GMO’s every day for @ 20 years just like the rest of us.

          • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

            I’m afraid I’ve got bad news for ya: You eat GMO foods all the time. There’s no getting around that. Humans have been eating GMOs since the dawn of agriculture 25,000 years ago.

            • TZ

              http://earthopensource.org/gmomythsandtruths/sample-page/1-genetic-engineering-technique/1-1-myth-truth/

              Truth: Genetic engineering is different from natural breeding and poses special risks

              Myth at a glance

              GMO proponents claim that genetic engineering is just an extension of natural plant breeding. But genetic engineering is technically and conceptually different from natural breeding and entails different risks. The difference is recognized in national and international laws.

              GMO proponents claim that genetic engineering is just an extension of natural plant breeding. They say that genetically modified (GM) crops are no different from naturally bred crops, apart from the deliberately inserted foreign GM gene (transgene) and the protein it is intended to make.

              But GM is technically and conceptually different from natural breeding and poses different risks. This fact is recognized in national and international laws and agreements on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). For example, European law defines a GMO as an organism in which “the genetic material has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination” and requires the risks of each GMO to be assessed.1

              The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety,2 an international agreement signed by 166 governments worldwide that seeks to protect biological diversity from the risks posed by GM technology, and the United Nations food safety body, Codex Alimentarius, agree that GM differs from conventional breeding and that safety assessments should be required before GM organisms are used in food or released into the environment.3,4

              In 1999 the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority ruled that Monsanto’s advertisements about GM foods and crops were misleading in claiming that genetic modification was an extension of traditional breeding methods.5

              Today, few public comment forums on GM crops and foods are complete without claims from GMO promoters to the effect that “We’ve been genetically modifying crops for millennia”. This conveys essentially the same message as Monsanto’s advertisements and seems to have the same intent: to reassure the public that nothing radical or new is being done to their food. This message is scientifically inaccurate and misleading.

              Indeed, industry tries to play both sides in its presentation of GMOs. It tells patent offices worldwide that the GM process is totally different from natural breeding and so the generation of a GM crop constitutes a non-obvious “inventive step”, thus making the GM crop patentable. On the other hand, it tells the public that the GM process is little different from natural breeding and that therefore GM foods are as safe as non-GM foods.

              Both arguments cannot be correct. And technically speaking, the GM transformation process is radically different from natural breeding.

              Natural breeding can only take place between closely related forms of life (cats with cats, not cats with dogs; wheat with wheat, not wheat with tomatoes or fish). In this way, the genes that carry information for all parts of the organism are passed down the generations in an orderly way.

              GM, in contrast, is an artificial laboratory-based technique that is specifically designed to enable the transfer of genes between unrelated or distantly related organisms. It even enables the introduction of synthetic DNA into the genome of living organisms.

              In an attempt to reassure the public and regulators about GMO safety, GMO developer companies are now focusing on transferring genes from a related organism or the same organism (so-called “cisgenesis”). For example, a gene from one potato may be inserted into another variety of potato. However, even in cisgenesis, a new GM gene unit may contain genetic elements from other organisms, including bacteria or viruses. Cisgenesis also involves the same laboratory methods that are used in genetic engineering and thus carries the potential for unexpected knock-on effects (see Myth 1.4).

              The steps of genetic modification

              The steps by which GM crops are created make it clear that genetic engineering is not an extension of natural breeding. It is not natural, as the particular combinations of genes put together in the GM gene cassette and the manner in which it is inserted into the host organism would never occur in nature.

              1. Isolation of the gene of interest

              Genetic engineering confers a new trait on an organism by introducing the gene for a trait into the genome of that organism. The first step in that process is to identify the gene for the trait of interest and to isolate it. Using existing knowledge about the genome of a given organism, the gene of interest encoding the desired trait is identified and “cloned”. That means the gene is physically isolated and propagated in a GM bacterium as part of a DNA molecule known as a plasmid. The vast majority of currently commercialized GMOs are engineered to tolerate being sprayed with one or more herbicides or to produce one or more insecticides.

              2. Cutting and splicing – generation of the GM gene cassette for introduction into the plant

              Before being used to produce a GM plant, the gene of interest must be joined up with appropriate genetic control elements that will allow it to be switched on within its new plant host, so that it will efficiently produce the protein that it encodes. Other elements are also spliced into or around the gene for various purposes. Most prominent among the genetic control elements that are spliced to the gene of interest are “promoter” and “termination” sequences.

              The promoter marks the beginning of the gene. It attracts and binds multi-protein complexes, called the gene expression machinery. This machinery reads the DNA sequence of the gene and synthesizes a complementary messenger RNA (mRNA) copy of the gene sequence. The termination element, as the name implies, marks the end of the gene and causes the synthesis process to stop.

              Promoter and termination elements must be sourced from organisms that will allow them to work in the GM plant. These can be from either plants or, more frequently, plant viruses such as the cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV). Promoters from plant viruses are usually preferred because they are more potent than plant gene promoters, allowing the GM gene to be expressed at higher levels and hence allowing higher production of the GM protein.

              If the gene of interest is not from a plant (for example, if it is from a bacterium or animal), it is typically modified in other ways as well, to make it more compatible with the gene expression machinery of the recipient plant cells.

              Genetic engineers use a variety of enzymes to cut DNA into specific sequences and to splice the various pieces of DNA into the plasmid that carries the cloned gene or gene of interest. The result of many cutting and splicing steps is the complete genetically engineered construct, called the gene cassette.

              For example, the gene of interest in first-generation GM Roundup® Ready soy, maize, cotton and canola encodes an enzyme (CP4 EPSPS), which confers tolerance to Roundup herbicide. The CP4 EPSPS gene was isolated from a naturally occurring soil bacterium. In order to ensure that the CP4 EPSPS gene is switched on appropriately in plants, it is linked to the CaMV 35S promoter, which is derived from the cauliflower mosaic virus. The CP4 EPSPS gene is also linked at its leading end to a gene fragment called a signal sequence, obtained from the petunia, a flowering plant. This is to ensure that the CP4 EPSPS enzyme localizes to the right place within the plant cells. Finally, a sequence that functions to terminate mRNA synthesis is spliced to the end of the CP4 EPSPS gene. This termination sequence is taken from a second bacterial species, Agrobacterium tumefaciens (A. tumefaciens).

              Therefore the first-generation Roundup Ready GM tolerance GM gene cassette combines gene sequences from four diverse organisms: two species of soil bacteria, a flowering plant, and a plant virus. These all end up in the genetically engineered agricultural crop. This graphically illustrates the extreme combinations of genetic material that can be brought about by the GM process. This is something that would never occur naturally.

              In addition to the gene(s) that confer traits relevant to the final crop, another gene unit is often included in the gene cassette along with the gene of interest. This additional gene unit functions as a selectable marker, meaning that it expresses a function that can be selected for. Typically this is survival in the presence of an antibiotic or herbicide. The GM gene itself can be used as a surrogate marker gene if it encodes resistance to a herbicide. When the marker gene (along with the other gene(s) in the cassette) is successfully engineered into the genome of the recipient plant cells, those cells are protected from the antibiotic or herbicide. The genetic engineer can then separate the cells that have integrated the GM gene cassette from the majority of other cells in the culture by exposing the culture to the antibiotic or herbicide. Only the cells that have been successfully engineered and are therefore resistant to the antibiotic or herbicide survive exposure.

              3. GM gene cassette insertion into cultured plant cells

              To introduce the GM gene cassette into the genome of the recipient plant, millions of cells from that species are subjected to the GM gene insertion (transformation) process. This is done by growing cells from the recipient plant or pieces of tissue from the plant in culture in dishes, tubes, or flasks, a system known as “tissue culture”, and then using methods described below to insert the gene cassette into the recipient plant cells. This results in one or more of the GM gene cassettes being inserted into the DNA of some of the plant cells present in the tissue culture. The inserted DNA is intended to re-programme the cells’ genetic blueprint, conferring completely new properties on the cell.

              The process of inserting the GM gene cassette is carried out in one of two ways. The first way is with a “gene gun”, which randomly shoots microscopic gold or tungsten nanoparticles coated in GM DNA into the plant cells in a process called particle bombardment or biolistics. In a few instances, the nanoparticles end up in the nucleus of the plant cells and in an even smaller number of cases, the DNA on the particles gets incorporated into the DNA of the plant cell. This is a completely random process that genetic engineers have no ability to control. They do not fully know what processes are involved in the DNA insertion process and have no control over when it occurs or where in the DNA of the plant cell it will occur.

              The second mechanism of gene insertion is by infection of the cultured cells with the soil bacterium A. tumefaciens. In its natural form, A. tumefaciens infects plants at wound sites, causing grown gall disease, a type of tumour. The infection process involves the actual insertion of DNA from A. tumefaciens into the DNA of the infected plant. The genetic engineer uses the natural ability of A. tumefaciens to insert DNA into the genome of infected plants to insert the GM gene cassette into the DNA of plant cells in culture. This is done by first linking the GM gene cassette to a piece of A. tumefaciens DNA called the Ti plasmid. This modified DNA is then introduced back into A. tumefaciens. Then the plant cells in culture are infected with the A. tumefaciens that contains the GM gene cassette-Ti plasmid DNA complex. A small fraction of the plant cells exposed to the A. tumefaciens are successfully infected and incorporate the GM gene cassette into their own DNA. As with biolistics, the A. tumefaciens insertion process is random and the genetic engineer has no way of controlling where in the plant cell genome the GM gene cassette will be inserted. It is hit or miss.

              At this point in the process, the genetic engineer has a tissue culture consisting of millions of plant cells. Some will have picked up the GM gene cassette, whilst the vast majority will not have done so. The genetic engineer now needs to select out the cells that have not picked up the GM genes and discard them from the process.

              4. Selection of the modified plant cells

              Depending on the type of marker genes that are part of the GM gene cassette (herbicide-tolerant or antibiotic-resistant), the plant tissue culture that has undergone the GM transformation process is treated with either a herbicide or an antibiotic, to kill all cells except those that have successfully incorporated the GM gene cassette into their own DNA and switched it on. Only the cells that have incorporated the marker gene into their genome and are expressing it will be resistant to the chemical and survive exposure.

              Only a small percentage of GM gene cassette insertion events result in expression of the GM genes in the plant cells.

              5. Hormone treatment

              The few plant cells that have successfully incorporated the GM gene cassette and survived the chemical treatment are then further treated with plant hormones. The hormones stimulate the genetically modified plant cells to proliferate and differentiate into small GM plants that can be transferred to soil and grown to maturity.

              6. Verification of the GM transformation

              Once the GM plants are growing, the genetic engineer examines them and discards any that are deformed or do not seem to be growing well. The remaining plants are tested so as to identify one or more that express the GM genes at the desired high levels and locations within the plant. Out of many hundreds or thousands of GM plants produced, only a few may fit this requirement. These are selected as candidates for commercialization.

              Each of these GM plants carries the same GM gene cassette, but it will be inserted at a different location in the genome of the plant. The GM gene will express at different levels in different GM plants and even in different parts of the same GM plant.

              At this stage the GM plants have not been assessed for health and environmental safety or nutritional value. This part of the process is described in later chapters.

              The GM transformation process is highly inefficient

              The GM transformation process is a complex multistep process in which each step needs to work as intended in order to produce the desired result. The GM gene cassette must be successfully inserted and the gene of interest switched on so that it produces the protein it encodes, while at the same time, all other properties of the plant, including fertility, must be preserved.

              This is a very inefficient process. The process of GM gene insertion into the plant cell DNA occurs only rarely. Most inserted GM genes fail to function, either due to integration into regions of the plant genome that are not permissive for gene activation or to natural plant defence mechanisms that silence or switch off of the “invading” foreign gene.

              GM gene cassettes currently used by genetic engineers do not possess any elements that are able to overcome these limitations of the transformation process. Therefore obtaining GM plants that are good candidates for taking forward for potential commercialization is a long, arduous, labour-intensive, and expensive process6,7 (see Myth 6.4).

              How unnatural is genetic engineering and does it matter?

              Some aspects of plant genetic engineering are unique to the GM process and do not occur in other types of plant breeding. They include the artificial construction of the GM gene cassette, which contains new synthetic genes and combinations of gene control elements that have never existed before in nature.

              Also, genetic engineering enables genes to be transferred not only between different species but also between different kingdoms – for example, from animals or humans into plants. Therefore genetic engineering evades natural barriers between species and kingdoms that have evolved over millennia. Moreover, genetic engineering can introduce purely synthetic genes, thus, for better or worse, expanding the range of possible genes to the frontiers of the human imagination.

              The fact that the GM transformation process is unnatural and artificial does not automatically make it undesirable or dangerous. It is the consequences of the procedure, combined with the current lack of systematic assessment of potential risks, that give cause for concern, as detailed in subsequent sections.

              But in other situations, ubiquitous GM gene expression is not so desirable. For example, GM maize engineered with the insecticidal Bt toxin gene obtained from bacteria aims to target either the corn borer or rootworm pest. Therefore the GM Bt toxin gene only needs to be expressed in stems, corn cobs, and roots, in order to ensure protection from these pests. However, the use of the CaMV promoter to drive expression of the Bt toxin transgene unit (as is the case in all current GM crops) results in the presence of this insecticide in all plant structures, not just the stems, cobs, and roots. This in turn increases the possibility of toxic effects on non-target insect populations that may feed on the pollen of these Bt GM crops, such as bees and butterflies. Thus valuable pest predator or pollinator insect populations may be harmed when feeding on Bt GM crops.

              In conclusion, the use of ubiquitous promoters such as the CaMV in an effort to override the host plant’s gene regulation systems and force expression of the GM gene at high levels may have undesirable effects on plant biochemistry, crop performance and the surrounding environment.

              In contrast, in natural breeding and even in mutation breeding (mutagenesis), which exposes plants to radiation or chemicals to induce genetic mutations (inheritable changes), the plants’ own gene regulation systems remain active.

              In other words, scientists use genetic engineering to bypass the plants’ natural gene regulation systems and to re-programme their genetic functioning. Natural breeding, on the other hand, uses the inherent genetic potential in plants and does not deliberately disrupt their gene regulation system.

              Muddying the waters with imprecise terms

              GMO proponents often use the terminology relating to genetic modification incorrectly, blurring the line between genetic modification and conventional breeding.

              For example, they claim that conventional plant breeders have been “genetically modifying” crops for centuries by selective breeding and that GM crops are no different. But this is incorrect. The term “genetic modification” is recognised in common usage and in national and international laws as referring to the use of laboratory techniques, mainly recombinant DNA technology, to transfer genetic material between organisms or modify the genome in ways that would not take place naturally, bringing about alterations in the genetic makeup and properties of the organism.

              The term “genetic modification” is sometimes wrongly used to describe marker-assisted selection (MAS). MAS is a relatively uncontroversial branch of biotechnology that can speed up conventional breeding by identifying natural genes that confer important traits. MAS does not involve the risks and uncertainties of genetic modification. It is supported by organic and sustainable agriculture groups worldwide, with objections mostly focusing on patenting issues.

              Similarly, “genetic modification” is sometimes wrongly used to describe tissue culture, a method that is used to select desirable traits or to reproduce whole plants from plant cells in the laboratory. In fact, while genetic modification of plants as carried out today is dependent on the use of tissue culture, tissue culture is not dependent on GM. Tissue culture can be used for many other purposes, including some safe and useful ones.

              Using the term “biotechnology” to mean genetic modification is inaccurate. Biotechnology is an umbrella term that includes a variety of processes through which humanity harnesses biological functions for useful purposes. For instance, fermentation in wine-making and breadmaking, composting, the production of silage, marker-assisted selection (MAS), tissue culture, and even agriculture itself, are all biotechnologies. GM is one among many biotechnologies.

              GM proponents’ misleading use of language may be due to unfamiliarity with the field, or may represent deliberate attempts to blur the line between controversial and uncontroversial technologies in order to win public acceptance of GM.
              See more….link above.
              Conclusion

              Genetic engineering is different from natural/conventional plant breeding and poses special risks, as is recognized in national and international biosafety laws. The genetic engineering and associated tissue culture processes are highly mutagenic, leading to unpredictable changes in the DNA and proteins of the resulting GM crop that can lead to unexpected toxic, allergenic and nutritional effects.

              References

              European Parliament and Council. Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC. Off J Eur Communities. 2001:1–38.

              Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Montreal; 2000. Available at: http://bch.cbd.int/protocol/text/.

              Codex Alimentarius. Foods derived from modern biotechnology (2nd ed.). Rome, Italy: World Health Organization/Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2009. Available at: ftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/Publications/Booklets/Biotech/Biotech_2009e.pdf.

              Codex Alimentarius. Guideline for the conduct of food safety assessment of foods derived from recombinant-DNA plants: CAC/GL 45-2003; 2003.

              GeneWatch UK. ASA rules that Monsanto adverts were misleading: GeneWatch UK complaints upheld [press release]. http://www.genewatch.org/article.shtml?als%5Bcid%5D=492860&als%5Bitemid%5D=507856. Published August 10, 1999.]

              Phillips McDougall. The cost and time involved in the discovery, development and authorisation of a new plant biotechnology derived trait: A consultancy study for Crop Life International. Pathhead, Midlothian; 2011.

              Goodman MM. New sources of germplasm: Lines, transgenes, and breeders. In: Martinez JM, ed. Memoria Congresso Nacional de Fitogenetica. Univ Autonimo Agr Antonio Narro, Saltillo, Coah, Mexico; 2002:28–41. Available at: http://www.cropsci.ncsu.edu/maize/publications/NewSources.pdf.

              Doolittle WF. Lateral genomics. Trends Cell Biol. 1999;9(12):M5-8.

              Hughes JF, Coffin JM. Evidence for genomic rearrangements mediated by human endogenous retroviruses during primate evolution. Nat Genet. 2001;29:487-9. doi:10.1038/ng775.

              European Parliament and Council. Directive 2009/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms. 2009. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32009L0041:EN:NOT.

        • TZ

          Dave Walton fake farmer…. http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/blue-bell-ice-cream-outbreak-has-been-going-years-cdc-n345751
          Blue Bell ice cream is GMO…so it killed 3 people farmer!

          • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

            It’s GMO? Weird. Their website says something entirely different.

            • TZ

              No it does NOT and feel free to call the company I have…
              Drop us a line

              We’re happy to hear from you any time. Just drop us a line at:

              Blue Bell Creameries
              Consumer Relations
              P.O. Box 1807
              Brenham, TX 77834

              979-836-7977

        • TZ

          http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ArchiveRecalls/2015/default.htm?Page=8 The majority of these food recalls are NOT organic foodstuffs!

          • FarmersSon63

            I am referring to ACTUAL deaths, not recalls.

            • TZ

              Some of the recalls caused illness and deaths and they were GMO products…

      • Warren Lauzon

        More food recalls percentage wise on organics than regular foods. http://www.foodsafety.gov/recalls/recent/#

        • justin moreau

          You Monsanto payrollies are seriously gonna fight me on this one. Have you not heard that Monsanto is getting such a bad name they are buying up organics?

          • Zampolit

            Got a fresh YouTube video do you?

            • TZ

              LOVE YouTube it is a public video library filled with news reports, award winning documentaries, news interviews, etc. Just like the public library! It is filled with information and digital evidence to be shared for decades to come!

          • Warren Lauzon

            No, I have not heard that. Do you have a cite or link for it?

      • RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfG

        That’s the definition of privilege: Defining yourself by what foods you choose to eat. By the way: the only think organic is good for is curing you of fatwalletitis.

    • justin moreau

      If I disappear you know why

      • Zampolit

        Your YouTube rights got revoked would be my guess. When that happens how could you express yourself or think independently?

    • sisterlauren

      My package of medical marijuana is not labeled as causing cancer. You know it would be if there was any risk involved.

      • justin moreau

        I don’t know what that has to do with the price of tea in China but maybe you are referring to the fact that most people that smoke marijuana are activists for healthy food and planet?

        • sisterlauren

          I was referring to the packaging regulations in California. For example I knew the air was not safe to breath after 9/11 because in California every single bag of cement comes with a warning label on it that breathing the dust is harmful and can cause cancer.

          Why the leader of the EPA in New York City didn’t know that when it is printed on every bag of cement in California, is a mystery to me, but it sure does make me glad I live here instead of there.

      • Victoria Patro

        It cures cancer.. but.. you’d know that if you actually used medical cannabis.

        • justin moreau

          Oh yeah I read that article

        • sisterlauren

          The herb that will cure the nations.

        • Terry Hill

          Fact 1: There are several known carcinogens in smoked marijuana. Several studies can show this, and it is acknowledged by several supporter groups of the use of medical marijuana. It is about evaluating if the risk is greater than the benefits.
          Fact 2: It does NOT cure cancer. This has never been proven and exists as an urban myth from anecdotes. It has been shown to reduce or suppress symptoms, easing the effect on the cancer sufferer. Nothing more.

      • Warren Lauzon

        Are you in California? If so, it legally should be.

        • sisterlauren

          There is NO EVIDENCE that pot causes cancer.

          • Warren Lauzon

            Actually there is, but I don’t care enough about the subject to do your research for you.

            • Paleo Huntress

              Actually, since you’re the one who made the claim, it falls to you to provide evidence. Technically, you’re asking sisterlauren to do YOUR research for YOU.

            • sisterlauren

              Well I have been a pot activist for over a decade and I have throughly researched the topic, so I’m going to chalk up your lack of a reference to the fact it does not exist.

      • Terry Hill

        Marijuana is more toxic, by a factor of about 10 times, than glyphosate. But facts… they really annoy some people!

        • sisterlauren

          You got a reference for that?

          • Terry Hill

            Sure:
            I can link you straight to actual scientific papers, but for ease of reading I’ve included some articles quoting LD50 (being the dosage required to kill 50% of animals tested – the standard toxicity rating internationally). The HIGHER the LD50 number, the greater the dosage needed to kill you.

            Glyphosate: 5,108 mg/kg
            THC: 1,260 mg/kg (a factor of 5 x more toxic)
            However, as smoked, marijuana has other inclusions beyond THC. Depending on the compounds in the smoke (including if paper is used, or a plastic bottle is used as a bong), studies have shown a figure beyond <660mg/kg (approx. factor of 10).

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_lethal_dose
            http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2014/06/salt-vinegar-and-glyphosate/

            The fact is, you need to ingest a crapload of marijuana to get sick and die. You need to ingest 5-10x as much glyphosate to get sick and die. In fact, you'll die from a mere fraction of this in terms of vinegar, salt, alcohol, even chilli.

            • Dave

              Please show me the evidence that long term, low dose exposure has no consequences. You drink enough water, that can kill you.

              • Terry Hill

                You seem to be contradicting your own argument Dave.

                Yes, if you drink enough water, it will kill you. By that point, everything is potentially lethal. Of course, to say no one will ever die from X is a fallacy. I pointed out that, whether you like it or not, glyphosate is not as toxic as the organic industry propaganda would have you think.

                So you are putting up a red-herring argument here.

                There have been no credible long-term studies for this. Why? Because there is NO REASON TO. A bunch of conspiracy theorists calling for one because ‘MONSATAN’ isn’t a good reason. By way of analogy – the same way 9/11 deniers calling for an investigation into the ‘inside job’ isn’t a good reason.

                When basic biology shows that the substance has a relatively low toxicity (LD50), and it does NOT bioaccumulate (no, it doesn’t build up in the human body – that is another myth. Bioaccumulation is the dissolving of a chemical into the fat cells. As glyphosate is water soluble, it dissolves in water – not fat – and any accidentally ingested quickly passes through the body and out in urine – hence the alarmist studies that identify this), there is no reason to extrapolate a belief that an low-toxicity, non-bio-accumulating chemical will have any long term effects.

                Again, by way of example – your red-herring here is like me asking “How do you know that pen ink is safe? It is low toxicity (LD50), but enough of anything can kill you! Show me evidence that long term, low dose exposure has no consequences”

                It is a deliberate, cynical (intellectually dishonest) diversion asking me to prove something that will not be studied because there is no evidence (using actual science, not retracted ‘shill’ science) to warrant such a study.

                http://www.innovationfiles.org/points-to-consider-unfounded-claims-of-glyphosate-accumulation-in-breast-milk/
                http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637

      • Zampolit

        The carcinogens form during combustion and are drawn into your lungs if you smoke it.

    • justin moreau

      GMO crops introduce a new protein in humans that causes caner
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rixyrCNVVGA

      • justin moreau

        biochemistry evidence bia!!ches

        • Terry Hill

          Where?

      • FarmersSon63

        Can you give us one confirmed cancer death from GMO’s?
        Or a peer reviewed feeding trial that confirms your guess?

        • justin moreau

          I have given all kinds of evidence you fake @ss where is yours

          • FarmersSon63

            You have not given an actual example though, have you?

            • justin moreau

              all kinds of them cant you click links and read?

              • FarmersSon63

                Not a single one.

        • justin moreau

          how do you sleep at night knowing that you are contributing to killing people

          • FarmersSon63

            But there has never even been a confirmed illness.
            How can you live with yourself repeating this lie over and over?

            • justin moreau

              You and the rest of the ppl on this discussion that are getting paid by Monsanto are the only ones spreading lies.

              • FarmersSon63

                So, if someone disagrees with you and continually corrects your mistakes, that person is considered a paid Monsanto employee?
                How does that even make sense to you?
                Monsanto is the 5th largest ag chemical manufacturer in the world. They only make 12% of the glyphosate made in the world because the patent has expired. Bayer and Syngenta are each more than double in sales of Monsanto. Are you simply clueless who the real power players are in ag crop production?
                Education is your only defense against stupidity.
                You need a healthy dose.

              • Terry Hill

                What type of idiot has resort to the argument “You’re a shill” when someone presents a logical, scientifically supported counter argument? Are you also a creationist who believes 9/11 was an inside job and climate change is a lie?
                I have never worked for any agri-chemical company, but support facts based on actual science, not fear mongering nonsense by food-elitist who can’t understand basic biology.
                Please quit your grade-school name calling. If you can prove your point without referring to debunked studies, GMO Free USA and Dr Mercola propaganda, lets see it. Otherwise, try and read some studies by the thousands (yes, literally thousands) or independent universities and government research organisations outside of the US, with ZERO ties to Monsanto or any other agri-chemical company, showing that glyphosate is as safe, or safer, than most conventional and ‘organic’ herbicides.

        • justin moreau
          • Warren Lauzon

            That site is a freaking joke. How about a link to an actual science site.

          • FarmersSon63

            There is still someone on this earth that still thinks the Seralini study was valid.
            It was debunked by peer scientists and removed from publication.

            • justin moreau

              Who said anything about Seralini?

              • FarmersSon63

                Did you even read the link you posted?

            • justin moreau

              dubunked by scientists on the Monsanto payroll you mean

              • FarmersSon63

                No, debunked by hundreds of independent scientists and the independent peer reviewed journal that originally published it.

                • Ken

                  You might find this statement interesting, about the general state of research into GMO safety:

                  http://globaljusticeecology.org/msnbcgmo/

                  • FarmersSon63

                    He provides ZERO proof of any dangers.
                    I agree with him.
                    He uses examples of several VOLUNTARY labels, and how they have worked well in our society.
                    GMO’s should be VOLUNTARILY labeled too.
                    Oh, wait, they are ALREADY are VOLUNTARILY labeled.
                    Never mind.

                    • Ken

                      You might want to check again what he actually wrote:

                      “Since over 90% of consumers routinely surveyed (over several decades) state that they want GE foods to be labelled, why is the House of Representatives trying to deny us this info? Other than being beholden to the ag industry (like the chair of the House Ag Committee who has received sizable donations from Monsanto)?”

                      • FarmersSon63

                        He says:
                        “We have many labels about the process of production of the items we buy: “made in the USA,” union-made,” country of origin, “kosher,” etc.

                        All of these are VOLUNTARY labels.
                        He is advocating a VOLUNTARY GMO label.
                        I agree 100%.

                      • Ken

                        Unfortunately for the intent of your comparison, the voluntary labels you note, for example, “made in the USA”, “union-made”, and “kosher”, are labels that are placed there because some consumers prefer those types of goods, not as a warning label.

                        In contrast, while “non-GMO” serves currently as a voluntary label for those who prefer to avoid GMO products, the quote you continue to show the beginning but not the end of is clearly intended in support of mandatory labeling of GMO (or as he writes, “GE”) products. I.e., this would be a label that would allow those who prefer to not consume GMO products to avoid them.

            • Ken
              • FarmersSon63

                The original peer reviewed journal debunked and removed from it’s publication. Then he posted the study on the link you shared. He did not have to pass any peer review in this journal, only pay the fee to be publicised.

                • Ken

                  “Springer Open Access” is peer reviewed and, as is typical of scientific publishers these days, charges for publication; I think you’ll find that Elsevier also has page charges.

                  The author of the paper published a response to the criticisms of their work:

                  http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/13

                  for example, writing about one of the complaints made by the editor-in-chief of the original journal, Food and Chemical Toxicology:

                  “He also defended the study done by Monsanto [4] claiming that they used 20 rats/sex/group while we only used 10 rats/sex/group. In fact, despite the fact that the Monsanto study used twice our sample size, the Monsanto authors only analyzed blood and urine from half of the animals (10), the same number of sampled animals as in our study.

        • justin moreau

          How about the guy that died in France and his family just won a suit against your company?

          • FarmersSon63

            That wasnt a death and it wasnt from the use of glyphosate.
            Brain dead, I swear.

      • Warren Lauzon

        I guess you missed the part where nearly all allergies are from foods that have no GMO traits. And she does nothing but spout pseudoscience in that video. Very little of what she says is actually true.

        • justin moreau

          Your ears must be broken

    • rel0627

      Ketchum has their work cut out for them.

      • justin moreau

        They have no argument anymore people see past the lies they have been fed for a long time now. I don’t know why I even bother arguing with them. Everyone knows herbicides and pesticides are bad. Anything designed to kill a living organism is going to do just that without discrimination.

        • rel0627

          I could see someone being for certain types of gmos, but when they start defending everything related to pesticides/herbicides and any bad pr image of Monsanto or any bio tech firm, along with their attempt to degrade organic foods their “opinion” and “motive” becomes obvious.

        • Terry Hill

          Please provide ONE link to a single, non-discredited study showing harmful effects of glyphosate.

          You have previously linked the discredited Seralini study. He’s the ultimate ‘paid shill’ for activist groups, and his research was destroyed by the entire scientific community for it’s poor construction, weasel-worded ‘findings’ and manipulation of results.

          A hint from someone who is currently studying biology: in vitro studies can show a lot of things. So can in-vivo studies in cancer-prone rats. It’s called manipulation.

          I find it funny that your confirmation bias allows you to believe science supporting your argument, but immediately discredit (without reading) any science that contradicts it? I’ve read all the ‘science’ claiming health effects etc. from glyphosate, as well as actual toxicology reports. Have you?

    • janie inMN

      this is indeed good news for someone whose health has been personally damaged to the point of disability by this product and other -cides. next step? BAN the use of glyphosate in the USA!

    • Pingback: Monsanto Stunned – California Confirms ‘Roundup’ Will Be Labeled “Cancer Causing” | My Garden Haven()

    • justin moreau

      It saddens me to see loser Monsanto supporters misusing the anon mask.

    • justin moreau

      MOST AREAS HAVE TEAMS THAT PULL WEEDS AND ON AVERAGE COSTS ABOUT THE SAME AS APPLYING ROUNDUP. THE BEST PART IS THAT WEEDS WILL NEVER BECOME IMMUNE TO BEING PULLED OUT OF THE GROUND.

      • J. Randall Stewart

        Have you ever pulled weeds in a field? I have. Potato fields in the 1970’s.

        Do you have any idea what that kind of foot traffic does to a field? I do. It is pretty bad, it compacts the ground and can damage the crop.

        Some weeds also regrow after being pulled, and these will evolve and become the new superweed under that type of control. Did you know other weeds evolved to look like the crop, thereby being missed by the person doing the hand weeding?

        I can cover 160 acres in a modern sprayer in an hour. Using 120 foot booms and 15″ wide tires on the sprayer, there is no noticeable damage, the total cost for the spray is around $1,000. I think a team of people would cause more damage than that, take a long time, and I don’t think they would work for $1,000.

        I think you are misinformed on this issue.

        • Brian

          Stopping making LEFTY look uninformed!

        • Gary morris

          My neighbor sprays it religiously and working on killing his second liver.

        • justin moreau

          You are talking about a terragator sprayer do you have any idea the compaction caused by heavy equipment like that? I am not misinformed I know. A team of ten people could cover that 160 acres in one day and do just as good of a job killing weeds as your sprayer. That means they would take home $100 a piece. Not bad in farm country, unless you live in California.

          • FarmersSon63

            The flotation tires on a TerraGater spread out the compaction to equal less than 20 pounds per square inch. That is why flotation tires are used.
            justin you do not even have a clue how big 1 acre is, let alone 160 acres.
            And people cannot pull, grass plants out of the ground, they break off.
            Grass will ruin a crop when it even slightly gets away from you.
            My quotes from local contractors are always above $ 100/acre on relatively clean fields.
            Roundup costs $4-6 per acre.
            Now do you understand why over 98% of US cropland uses herbicides?

          • J. Randall Stewart

            No, terragator sprayers are typically “floaters” with 3+ foot wide tires. I’m talking about a row crop sprayer, but either one will do a comparable job as far as acres/hour.

            You simply are not correct on the ability and speed of hand weeding.

          • hyperzombie

            10 people could weed a 160 acre field in a day??? Hmmm, send me their number. Normally a single person has a hard time hand weeding an acre per day

          • Ag Boy

            Justin, let’s face it. You are not involved in farming or have a fundamental understanding of how ag works today. Your statements on herbicides, insecticides, and tillage practices are so out of touch with reality that it casts credibility on any of your comments.

            Here is a simple illustration of what I mean. Foxtail is VERY a common BIG weed in the mid west if not kept under control. You said, ” A team of ten people could cover that 160 acres in one day and do just as good of a job killing weeds as J. Randall does with his sprayer”. That’s total nonsense. There is no way hand weeding would control this grass weed pest. 10 people would be lucky to cover 10 acres a day with a bad infestation of Foxtail. The reason that I bring this specific weed up is that glyphosate does do a great job of controlling Foxtail. However most growers main Foxtail control is done with a pre-emergence herbicide. This is true for both non-GMO and RR hybrids.

            So you can have very good weed control without using glyphosate (which you seem to have an irrational fear of) for Foxtai. It is just that two pass non-GMO herbicide programs tend cost more.

        • justin moreau

          And the statement about weeds evolving into super weeds if you use manual weed control is the most asinine thing I have read on this whole discussion. And yes I have pulled weeds in fields.

          • J. Randall Stewart
            • justin moreau

              I still see no truth to your statement that pulling weeds out causes them to evolve into super weeds. Mimicry in nature has always existed but the only thing that creates SUPER WEEDS is monsanto chemicals.

              • J. Randall Stewart

                Consider different sources for your information. Your sources have misinformed you.

                http://weedscience.org/

                I have more superweeds in my non-GMO crops, which is consistent with the database I linked to above. It is a myth that RoundUp created the first superweeds, superweeds existed long before RoundUp, and because of the RR trait, there are fewer resistance (superweed) problems.

                Weeds did evolve to look like rice, but I don’t have any personal experience with that. I do have personal experience wirh weeds evolving to be more resistant to cultivation when we used to cultivate.

                I welcome any evidence you have that differs, and I welcome any respectful criticism. So far, you have only given opinion. If you have any practical experience to go with that opinion, I’m interested.

        • Indi

          Let’s assume that you do poison all your crops as you state. But this is to anyone who sprays their fields with vast amounts of poison as a normal means of producing food.
          .
          1) Do you use the crops you drench with poison to feed your family?
          .
          2) Do you realize you can’t wash the poison off because the roots carry the poison that seeps into the ground right up into the plant itself? Including the very parts that we eat?
          .
          3) Do you know of the adverse effects that DDT had on humans which were not discovered until years later and are still being discovered even recently, decades later?
          .
          4) While you’re busily poisoning the crops that you’re going to harvest for market to be sold to unsuspecting consumers, do you ever have a tinge of guilt over what you know you are doing to the food that is going to be eaten by children?
          .
          5) Do you have any care or concern for those that purchase your product beyond the money you receive from them?
          .
          6) Do you realize that the active ingredients, the main killing ingredients in Roundup have been shown to cause cancer? They will likely be shown to cause a host of other diseases as well given more time. Just like DDT.

          • FarmersSon63

            The crops are not drencehed with herbicides. They are applied at 12-32 fluid ounces PER ACRE. This results in concentrations less than 3ppm hitting the plant. Even Uranium is not toxic at 3 ppm. It then degrades very quickly. The EPA has establishe a safe max concentration of 40 ppm on most crops.Glyphosate in its concentrated form is less toxic than table salt.
            Now are you beginning to understand why there has not been a single confirmed illness from eating pesticide residues on crops in 80 years of use?

          • J. Randall Stewart

            1) Yes. I eat potatoes, sweet corn, beef, and I buy milk and other dairy products from the processor I sell to. Yes, I eat everything I produce that is human food.

            2) I have sent my products off to certified food labs for chemical residue analysis. My independant results were consistent with the USDA testing. Testing residue levels is a scientific process. Here is a copy of my personal test, and a link to the USDA residue sampling results.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f19974b444b900b02518e6b098703859532722a0f02a00d0f707862cc4469c1b.jpg

            http://www.ams.usda.gov/datasets/pdp/pdpdata

            3) I’ve never used DDT, and I’m not familiar with it.

            4) Because of my own test results, because I’ve produced product as an adult for 3 decades, I’m confident that I’m part of the safest food supply in the history of the world. I’m proud to be a part of it.

            5) Yes, absolutely.

            6) That may be a possibility, but I think my exposure to the sun and petro fuel and even dust in my lungs may be a bigger problem. I appreciate fair criticism and pointing out potential problems. There are plenty of hazards in this occupation.

            I’m willing to discuss anything respectfully and transparently.

      • FarmersSon63

        Roundup costs @ $ 4.00 per acre to apply.
        It costs $ 24.00/hour X 5 hours to pull weeds through a local service.
        The comparison was $4.00 vs $ 120/acre.
        I farm 3,000 acres so I saved $ 348,000 by spraying Roundup.
        The difference to my bottom line?
        Make $ 50/acre or lose @ $66 dollars per acre.
        Now are you beginning to understand why farmers use herbicides instead of pulling weeds by hand?

        • Ken

          While I would not want to deprive you of the ability to maximize your income I don’t want it to be at the cost of my health and that of the environment in general.

          If you are going to use a labor saving, cost cutting, chemical alternative to hand weeding then you should first provide good evidence that it is safe, not use it until someone else provides evidence that it is dangerous.

          • FarmersSon63

            80 years of application without a single confirmed illness or death from eating pesticide residues on foods is pretty good proof, isn’t it?
            Thousands of peer reviewed studies also confirm their safety.
            But there were hundreds of deaths from alcohol in the last hour.
            Shouldnt we be putting our efforts toward PROVEN dangers?

            • Ken

              Acute pesticide poisoning is certainly well documented because it follows quickly and clearly exposure to the poison. Chronic pesticide poisoning (from eating pesticide residue in foods) is much more difficult to track because of the long time period over which it develops.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide_poisoning

              and this very sad case:

              http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/07/130718-organophosphates-pesticides-indian-food-poisoning/

              • FarmersSon63

                The same can be said about every chemical in your house and business. Paint, window cleaner, oven cleaner, hand soap, dish soap, perfumes, colognes, ant/roach killer plus hundreds of others.
                NONE of these chemicals are required to follow the safety review you are wanting.

                Your links are the best argument for increasing the use of GMO crops with insect resistance.
                I have sprayed and applied organophosphate insecticides since the 1970’s. They are VERY toxic and teaspoon full could kill you.
                I have planted insect resistance crops for over 5 years now and have not had to spray a single insecticide.
                I will quit farming if I have to go back to spraying these toxic insecticides.
                You should be a big fan of GMO’s then, right?

                • Ken

                  I’m a big fan of safeguarding the health of the population and the environment; I want to see evidence that a new product is safe before it’s put into use, not just start using it and wait for the proof that it’s hazardous.

                  • FarmersSon63
                    • Ken

                      Sorry, but EPA has been so hamstrung and gutted by pressure exerted through the coal and chemical industries’ congressional benefactors, that a couple of links to lists of steps to take to gain approval for sale of one’s poison does not impress me.

                      EPA should be restored to its position as independent guardian of our environment, not relegated to rubber-stamping industrial wishlists.

                      • FarmersSon63

                        The EPA has been in charge of pesticides since 1970.
                        In that time there has not been a single confirmed illness or death from consuming pesticide residues on foods.
                        A 100% safety record is pretty impressive.
                        If only the ATF would have such a clean record on what they manage, huh?

                      • Ken

                        An agency that is gagged cannot announce the problems they have found.

                      • FarmersSon63

                        Yeah right.

                  • Paleo Huntress

                    Precisely.

    • rms1

      Kudos to California for “calling a spade a spade.” Here’s to hoping others follow suit.

    • Mobi

      Yes, the shills may take some stock gains or payoffs over their lifetimes, yet on their deathbed it’s time to recall all who they have willingly sent to their death in the name of $. May the Karma be 1000 fold and never ending. Take that to the grave each and every mon$onto shill, and BTW all that cash you made off of DEATH, you can’t take it with you, but in justice may it haunt you for an eternity, and then some!

    • Lora Lowe

      We need monsatin gone and GmO gone / anything that eats insects will eat you too /

      • Morgan Fildersnatch

        ever eaten a banana?

    • jrcsamad

      We are deluged with toxic stuff…Roundup and thousands of other chemicals in our food packaging, in the air…on and on. Alone, many of them may be okay in the short term,. or even perhaps, over many years. But, taken together you and me and everyone is f’d….poisoned to the extreme. This has to stop. Someone, some ageny(s) have to look at the big picture…add up all the poison we are subjected to and say…NO. It’s insane….really, really insane.

    • Terrafurtive

      For the toxic vinager crowd, cigarette smoke isn’t so dangerous breathed once in a while, it’s the constant, lifetime exposure that gives you cancer. Has Monsanto done the long term experiments to support safety? No, they’re doing them now…on you and me!

      • Indi

        So true. They are a combination of Big Tobacco (buying positive studies and destroying the careers of scientists who publish opposing results) and Microsoft (letting their consumers do their beta-testing).

    • bloggulator

      I notice that lots of Monsanto shills have crawled out the woodwork. They probably have stock in the company?

      • Abe

        LOL I guess so. Monsatan has taken a $35 dive since mid May. Even with the help of the Plunge Protection Team. Makes me wonder what the true value of there stock is?

        • FarmersSon63

          Because Monsanto has nothing new coming that will hold market share.

    • bloggulator

      If hard, peer-reviewed scientific evidence exists that suggests glyphosate is a carcinogen, then we the American people have a right to be aware of that. I would imagine that everyone would be in agreement with such labeling and disclosure, especially people who have a family and kids.

      There may be people who are paid by Monsanto to “debunk” such evidence, but I would never place any trust or credibility in such methodology – it’s dishonest, manipulative and has no basis in proper science.

      • hyperzombie

        Well it is only carcinogenic to the applicators not consumers.

        • leilani

          So the applicator is disposable, not worth living, it’s alright for them to get cancer, suffer and die?

          They spray glyphosate a day or two before harvesting to speed up the drying process for wheat, rice, corn, beans, etc., and the glyphosate stays on the food we eat, we eat the poison that causes cancer idiot! You need to stop selling your deadly info to anyone who will listen to your BS! You’re obviously getting paid to promote poison, why else are you such a loyal patriot for poison? Why is it so important to you that you have to try to convince people that poison is healthy for them to eat? There are foods that “we know are completely safe” we don’t need GMO’s and glyphosate.
          Hyperzombie is a troll, he’s been backing up poison food crops for a years now, I assume he is a paid shill.
          There are healthy options provided by mother nature that have been feeding us now for generations, tried and true healthy food choices. We do not need a cancerous food option. That is a No Brainer!
          We must refuse to be Science Experiments, we are NOT Lab Rats.

          • FarmersSon63

            There has not been a single confirmed illness or death from consuming any pesticide residues on foods in their 80 year history.

            • leilani

              Cigarettes… not a single confirmed death from smoking cigarettes for more than 100 years! So WTH is your idiot point… duh!

              • FarmersSon63

                Nicotine is one of the most poisonous substances on earth. A few ounces will kill you.
                A diet of 100% GMO’s has never been proven to cause an illness, let alone a death.
                Not a fair comparison.
                But you had no intention to present a fair comparison, did you.

                • leilani

                  No one “drinks nicotine” as far as I know, and no one dies instantly from smoking cigarettes either, it usually takes many years and it cannot be pin pointed, it took decades before there were surgeon general warnings on cigarettes. It IS a FAIR COMPARISON. And please tell me who lives on a 100% GMO Diet! And for how long?
                  Pesticides on your food crops now and 80 years ago is much different.
                  What’s the point in even talking to you about GMO’s when you don’t even know the difference between smoking cigarettes or drinking nicotine? Sad comparisons…weak! Irrational and pointless. The GMO seeds and crops are now pesticides, it’s built into your seed crops and genetically modified to withstand herbicides and pesticides to be sprayed “DIRECTLY onto your food CROP.” You could not do that before without killing your crop!
                  I’m done with you, you just don’t get it! You eat enough of this POISON that kills bugs and eventually it will KILL YOU TOO!

                  • FarmersSon63

                    They still buy mass quantities of GMO’s for consumption.

                    • leilani

                      What is your dumb point, “they still buy mass quantities of GMO’s for consumption?” WTH? You’re an advocator or deadly food, food that has deadly pesticides built into it… yeah real SMART!
                      Keep eating your “BUG KILLER FOOD!”

                      • FarmersSon63

                        You call GMO’s “deadly” food, but in 20 years of consumption there has not even been a single confirmed illness, let alone a death.
                        Over 5,000 peer reviewed studies on GMO’s and not a single one has concluded that GMO’s are unsafe.
                        You and I have been eating GMO’s ever day for 20 years. Most people in EU countries have been eating GMO’s every day too.
                        The fact is, Non-GMO’s have more pesticide residues and residues from more toxic pesticides.
                        But of course you know nothing about the real truth on this issue, do you.

                      • leilani

                        There are many deaths and you know it! Do I need to post them here? WTH is the point you will just say all these other countries that have BANNED GMO’s and CERTAIN Cancerous POISONS have no merit, because it’s all about GREED and you all have no conscience! Seriously…dozens of countries are now requiring labels or complete GMO Bans! Why do they do that…because Gmo’s are good for you? So full of BS! Crock of Bull! Feed it to each other, have a cup of glyphosate…Monsanto says it’s safe to drink…so have a cup..give it to all the kids in your family..it’s safe right? Enjoy! I rather not eat food that is not safe to breathe the chemicals being sprayed directly on the food. **If it’s not safe to breathe, how is it safe to eat?** If it kills bugs it will kill us too idiot..SMDH! The World Health Organization and The IARC International Agency on Research and Cancer have said it probably causes cancer, it causes tumors in animals. It’s a choice for Intelligent People, we ALL SHOULD HAVE a CHOICE and how can we have a choice if we do not know what we’re buying? It’s up to the “manufacturer to tell us.” The manufacturer is biotechnology, genetically modified organisms. It has a “PATENT” because it’s NOT NATURAL!

                      • FarmersSon63

                        Name ONE.
                        Anxiously waiting.
                        Over 5,000 peer reviewed studies and NONE have concluded that GMO’s are unsafe.
                        Much of EU bans growing GMO even after spending hundreds of millions of dollars to prove they are safe.
                        http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf

                      • Peter Olins

                        leilani: You made a striking accusation about deaths—presumably human.

                        Are you just being provocative, or do you actually believe this? If it’s the former, shame on you; if it’s the latter, show us where you get your ideas and facts.

                      • leilani
                      • FarmersSon63

                        The WHO also says coffee is a carcinogen.
                        Now lets hear you go off on coffee.

                  • FarmersSon63

                    You do realize the “pesticides” you refer to are natural proteins?
                    You know the same Bt proteins that are the number one insecticide used on organic crops?
                    Bt proteins are exactly as toxic as acidophilus the active cultures in your yogurt.
                    (Virtually non-toxic)

                    • leilani

                      DO you realize what happens in Chemistry Class when you mix different chemicals together? They change! Stop with the “spin.” Paid biotech troll is what I suspect you are! Shoo go away, stop selling the death.

                      • FarmersSon63

                        Your stupidity knows no bounds.
                        Every thing on earth is “chemicals”.

                      • leilani

                        Exactly everything on earth is, certain chemicals cannot be mixed together idiot! Obviously you have never taken a chemistry class! Good bye waste of a brain. lol! Ag chemicals are toxic and dangerous, you can blow things up with certain chemicals idiot! I worked in farm and garden as a buyer and have been to Monsanto BS classes. You have no clue who I am and wth I know! Good bye TROLL!

                      • FarmersSon63

                        80 years of using pesticides and there still has not been a single confirmed illness or death from eating pesticide residues on foods.
                        “Monsanto BS classes”
                        What does that even mean.
                        Educate yourself, it is your best defense against stupidity.

                  • J. Randall Stewart

                    I don’t know how to respond to misinformation when one is so emotional.

                    I farm 70% non-GMO. GMO is better for the environment and better for people.

                    Simply put, your information is inaccurate. I’m happy to discuss this rationally, is that possible?

                  • J. Randall Stewart

                    Maybe I’ll regret this, but I have an idea. How about we just discuss terms and accepted facts, I won’t debate you or contradict what you say. This way, the worst that can happen is that you are a more believable anti-GMOer!

                    We’ll start with pesticides.
                    Pesticides include herbicides and insecticides. The RR-trait is a herbicide trait and the Bt-trait is an insecticide trait. Roundup is a herbicide, and it kills plants, not insects. Bacillus thuringiensis is a natural bacterium, and is an insecticide. It is what is used for the Bt trait.

                    Is that a good start?

                    • Jackson

                      Bacillus thuringiensis is a natural bacterium, and is an insecticide. It is what is used for the Bt trait.

                      You could be even clearer here. I would edit that to:

                      Bacillus thuringiensis is a species of bacteria. It produces a family of proteins called CRY proteins, which are also referred to as “Bt toxin.” These proteins are toxic to a certain subset of insects, and are thus what give rise to the insecticidal “Bt trait” in plants.

                      • J. Randall Stewart

                        Thank you

                    • leilani

                      I see where you’re going with this, I think we both know what the difference between a herbicide, pesticide, fungicide and fertilizers etc is. I don’t need a lesson, I used to be a buyer for farm and garden and have been to Monsanto classes in the past, thank you! I know their BS very well! My ex a microbiologist. The general public will NOT get the Truth from Biotech’s “Industry Scientists.” The truth will come from those who have nothing but good moral character, strong backbone and BALLS to stand up to these money mongering bullies! If GMO’s were so great then put a label on it… be proud of your food, not so much eh? If I had such a wonderful product I would shout it out to the world and BE PROUD! Instead, it sure seems like they don’t want to be pin pointed if someone gets sick or dies from their wonderful food that they WON’T LABEL…

                      • J. Randall Stewart

                        I’m not going anywhere but where I went.

                        To be blunt, you think you are well informed. You are not. You are misusing terms and that is evidence you don’t know that much about this topic.

                        I found it ironic that you continue to misuse terms after I had been clear what you had been saying wrong, then immediately claim extra knowledge in the subject.

                        I guess I just got a demonstration of the logic of a anti-GMOer.

                        If you want to talk about “truth” then explain to me why the Consumers Union mislead lay people, making them think “superweeds” were created by GMO production?

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOw3oKVht9U&t=154

                  • hyperzombie

                    “nd please tell me who lives on a 100% GMO Diet! “

                    Dairy cows and Hogs.

                    “it’s built into your seed crops and genetically modified to withstand herbicides and pesticides to be sprayed “DIRECTLY onto your food CROP.”

                    What do you think crop dusters were spraying ON the crops before GMOs came out?

                    • Michael McCarthy

                      “What do you think crop dusters were spraying ON the crops before GMOs came out?”
                      pixie dust and ground unicorn horn!

                      • JoeFarmer

                        I think the unicorn horn loses some effectiveness because man wasn’t meant to fly. So they have to double-up on the application rate.

                      • hyperzombie

                        How come no one ever talks about the Unicorn horn resistant insects? I have had to amp up the Woo applications and I am now using cattle horn with biodynamic crystals in them to rebalance the insects spiritual balance, but this only works during the full phase of the moon in Libra.. Anyone else with the same problems?

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        Only if you buy the generic from China. You can’t even be sure it’s real unicorn horn.

                      • JoeFarmer

                        LOL! Just like those little blue pills from the mail-order pharmacies in Tijuana.

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        It seems TW Miner uses deer antler velvet…

                      • JoeFarmer

                        Oh, my eyes, my eyes!

                        TMI, TMI!

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        You have to wonder if they use synthetic lube or something natural like olive oil.

                      • JoeFarmer

                        That requires the presumptuous presumption of them even getting to that point in the first place…

                        Pina-colada or Erik Estrada-scented oil doesn’t really matter, since this bunch can’t close at 2:00 A.M. Or on craigslist for that matter.

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        Anyone can close on craigslist. Even the pock faced war veteran with no legs. (true story, but not mine)

                      • JoeFarmer

                        “Anyone can close on craigslist.”

                        Not these people.

                      • hyperzombie

                        Oh, come on everyone knows that Pixies are not real.. It was Faerie dust.

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        pixie, faerie, potato, potahto

                      • hyperzombie

                        Potatoes are an evil illuminati plot to get everyone to eat an RF id chip, it is not real food, only Kale and Turnips are safe,,,, but I just eat dirt instead, it is a bit tastier and more nutritious.

                    • JoeFarmer

                      “What do you think crop dusters were spraying ON the crops before GMOs came out?”

                      Yep, super awesome environmentally-friendly stuff like Lorsban…

                      Yet when I plant corn with Bt traits, the noodniks accuse me of, “crimes against humanity”!

                      • hyperzombie

                        I am sure that a chemical called lorsban is made of puppy tears and gerbil fur, because it was sprayed before GMOs…. I couldn’t possibly be an organophosphate, no chemicals were invented till Monsanto made GMOs…

                      • JoeFarmer

                        I’m not sure where that name came from, but it kills every bug, good and bad.

                        There’s a generic pyrethroid called, “Silencer” that’s pretty aptly named. It kills all the bugs, too.

                        But advocating for an advanced-technology insecticide like Transform that only kills a specific range of insect pests (soybean aphids, in the case of Transform) without killing the ladybeetles that naturally help control soybean aphids is somehow a bad thing.

                        Go figure.

                      • hyperzombie

                        I know these folks are cra cra… It is this reason alone that I comment now, so many people have no idea about farming that they think simple things work, and they dont.

                      • JoeFarmer

                        If you can figure out why farming is the only business in the world where the population at large wants to lock us into early-1900s technology, please let me know.

              • hyperzombie

                WTF??? The first study linking tobacco to cancer use was done in 1903, even before cigarettes. There are many deaths per year due to just harvesting tobacco, lookup green leaf tobacco sickness

                • leilani

                  WTF???? Tobacco has been used before Europeans set foot on North America IDIOT! It has been packaged for sale since the late 1600’s. Cancer studies did not start until the 1940’s. Where are your FACTS? You and your other Biotech Troll Buddies here on this thread are all LIARS trying your best to SELL POISON! YES…WTF is up with that? I’m all for Good Health and Not Poisoning your body and You Guys are trying your Best to Sell POISON? You want More FACTS? Here you go…but you already know the facts, you’re all here to SPIN Everyone Elses Heads, SHAME, Shame, shame on all of you! I bet you’re all a bunch of athiests too, no conscience fools, sad! http://www.cancer.org/research/researchtopreventcancer/history-cancer-prevention-study

                  • hyperzombie

                    “Tobacco has been used before Europeans set foot on North America IDIOT!”

                    Did they have cigarettes?

                    “It has been packaged for sale since the late 1600’s”

                    Yes, but it was consumed in pipes, occasionally.

                    “Cancer studies did not start until the 1940’s”

                    Hardly try 1800.

                    Oh and try more all caps… it will make you look slightly less crazy..IMHO.

                • leilani
        • justin moreau

          False statement. It gets in ground water and affects everyone. It is in your food.

          • justin moreau

            Hyperzombie takes it in the butt from MONSANTO. Don’t cry to me when your kids get cancer from the company you support!

            • Terry Hill

              What are you, five years old? Stop acting like a child who has been show up for the scientifically illiterate individual you are and insulting others who burn you with facts and evidence.
              Glyphosate is broken down into simple amino acids by naturally occurring soil amoeba in 2-4 weeks. It can persist in water ONLY in run-off (during heavy rains directly following application) which is poor farming practice – very rare, but possible. Even so, it has found to dilute and break down in the soil on river banks and streams.

          • hyperzombie

            It does not get into ground water, that would be Atrazine. One of the herbicides that Roundup is replacing. Another good reason to support GMOs and glyphosate.

        • horklet

          You don’t know that.

          • hyperzombie

            Actually according to the vast majority of government funded studies it is not carcinogenic to either applicators or consumers. It is about as carcinogenic as coffee and working as a carpenter.

      • Brian

        Can you reference these studies, please?

      • Abe

        A few months ago Anthony Samsel after numerous FOIA got a hold of Monsatans secret lab tests. 15,000 pages worth. It shows what a bunch of evil maggots that run that company!

        Samsel on Glyphosate safety tests – Part 1
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13yO9VpjwLQ

        Part 2
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPBPfWrFwuI

    • Patrick Beebe-Sweet

      What’s interesting is the carcinogen category that glyphosate falls into has a lot of other things in it too. Like, for example, CARPENTRY. So, call all your carpenter friends and tell them to stop working. It’s carcinogenic. Oh, and avocados are in the same category as well.

      • hyperzombie

        Oh, Noes…. what if you are a carpenter in an avocado processing plant.. Double cancer, the worst kind.

        • Mike

          You are absolutely correct. I forgot that forestry workers and
          landscapers as well as farmers should all be included in a class action
          lawsuit against Monsanto’s roundup. Just think about all the cases that
          have accumulated over the past 40 years. That would be
          awesome!!

          • FarmersSon63

            You would have to actually have a confirmed illness or death first.

            • Terry Hill

              It appears that no anti-glyphosate type on here understands the difference between correlation and causation, or that there has been no scientific evidence of ‘causation’ (between glyphosate and cancer). Hence the labelling has to be very specific – it doesn’t claim it causes cancer, only “May cause cancer”.

              Unlike smoking, sunlight or alcohol. All of which have been proven to cause cancer.

      • Indi

        However, that’s likely only the tip of the iceberg. As we’ve learned more about the long-term effects of DDT, we’ve discovered that DDT not only causes cancer, it also causes birth defects, various circulatory diseases, various respiratory diseases, it attacks the liver and kidneys, it affects brain chemistry and kills brain cells (not that we don’t have any to spare), and so many other negative aspects.
        .
        The worst part is that it passes through generations. And this effect has only been recently discovered in the last 5-10 years. If you’re exposed to DDT, you’re future children can develop the same negative conditions that you face even if they are never exposed. Just because you were exposed to DDT, you’re children and their children can suffer the same fate as you.
        .
        That is the most terrifying thing to know. You can try to keep your kids as healthy as you can. But if you were exposed to DDT as a child, there is no way you can protect your kids from getting the same diseases that DDT gave you. DDT made you into a carrier of disease and death.
        .
        Glyphosate has been known to be cancer causing by Monsanto for decades, yet they continued to use it. It may be discovered that glyphosate is just as bad, or possibly worse, than DDT. We just don’t know enough yet. These poisons take time to discover what damage they really do.
        .
        But, in the meantime, what are you going to do about it? What are you going to do to protect the children you don’t even have yet? To ensure they are as healthy as you can make them?

    • Mike

      Wow. Wouldn’t it be something if all the farmers who have used roundup and developed cancer started a class action lawsuit against Monsanto. That could actually be something big enough to make a difference.

      • hyperzombie

        Well Roundup has been around for over 40 years now, don’t you think cancer would have showed up by now?
        The folks that are exposed to the most amount of roundup are forestry workers and landscapers. Farmers use it one maybe 2 times per year. Some forestry workers use it daily for months at a time.

        • Mike

          You are absolutely correct. I forgot that forestry workers and
          landscapers as well as farmers should all be included in a class action
          lawsuit against Monsanto’s roundup. Just think about all the cases that
          have accumulated over the past 40 years. That would be
          awesome!!

          • hyperzombie

            The only problem with that is that farmers have a lower cancer rate and are healthier than the general population… I see a problem with the class action suit.

            • Terrafurtive

              http://m.cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/14/10/2446.full.html
              Just read the abstract, you’ll realize what a fool you are to shill for Monsanto.

              • Dave

                hyperzombie obviously works for Monsanto. Everything he states has been proved wrong by independent scientists.

            • justin moreau

              What farm country do you live in. Farmers all over the place here(NW Iowa) are getting cancer.

              • hyperzombie

                Farmers in general are healthier than the general population and have a lower cancer rate.

          • FarmersSon63

            You would first have to have ONE confirmed case.

            • Mike

              ONE confirmed case of cancer…..over a 40 year period. Surely you can’t be serious.

              • FarmersSon63

                Wanting proof is a simple request, don’t you think?

        • David

          Wow… the cancer rate in the US is 1 in 3 now. 1 in 3 people in the US will get cancer. It’s steadily increased parallel with the increasing use of GMOs and chemicals in foods. What do you mean “don’t you think cancer would have showed up by now”? Are you that dense?

          • Brian

            Also increasing is the average life span.

          • hyperzombie

            The age adjusted cancer rate has dropped 5% since 96. More people get cancer because they are living longer, something is going to get ya.

        • justin moreau

          Roundup may have been around for 40 years now but farmers were not stupid enough to start using it on a mass scale until the early 90’s.

          • hyperzombie

            The reason more farmers did not use it back in the 70s, is was that it was very expensive. The use went up when the price dropped in half.

      • justin moreau

        Our idiot president made it illegal to sue Monsanto if it came out that their products are harmful.http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2013/mar/27/obama_signs_monsanto_protection_act

        • FarmersSon63

          This is the entire wording of the Farmer Assurance Provision: (Called the Monsanto Protection Act by hippies)

          Section 733 provides certainty to growers with respect to their planting decisions. If enacted, growers would be assured that the crops they plant could continue to be grown, subject to appropriate interim conditions, even after a judicial ruling against USDA. Moreover, the language would apply only to products that have already satisfactorily completed the U.S. regulatory review process and does not remove or restrict anyone’s right to challenge USDA once a determination of no plant pest risk has been made. The inclusion of Section 733 is a positive step to ensure U.S. farmers and our food chain are shielded from supply disruptions caused by litigation over procedural issues unrelated to sound science or the safety of biotech crops

          It was an excellent provision for protecting farmers.
          I wish it was still in effect.

      • J. Randall Stewart

        Yes it would be something! Where are they?

        Are you aware that farmers have an overall lower cancer rate than the general population? We are higher in some cancers, lower in others, but lower overall.

        I am concerned about pesticide use, and I’m confident that careless use has health consequences, including cancer. Perhaps even careful use will raise the risk of cancer? Hairdressers are also at an elevated risk of cancer.

        But is this as big as uv rays from the sun, radiation, or smoking? There is no evidence of that.

        http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/ahs-fact-sheet
        http://aghealth.nih.gov/

        Quote: Farmers, farm workers, and farm family members may be exposed to substances such as pesticides, engine exhausts, solvents, dusts, animal viruses, fertilizers, fuels, and specific microbes that may account for these elevated cancer rates. However, human studies reported to date have not allowed researchers to sort out which of these factors may be linked to which cancer types.

        • justin moreau

          the lower cancer rate is due to the fact that they have gardens and raise their food without chemicals, have a active lifestyle and smoke less.

          • J. Randall Stewart

            How do you know?

          • FarmersSon63

            98% of all farmland is using pesticides and manufctured fertilizers, justin.

          • Terry Hill

            OMG. You didn’t just say that? Really?

        • Mike

          Ask and you shall receive. Here come the lawsuits.
          https://www.schmidtandclark.com/roundup-lawsuit

          • J. Randall Stewart

            How do you think the 90,000+ participant study that shows farmers have an overall lower rate of cancer will play out?

            http://aghealth.nih.gov/

        • Mike
      • Mike

        Here is a link to one lawsuit already.
        schmidtandclark.com/roundup-cancer-lawsuit

    • Georgie Porgie

      Muck Fonsanto.

    • Doesn’t logic tell us that putting poison on our food and on the ground is going to have an influence in poisoning us?
      http://www.thefinalhour.ca

      • Michael McCarthy

        oh no, is it the final hour? Why wasn’t there any mention of the zombie apocalypse? Pretty shoddy if there’s no mention of zombies, IMHO.

        • Mike

          You must be referring to the genetically modified products Monsanto’s making as opposed to the gyphosate in their Roundup. I think a genetically modified zombie apocalypse would be great thou.

          • Michael McCarthy

            No, I was referring to the zombie apocalypse. Why the conspiracy to cover it up? What is The Final Hour trying to hide?

            • Mike

              Okay, I’ll bite. What do you think would be the cause of the zombie apocalypse? It would have to be something that is altered at the genetic level wouldn’t you say.

              • Michael McCarthy

                “It would have to be something that is altered at the genetic level wouldn’t you say.”
                Absolutely not. There are already pathogens that cause other organisms to become zombie like, what makes you think one won’t pop up in humans?

                Of course you do know, I really don’t believe in the zombie apocalypse, right?

        • Sorry Michael not following you. How does a zombie apocalypse fit in to this?
          http://www.thefinalhour.ca

          • Michael McCarthy

            It isn’t there. Why are they hiding it? They’ve got plenty of other nonsense, why not the zombie apocalypse?

      • leilani

        People who promote eating poison do not have logic, as it is evident in their conversation. I think the chemicals may have perma-fried their brains.

    • Robert Carothers

      Just an upgraded version of AO (Agent Orange) used on the Vietnam Veterans and one that causes Cancer but the VA doesn’t want to pay for!

      • Mike

        Exactly. I think the government should take some of the billions of dollars they spend on the military every year and use it to help the veterans of foreign wars instead of sponsoring more wars.

      • hyperzombie

        Roundup has nothing to do with Agent Orange it wasn’t even invented until after the war ended. 1974.
        One of the chemicals used in Agent orange you can buy at the local hardware store, 2-4-d.

        • Mike

          You are absolutely right. Got the two mixed up. But don’t want to drink or eat either. My round up has glyphosate isopropylamine salt 18% 0.73 diquat dibromide and 81.27 other ingredients.

          • hyperzombie

            well that is homeowner Roundup, farmer roundup has no diquat in it. They put diquat in home Gardener Roundup so the consumers don’t return it to the store, diquat works in minutes but roundup takes up to 2 weeks to kill a weed. They only put enough diquat in Roundup to wilt the leaves. Diquat and paraquat are contact herbicides, they basically work like frost, knock off the leaves, but leave the roots intact. Roundup kills the entire plan. Anyway, don’t eat or drink either especially Diquat and paraquat, they are not a food or a drink.

            • Dave

              Now I know you work for Monsanto. Average Joe does not know that much about how herbicides work. Congratulations. Your company is causing cancer, killing off the bees, making super weeds, and they don’t care about anything other than profits. You will not win a single argument hyper. We all know too much.

              • hyperzombie

                Or maybe I am a farmer that uses these products? Hmmm..
                Modern herbicides don’t cause cancer or harm bees, that is just crazy. The only way to kill a bee with a herbicide is to drown them in it. All farming methods cause resistant weeds (super), there are tillage resistant weeds, fire resistant weeds and even hand weeding resistant weeds, this is how evolution works.

                And you don’t know squat, you are the one that is falling for FUD marketing.

                • Dave

                  https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/big-win-beekeepers-court-voids-insecticide

                  BTW, I meant monarch butterflies which roundup is destroying their food source

                  • Ag Boy

                    Dave,

                    If glyphosate did not exist we would still be at the same place as far as Milkweed populations that Monarch butterflies need as part of their life cycle. More aggressive and earlier tillage methods have greatly disrupted Milkweed growth cycles. In conjunction with better pre-emergence herbicides along with improved post control Milkweed populations would be significantly reduced whether glyphosate existed or not.

                    Glyphosate has NO insecticidal properties. It has no connection with honey bee populations.

                    The debate has been whether Neonicotinoids (like Poncho seed treatments) have an adverse effect on honey bee populations. The jury is still out on that one.

                    But to imply that glyphosate is the reason for reduced Milkweeds and the lower Monarch butterflie ignores that other factors that have precipitated this change.

                  • hyperzombie

                    Well your first link is about neonics, nothing to do with Monsanto or GMOs and is a far safer insecticide for bees than the insecticides that it will replace.

                    All farming methods kill weeds that the monarchs rely on.. Do you think that an organic flame weeder discriminates?

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuuSJf8JHq4

                  • Ag Boy

                    The ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, is significant for commercial beekeepers and others who say a decline in bee colonies needed to pollinate key food crops is tied to the widespread use of a class of insecticides known as neonicotinoids.

                    This article is about the effect neonics may have on Honey Bees. Glyphosate has nothing to do with ruling.

                    • Dave

                      Birds of a feather.

                      • Ag Boy

                        If you cannot distinguish between an insecticide primary used for seed treatments vs. a herbicide that is solely used for weed control you will continue to be in the dark for understanding the different issues involved.

        • BWard

          Monsanto’s response to the increasing ineffectiveness of Roundup is to promote a new compound containing 2-4-d. The fact that such toxins are commonly available to the public illustrates the failure of our regulatory agencies and their collusion with the chemical manufacturers they are charged with policing.

          • hyperzombie

            It is not new, 2-4-d has been around for 70+ years and the other for over 50 years.

            • Dave

              Doesn’t mean it’s safe. Just means yet another nasty chemical was put out there without proper testing, all in the name of profits.

              • hyperzombie

                It has been tested repeatedly for over 70 years now, 2-4-d is just a synthetic plant hormone.

            • justin moreau

              Yes lets use 2-4-d so our children can be born with all sorts of f’d up birth defects like the children in Vietnam after we hosed their country with it. And then every one can get cancer since the rate is up to 1 in 3 people getting cancer we can do better than that this is america. I bet if we use 2-4-d (agent orange) we can get that 100% cancer rate.

              • hyperzombie

                LOL, funny. 2-4-d was the worlds most popular herbicide before glyphosate (roundup), and it is now the world’s second most popular herbicide. It has been used in every country for over 60+ years now.
                When is the cancer going to show up, after folks die of old age.

          • hyperzombie

            2-4-d has been used in agriculture for 70 years now, it is hardly new. It is also the worlds most popular wheat, barley and oat herbicide.

        • Dave

          ONE of the chemicals. Another is water. You can get that out of the tap. Does that mean Agent Orange is harmless because it has some water in it?. See there you go hyper, more half truths to try to make Monsanto look innocent. .

          • hyperzombie

            The problem with Agent Orange was with dioxin contamination, which has nothing to do with Roundup, water or 2-4-d.

    • Dennis Hardison

      California is Uber sensitive to such things. Monsanto isn’t trying to kill us and vaccines are safe. This has politics written all over it. Good job wing nuts.

      • Michael McCarthy

        Oh, surely you know about the conspiracy between Monsanto, big Pharm and the government to kill or sterilize the planet. You won’t find any evidence of it, that’s how you know it’s true. ;-P

        • justin moreau

          Oh there is plenty of evidence you just have to look in the right places. Sure if you watch FOX news or CNBC you are not going to see any evidence.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Right. ^^^CRAZY

      • rms1

        Better to be “über sensitive” than shills for industry. Vaccines are unrelated and a straw man argument.

        • Dennis Hardison

          If I was a “shill for industry” I’d be getting paid better.

        • Dennis Hardison

          I’m a “shill for industry” because I agree with the science on the issue? Everything you eat is “genetically modified” and the modern method for doing so doesn’t change anything.

          • rms1

            I didn’t say Monsanto is “trying to kill us.” But that doesn’t mean their products are proven safe. The burden of proof should be on them to prove safety, not the other way around. And vaccines have nothing to do with this.

    • WHAJetsFan

      What percentage needs to present in a food product before the warning has to go on the label?

      • Mike

        Labels on food? Good luck with that. Monsanto lobbyist have “donated” a ton of money to prevent that from ever taking place.

    • Mary

      What is incomprehensible is that this gets attention from the state, while children die and are permanently maimed by vaccinations, and the state is uninterested.

      • Michael McCarthy

        I hear Germany is pretty lax on their vaccination requirements, and they’re anti-GMO too. Maybe you should consider a change of scenery?

      • David

        Vaccines will get their time in the spotlight as well. More and more doctors are coming forward who are Vaccine-literate and speaking out against the toxins used in Vaccines and all the new (and old) peer-reviewed research linking neurological, autoimmune and other disease to Vaccines.

    • Rick Jackson

      does anon really know when the roundup is applied? well you apply it 2 to 4 weeks before you plant to kill the weeds not the crops and it’s gone and broken down by the bacteria in the soil before or the crops would not grow strange how this was left out of the article. also strange is the know it all’s didn’t know this

      • Kānāwai Māmalahoe

        Lol, strange that you haven’t heard of Roundup ready crops. The roundup is sprayed after the corn soy or cotton has emerged you can even ask Monsanto if you don’t believe the “know it alls”… Roundup is systemic so it can’t be washed off numerous studies confirm glyphosate residue in crops. It isn’t always degraded in soil depending on the soil biota and it absolutely bioaccumulates. The state of Hawaii tested water from 20 sites across the state and every sample contained roundup.

        • Warren Lauzon

          Talking about two different things here. Roundup is quite commonly applied in non-GMO crop fields before planting. Also used in home gardens to kill such persistent pests as Bermuda grass.

          • Kānāwai Māmalahoe

            Giant Bermuda Grass is an excellent forage so ones persistent pest is another ones pasture crop. Round up is used on non organic crops and yards but it is found in food more often due to transgenic roundup ready crops dominating processed junk foods. All Roundup is Known to the State of California to Cause Cancer.

            • Dennis Hardison

              Everything is “Known in the state of California to cause cancaer”

              • Brian

                The state of California knows water causes cancer. They pumped 500 gallons into a mouse and it died.

                • BWard

                  What a stupid statement!

            • Warren Lauzon

              A weed is a crop in the wrong place. In home gardens Bermuda grass is one of the most invasive pests here in the SW.

            • Gmo Roberts

              Everything causes cancer in California. Yet the people still seemed fit to kill labeling.

        • Mike

          You are just going to confuse him if you post facts.

      • Your1Friend

        Does anyone believe this?

        Only in America.

      • BWard

        That is not correct.

      • David

        Uh, the crops are engineered to resist the chemicals and not die when they’re sprayed with RoundUp and other carcinogenic chemicals. No, this crap isn’t just sprayed 2-4 weeks before planting. You need to stop drinking the Monsanto Kool-Aid.

      • justin moreau

        No no one believes it because it is false. The facts are that roundup kills beneficial bacteria in the soil and is not broken down. Ask any old farmer and they will tell you that dirt does not smell or feel like dirt any more and that is because of the lack of bacteria and bugs. Who feeds you this cr@p. Also farmers in my area are finding that they now have just as many weeds after using roundup than the guys who plant conventional crops actually making it cheaper to go conventional. AND crops are dying off about four weeks sooner because of the concentration and build up of round up. Talk to farmers who care not Monsanto sales people.

      • justin moreau

        And farmers who use roundup ready crops usually apply roundup 2 to 3 times over the growing season. Usually I ask for what ever it is you are smoking but I will decline this time because I don’t want to be as stupid as you.

      • Abe

        How can dead bacteria break it down? Plus what a lot of people don’t realize is a lot of this round up ready seed has stacked traits. So with the BT toxin, you don’t need to ingest the herbicide to blow out your gut.

    • rel0627

      Children exposed to insecticides at home may have a slightly increased risk of developing leukemia or lymphoma, a new review finds.

      The analysis, of 16 studies done since the 1990s, found that children exposed to indoor insecticides had an elevated risk of developing the blood cancers. There was also a weaker link between exposure to weed killers and the risk of leukemia.

      • Michael McCarthy

        “Children exposed to insecticides at home may have a slightly increased risk of developing leukemia or lymphoma, a new review finds.”
        Which has what to do with glyphosate exactly? And do you prefer children be exposed to fleas, bedbugs and roaches?

        • rel0627

          Dont inhale.

          • Michael McCarthy

            That didn’t answer the questions, but no surprise there.

            • rel0627

              They are not good for you.

              • Michael McCarthy

                Agreed, roaches, fleas and bedbugs aren’t good for you.

                • rel0627

                  Neither are pesticides. Take your pick.

                  • Michael McCarthy

                    Neither is bleach, bet you still use it.

                    • rel0627

                      Funny, wonder if bleach pays pr firms to go online and spread talking points? 😉 Think they have conference calls about “softening the image” among soccer moms?

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        Yes, it all boils down to PR. Clorox is a Ketchum client, so they must by your logic.

                      • rel0627

                        Soften the image.

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        Why would I soften my image?

                      • rel0627

                        Thats what Ketchum is for.

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        Why would I hire Ketchum if I have no desire to change my image?

                      • rel0627

                        You dont have the bank roll to hire them boys.

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        I don’t? But again, why would I hire them to do something I have no desire to do? Seems pointless.

                      • rel0627

                        If you do, you spend too much time online instead of doing something useful.

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        What makes you think I don’t do something useful? Also, the pot shouldn’t call the kettle black.

                      • rel0627

                        If you have enough money to hire a pr firm you need to log off and be hanging in hawaii or something.

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        Why? I live in FL. The beach is less than 20 minutes away if I want to go.

                      • rel0627

                        Spending time on computer defending chemical companies as a choice < the beach.

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        And would there be dermatological reasons that people don’t go to the beach?

                      • rel0627

                        Thats what umbrellas are for.

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        Yes, because that is cute, paying $10/hr to park (if you can even find parking near the beach) and sit under an umbrella. I can go to the fake beach that I can walk to in 5 minutes and do that for free.

                      • rel0627

                        Right, being outside sounds horrible, lets stay inside get on the computer and defend bio tech companies/pesticides for a couple hours…..

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        Well, I am inside today because why? Oh, it’s raining. Crazy. What makes you think they don’t have wifi or cell at the fake beach?

                      • rel0627

                        Nothing like defending monsanto on the internet for fun.

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        Where again did I defend Monsanto? I surely must be missing it.

                      • rel0627

                        😉

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        I don’t think that was really an answer. Shock.

                      • rel0627

                        It was.

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        Nope. It gave no indication of my defense of Monsanto. Or was that a cheap come on?

                      • rel0627

                        Both.

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        Well, that doesn’t make any sense, I only asked one question.

                      • rel0627

                        Its the internet, lots of stuff doesnt make sense…..

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        Like apostrophes. When to use them, when not to.

                      • rel0627

                        Mama learned me well.

                      • Michael McCarthy

                        I think the word you were looking for was learnt, not learned, in that sentence, you are in NC right?

                      • rel0627

                        It was on purpose. Dem good ol boys dont take kindly to bad mouthing no sir.

                      • Mike

                        You’re not implying that someone on here that is aggressively defending Monsanto might be on their payroll are you? 😉

            • Mike

              Maybe it will give the fleas, bedbugs and roaches cancer.

        • Your1Friend

          None of the above.

    • rel0627

      Ketchum talking points inserted here….

      • Michael McCarthy

        I don’t see them. Where did you insert them?

        • rel0627

          Read between the lines….

          • Michael McCarthy

            OK, in between the lines it says
            Michael McCarthy rel0627 • 3 minutes ago
            I don’t see them. Where did you insert them?

            • rel0627

              Who pays Ketchum to provide talking points?

              • Michael McCarthy

                Hmm. my comment went to moderation. Oh well. There’s a list available at sourcewatch that shows who pays them. That pesky Almond Board of California is one of their clients. And the evil Absolut vodka. Ooh, the British Tourism Authority, trying to sucker Americans to visit the motherland. Pabst Blue Ribbon? WTF, they are not getting their money’s worth, who drinks PBR?

                • rel0627

                  You forgot monsanto. PBR is not bad for the price.

                  • Michael McCarthy

                    So? You asked who pays, I gave you examples.

                    • rel0627

                      So, PR companies pay lackeys to “soften” the image online. Who else spends their days defending multinational chemical conglomerates as a hobby? lol

                      • Michael McC