Americans are waking up!

http://www.wsj.com/articles/fields-o...ers-1422909700

More U.S. consumers are seeking out non-GMO foods, which proponents perceive as healthier and friendlier to the environment.
Retail sales of GMO-free cereal, salad dressing, eggs and other food products increased 15% to $9.6 billion last year, among the fastest-growing U.S. food segments, according to market-research firm Nielsen NV.
Nielsen sharply increased its non-GMO food sales estimate last year after incorporating a broader range of products and stores.

"N. Cognito" wrote in message ...
Americans are waking up!

http://www.wsj.com/articles/fields-o...ers-1422909700

More U.S. consumers are seeking out non-GMO foods, which proponents perceive as healthier and friendlier to the environment.
Retail sales of GMO-free cereal, salad dressing, eggs and other food products increased 15% to $9.6 billion last year, among the fastest-growing U.S. food segments, according to market-research firm Nielsen NV.
Nielsen sharply increased its non-GMO food sales estimate last year after incorporating a broader range of products and stores.

That's good to hear. Best way to get something changed is to speak up about it. I notice in my local market more and more food is marked Made in China. I'll buy cheap tools now and then, but draw the line on food.

And while I'm at it... I'd like to see the law changed so that labels have to show each country where a food product was grown, processed and packaged and stop this "distributed by...." nonsense. The only reason I see for a company not putting "Made in -----" on the label is that they are hiding something.

On 02/09/2015 07:08 PM, N. Cognito wrote:
Americans are waking up!

GMOs are causing a rise in autoimmune diseases so

- Buy organic food for a healthy body.

- Buy pharmaceuticals stock for a healthy portfolio.

Is it wrong for me to profit from the sickness of ignorant people?

And while I'm at it... I'd like to see the law changed so that labels have
to show each country where a food product was grown, processed and packaged
and stop this "distributed by...." nonsense. The only reason I see for a
company not putting "Made in -----" on the label is that they are hiding
something.


I think you just have to vote with your wallet
on that one. American prosperity is built on
exploitation of 3rd world resources and labor.
I avoid anything that's not from the US, with
the exception of possibly Canada and Europe.
I'm surprised that so many people who care
about food quality don't pay any attention to
country of origin.

But even being aware of such things can be
tricky. I saw an article recently about scams in
the olive industry. Among other things, there are
tricks such as shipping a load through Greece so
that the resulting product can then be claimed
to be from Greece.

On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 2:38:09 PM UTC-5, Mayayana wrote:
And while I'm at it... I'd like to see the law changed so that labels have
to show each country where a food product was grown, processed and packaged
and stop this "distributed by...." nonsense. The only reason I see for a
company not putting "Made in -----" on the label is that they are hiding
something.


I think you just have to vote with your wallet
on that one. American prosperity is built on
exploitation of 3rd world resources and labor.

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



I avoid anything that's not from the US, with
the exception of possibly Canada and Europe.
I'm surprised that so many people who care
about food quality don't pay any attention to
country of origin.

But even being aware of such things can be
tricky. I saw an article recently about scams in
the olive industry. Among other things, there are
tricks such as shipping a load through Greece so
that the resulting product can then be claimed
to be from Greece.

I'll bet plenty of that expensive organic crap you buy
really isn't organic either.

On 2/10/2015 4:52 AM, Charlie Taylor wrote:
On 02/09/2015 07:08 PM, N. Cognito wrote:
Americans are waking up!

GMOs are causing a rise in autoimmune diseases so

- Buy organic food for a healthy body.

- Buy pharmaceuticals stock for a healthy portfolio.

Is it wrong for me to profit from the sickness of ignorant people?

Ever notice smokers tend to defend their cigarettes? Ever notice alcoholics defend their booze. Well it's same thing with people addicted to their GMOs.
Taking money from stupid people is a righteous act!

On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 7:56:24 PM UTC-5, Mark wrote:
On 2/10/2015 4:52 AM, Charlie Taylor wrote:
On 02/09/2015 07:08 PM, N. Cognito wrote:
Americans are waking up!

GMOs are causing a rise in autoimmune diseases so

- Buy organic food for a healthy body.

- Buy pharmaceuticals stock for a healthy portfolio.

Is it wrong for me to profit from the sickness of ignorant people?

Ever notice smokers tend to defend their cigarettes? Ever notice alcoholics defend their booze. Well it's same thing with people addicted to their GMOs.
Taking money from stupid people is a righteous act!

Of course there is one big problem with that silly statement. Alcohol
and nicotine are both physically addictive substances. GMO is not.
Alcohol and nicotine both have easily demonstrated direct effects on
the body, GMO does not. People can't tell the difference between a GMO
food and a non-GMO, plus in the USA GMO is not labeled so the typical
consumer could not even tell them apart.
Now if you're so ignorant that you don't understand that,
what does that say about your real knowledge of GMO?

Just the facts.

On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 04:36:28 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 7:56:24 PM UTC-5, Mark wrote:
On 2/10/2015 4:52 AM, Charlie Taylor wrote:
On 02/09/2015 07:08 PM, N. Cognito wrote:
Americans are waking up!

GMOs are causing a rise in autoimmune diseases so

- Buy organic food for a healthy body.

- Buy pharmaceuticals stock for a healthy portfolio.

Is it wrong for me to profit from the sickness of ignorant people?

Ever notice smokers tend to defend their cigarettes? Ever notice alcoholics defend their booze. Well it's same thing with people addicted to their GMOs.
Taking money from stupid people is a righteous act!

Of course there is one big problem with that silly statement. Alcohol
and nicotine are both physically addictive substances. GMO is not.
Alcohol and nicotine both have easily demonstrated direct effects on
the body, GMO does not. People can't tell the difference between a GMO
food and a non-GMO, plus in the USA GMO is not labeled so the typical
consumer could not even tell them apart.
Now if you're so ignorant that you don't understand that,
what does that say about your real knowledge of GMO?

Just the facts.


I'm a computer programmer with a masters in medical biology, and I
read, so I know somethings about GMOs. Humans have been messing around
with genetics since we started breeding animals and plants for certain
traits. But splicing genes into things is a bit different. For
instance, sticking genes for resistance to certain poisons, and then
using those poisons to kill everything but the target plant, does
bother me. After all, those poisons are likely still in the plants,
and then we eat them, at least in theory absorbing the poison
ourselves.

The problem with GMOs is testing. There is no way to test what these
things do to us or or progeny. Sort of like geoengineering - we can do
all the computer models we want, but only large scale experiments will
actually prove things out, and those aren't experiments, those are
reality.

Crossing all kinds of genes might do no harm, or one might accidently
create something that will have very bad outcomes in the wild.

On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 9:54:39 AM UTC-5, dgk wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 04:36:28 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 7:56:24 PM UTC-5, Mark wrote:
On 2/10/2015 4:52 AM, Charlie Taylor wrote:
On 02/09/2015 07:08 PM, N. Cognito wrote:
Americans are waking up!

GMOs are causing a rise in autoimmune diseases so

- Buy organic food for a healthy body.

- Buy pharmaceuticals stock for a healthy portfolio.

Is it wrong for me to profit from the sickness of ignorant people?

Ever notice smokers tend to defend their cigarettes? Ever notice alcoholics defend their booze. Well it's same thing with people addicted to their GMOs.
Taking money from stupid people is a righteous act!

Of course there is one big problem with that silly statement. Alcohol
and nicotine are both physically addictive substances. GMO is not.
Alcohol and nicotine both have easily demonstrated direct effects on
the body, GMO does not. People can't tell the difference between a GMO
food and a non-GMO, plus in the USA GMO is not labeled so the typical
consumer could not even tell them apart.
Now if you're so ignorant that you don't understand that,
what does that say about your real knowledge of GMO?

Just the facts.


I'm a computer programmer with a masters in medical biology, and I
read, so I know somethings about GMOs. Humans have been messing around
with genetics since we started breeding animals and plants for certain
traits. But splicing genes into things is a bit different. For
instance, sticking genes for resistance to certain poisons, and then
using those poisons to kill everything but the target plant, does
bother me. After all, those poisons are likely still in the plants,
and then we eat them, at least in theory absorbing the poison
ourselves.


The key issue there would seem to be:

A - Is glyposate at the levels found in foods consumed by people
a poison? Bleach is a "poison", yet it's added to municipal
water systems. So is flouride, which is also added to many
water systems.

B - What amount of glyphosate is left when the crop is consumed?
And is that level harmful? Crops are sprayed with a variety of
chemicals prior to harvest, eg insecticides. If that is OK, then
what is so unique about glyphosate on GMO crops?



The problem with GMOs is testing. There is no way to test what these
things do to us or or progeny.

Why not?

Sort of like geoengineering - we can do
all the computer models we want, but only large scale experiments will
actually prove things out, and those aren't experiments, those are
reality.

Crossing all kinds of genes might do no harm, or one might accidently
create something that will have very bad outcomes in the wild.

Similarly, the random mutilation of DNA that causes everything from
new great crops, to cancer, occurs naturally. Why hasn't that all
killed us?

trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 9:54:39 AM UTC-5, dgk wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 04:36:28 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

.......
The key issue there would seem to be:

A - Is glyposate at the levels found in foods consumed by people
a poison? Bleach is a "poison", yet it's added to municipal
water systems. So is flouride, which is also added to many
water systems.

B - What amount of glyphosate is left when the crop is consumed?
And is that level harmful? Crops are sprayed with a variety of
chemicals prior to harvest, eg insecticides. If that is OK, then
what is so unique about glyphosate on GMO crops?


They can and will use a lot more. That's plenty of reason for me to know if
things I eat are GMO.

trader_4 writes:

The key issue there would seem to be:

A - Is glyposate at the levels found in foods consumed by people
a poison? Bleach is a "poison", yet it's added to municipal
water systems. So is flouride, which is also added to many
water systems.

B - What amount of glyphosate is left when the crop is consumed?
And is that level harmful? Crops are sprayed with a variety of
chemicals prior to harvest, eg insecticides. If that is OK, then
what is so unique about glyphosate on GMO crops?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Human

Excerpt:

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

--
Dan Espen

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

I realize that you've already made up your mind
that you don't want to worry about this sort of thing,
so you're going to cherry pick any data you find, and
thus you'll find the data you want to know.

For anyone else reading this thread, there are other
points to consider:

1) First is the obvious point: Why would anyone decide to
trust a gov't agency that says it's safe to eat poison?

2) The issue being discussed here is not specifically
how dangerous glyphosate might be, but rather the
general issue of GMO crops. Roundup Ready GMO
crops are designed to tolerate *even more* toxic
herbicide than other crops.

3) At the EPA's own site they make clear, as they
always have, that they see their job as one of balanced
assessment and action. They don't just decide whether
something is poison and should therefore be banned.
They weigh economic and other factors.

--------------------------------
http://www.epa.gov/risk_assessment/basicinformation.htm
Risk assessment provides "INFORMATION" on potential health or ecological
risks, and risk management is the "ACTION" taken based on consideration of
that and other information, as follows:

.........

a.. Economic factors inform the manager on the cost of risks and the
benefits of reducing them, the costs of risk mitigation or remediation
options and the distributional effects.
-------------------------------

4) The referenced EPA fact sheet is *22* years old.
Why, when glyphosate is so common in the food
supply, has it not been looked at in 22 years? Could
that possibly have anything to do with Monsanto's
clout in gov't? Maybe not. But if one searches for
'monsanto revolving door' a lot of interesting links
come up.

On 02/12/2015 09:36 PM, Mayayana wrote:
1) First is the obvious point: Why would anyone decide to
trust a gov't agency that says it's safe to eat poison?

2) The issue being discussed here is not specifically
how dangerous glyphosate might be, but rather the
general issue of GMO crops. Roundup Ready GMO
crops are designed to tolerate*even more* toxic
herbicide than other crops.

Exactly!

Anyone that defends GMOs is either ignorant of the facts or a chemical/agriculture industry shill.

On Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 11:33:24 PM UTC-5, Mayayana wrote:
| The EPA considers glyphosate to be noncarcinogenic and relatively low
| in dermal and oral acute toxicity.[20] The EPA considered a "worst
| case" dietary risk model of an individual eating a lifetime of food
| derived entirely from glyphosate-sprayed fields with residues at their
| maximum levels. This model indicated that no adverse health effects
| would be expected under such conditions.
|

I realize that you've already made up your mind
that you don't want to worry about this sort of thing,
so you're going to cherry pick any data you find, and
thus you'll find the data you want to know.

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




For anyone else reading this thread, there are other
points to consider:

1) First is the obvious point: Why would anyone decide to
trust a gov't agency that says it's safe to eat poison?

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



2) The issue being discussed here is not specifically
how dangerous glyphosate might be, but rather the
general issue of GMO crops. Roundup Ready GMO
crops are designed to tolerate *even more* toxic
herbicide than other crops.


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




3) At the EPA's own site they make clear, as they
always have, that they see their job as one of balanced
assessment and action. They don't just decide whether
something is poison and should therefore be banned.
They weigh economic and other factors.


Wow, what a profound concept.

The hysteria here is not unlike the hysteria over vaccinations
that has been going on for the last couple of decades. The same
analysis applies, ie cost versus benefit. In the vaccine case,
just like here, certain hippies are absolutely convinced that
vaccinations are causing autism and God knows what else,
despite the mountain of the best scientific evidence that
says it's not true. So now we have outbreaks of measles again,
that are putting kids in the hospital.

On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 4:44:22 AM UTC-5, warren wrote:
On 02/12/2015 09:36 PM, Mayayana wrote:
1) First is the obvious point: Why would anyone decide to
trust a gov't agency that says it's safe to eat poison?

2) The issue being discussed here is not specifically
how dangerous glyphosate might be, but rather the
general issue of GMO crops. Roundup Ready GMO
crops are designed to tolerate*even more* toxic
herbicide than other crops.

Exactly!

Anyone that defends GMOs is either ignorant of the facts or a chemical/agriculture industry shill.

Really:

So far I see all the bogus hysteria, devoid of fact,
coming from anti-GMO hippies.

|
| Anyone that defends GMOs is either ignorant
| of the facts or a chemical/agriculture industry shill.

Or an ostrich. That's probably the biggest category
by far: People who ignore anything that might involve
hassle or effort. It seems to be human nature. We don't
stop to remove a pebble from our shoe until we have
a sharp pain in the hip and are walking with a limp.
Then we get angry at the pebble for causing so much
trouble. If glyphosate turned out to be a potent
carcinogen, the ostriches would be the first to file
lawsuits.

Internet security and privacy is another good example
of that pattern. If offered a chance to ignore inconvenient
facts in favor of lounging in an existential hammock,
most people will instinctively ignore. Thus the role of the
salesman, who doesn't really trick anyone. He just helps
people to fool themselves.

On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 10:02:39 AM UTC-5, Mayayana wrote:
|
| Anyone that defends GMOs is either ignorant
| of the facts or a chemical/agriculture industry shill.

Or an ostrich. That's probably the biggest category
by far: People who ignore anything that might involve
hassle or effort. It seems to be human nature. We don't
stop to remove a pebble from our shoe until we have
a sharp pain in the hip and are walking with a limp.

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




Then we get angry at the pebble for causing so much
trouble. If glyphosate turned out to be a potent
carcinogen, the ostriches would be the first to file
lawsuits.


The ostrich strawman.




Internet security and privacy is another good example
of that pattern. If offered a chance to ignore inconvenient
facts in favor of lounging in an existential hammock,
most people will instinctively ignore. Thus the role of the
salesman, who doesn't really trick anyone. He just helps
people to fool themselves.

More blather.

"Mayayana" writes:

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

I realize that you've already made up your mind
that you don't want to worry about this sort of thing,
so you're going to cherry pick any data you find, and
thus you'll find the data you want to know.

Cherry pick?

You are officially out of your mind.

I went directly to where everyone else that has background
in the issue has gone. The wikipedia authors have undoubtedly fought
out the exact wording of that section for years. What remains is full
of attributions (cites). Any of which you are free to research
yourself.

By the way, I spent some time looking at other sources for the lethal
dose of glyphosate. They're in agreement.
I did NOT look at random Joe Blow opinions. Only cases where the
issue was actually studied.

For anyone else reading this thread, there are other
points to consider:

1) First is the obvious point: Why would anyone decide to
trust a gov't agency that says it's safe to eat poison?

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

2) The issue being discussed here is not specifically
how dangerous glyphosate might be, but rather the
general issue of GMO crops. Roundup Ready GMO
crops are designed to tolerate *even more* toxic
herbicide than other crops.

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

3) At the EPA's own site they make clear, as they
always have, that they see their job as one of balanced
assessment and action. They don't just decide whether
something is poison and should therefore be banned.
They weigh economic and other factors.

And that's a problem how?

--------------------------------
http://www.epa.gov/risk_assessment/basicinformation.htm
Risk assessment provides "INFORMATION" on potential health or ecological
risks, and risk management is the "ACTION" taken based on consideration of
that and other information, as follows:

........

a.. Economic factors inform the manager on the cost of risks and the
benefits of reducing them, the costs of risk mitigation or remediation
options and the distributional effects.
-------------------------------

4) The referenced EPA fact sheet is *22* years old.
Why, when glyphosate is so common in the food
supply, has it not been looked at in 22 years? Could
that possibly have anything to do with Monsanto's
clout in gov't? Maybe not. But if one searches for
'monsanto revolving door' a lot of interesting links
come up.

Congratulations. More idiocy.
You have been watching all this time and no further
research has been done? How do you know that?

So, from the right, we hear about how the Dems are trying
to destroy business with over regulation, but your theory now is that
the EPA is in cahoots with Monsanto (for at least 22 years).

So, I've cherry picked my data and my mind is already made up.
Your counter arguments don't even make sense.
Especially where you tell me I'm not on topic.
My reply was obviously not addressing GMO.
Roundup came up, someone asked a question and I found
what I consider the best answer.
Come up with some facts by someone with some data or
give it up.

--
Dan Espen

warren writes:

On 02/12/2015 09:36 PM, Mayayana wrote:
1) First is the obvious point: Why would anyone decide to
trust a gov't agency that says it's safe to eat poison?

2) The issue being discussed here is not specifically
how dangerous glyphosate might be, but rather the
general issue of GMO crops. Roundup Ready GMO
crops are designed to tolerate*even more* toxic
herbicide than other crops.

Exactly!

Anyone that defends GMOs is either ignorant of the facts or a
chemical/agriculture industry shill.

Of course, that's clear enough.
If they are on the other side, they are wrong.

This isn't science, this is team sports.

--
Dan Espen

trader_4 wrote:
....
As usual, just hyperbole, totally devoid of any fact.
Speaking of fact, where's the cite I've asked for 10 times
now to backup your claim that Monsanto "forced" farmers to use
their product?

last year a farmer lost a claim that he wanted to be
compensated for a loss on his property due to GMO
contamination (he was an organic farmer using non M
seeds, a neighbor planted GMO seed and infected his
crop and he lost his organic certification).

the decision is being appealed:

http://www.theland.com.au/news/agric...px?storypage=0

in my own area there are GMO beets, corn and
soybeans grown (and probably others) these are forced
upon me in that i have no way to isolate my crops from
the surrounding fields. my only recourse is to not
grow them.

i already have a non-GMO alfalfa patch growing that
has taken me several years to get going. if it becomes
infected with GMO alfalfa i will not know it, there is
no testing place i can send samples to that will verify
it as non-GMO without some expense to me. this is an
additional expense that was not there before. the same
goes for every other non-GMO crop that i grow that might
become infected from the surrounding fields.

the low cost approach for annuals used to be that you
could save your seeds from year to year and know that
there was no problem. now for annuals to ensure non-GMO
seeds i'd have to source and buy them each time i plant
or risk contamination (and that forces you to trust the
seed growers to test and properly get things right).

for the biannuals or perennials it's worse because to
get an alfalfa field established takes several years or
to harvest a beet seed crop takes a few years.

the GMO folks don't care and have the courts and laws
stacked against the small gardener or the organic farmer.

instead of requiring GMO contamination to be remediated
by the GMO companies they just certify it all as ok and
then those of us who don't want it are forced to work
around their BS. and it is BS. whoever thinks that GMO
alfalfa was a good idea is a complete idiot, but they
fit right into the poisoner and big ag mentality which
has destroyed the land and poisoned the water and air.

most of the people who think this isn't a problem are
old and almost dead. poisoners who spray large areas of
land. the problem is that to protect your own lands from
poisoners you have to have enough money to buy a large
enough space. poor folks and small growers aren't going
to be able to afford that much space.


songbird

| I went directly to where everyone else that has background
| in the issue has gone. The wikipedia authors have undoubtedly fought
| out the exact wording of that section for years. What remains is full
| of attributions (cites). Any of which you are free to research
| yourself.
|

Which is what I did, as I explained. I went
to EPA and downloaded their PDF info file on
glyphosate -- the one that *you* referenced
in your posted quote. It's dated 1993.

It was a similar case to what you did in the
other thread, where you referenced a study
claiming 80% of people think DNA should be
banned from foods. It turned out that the study
was a sham defense of GMOs perpetrated by
a college in farm country. You not only hadn't
looked at the actual study. You also didn't
recognize it when I responded.
In a humorous twist of irony it turned out that
study related to GMOs and I assumed you knew
that. I only realized afterward that you hadn't
actually seen the study and had no idea that you
were posting on-topic. That was just a coincidence.
Your only intention was apparently to make fun of
scientific ignorance.

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

Yes. More cherry picking. But you did, at one point,
make clear that you thought concern over GMOs
was unwarranted. You advanced the interesting
"scientific" theory that your personal health depends
on exercise and is unrelated to what you eat:

"I believe I preserve my health through activity,
not fear of what I eat."

| 3) At the EPA's own site they make clear, as they
| always have, that they see their job as one of balanced
| assessment and action. They don't just decide whether
| something is poison and should therefore be banned.
| They weigh economic and other factors.
|
| And that's a problem how?
|

As the page explains, the EPA takes various factors
into consideration. For instance, the EPA issues guidelines
for "allowable" mercury exposure from tuna. In setting
that limit they'll take into consideration both research
and the tuna industry. Tuna catchers need to make
a living. People want to eat tuna. So the EPA will never
say, "Don't eat tuna. Period."

Not that I'm complaining about the EPA. They're better
than nothing. But nor would I base my own dietary
guidelines on EPA reports.


| 4) The referenced EPA fact sheet is *22* years old.
| Why, when glyphosate is so common in the food
| supply, has it not been looked at in 22 years? Could
| that possibly have anything to do with Monsanto's
| clout in gov't? Maybe not. But if one searches for
| 'monsanto revolving door' a lot of interesting links
| come up.
|
| Congratulations. More idiocy.
| You have been watching all this time and no further
| research has been done? How do you know that?

Hello?! That was the fact sheet that *you* linked
to! It was the reference (note 20) in your quote from
Wikipedia. Again you're not even looking at your own
references.

|
| So, from the right, we hear about how the Dems are trying
| to destroy business with over regulation, but your theory now is that
| the EPA is in cahoots with Monsanto (for at least 22 years).
|
Did you look at any revolving door links? Where
do you think gov't regulations come from? Just
today the NYT has an expose on how the company
that's been making faulty guardrails has responded
with a massive lobbying push. If Glyphosate is found
to be more toxic than expected, do you think Monsanto
will say, "That's OK. We don't need those billions of
dollars. We've got plenty of money now." ? Or might
they call up a few congressmen and start making
more donations? Do you want to bet your health on
your answer to that?

| Your counter arguments don't even make sense.
| Especially where you tell me I'm not on topic.
| My reply was obviously not addressing GMO.

Right. And GMOs are the topic. That's another
example of what I mean by cherry picking to avoid
further thought.
(Are you a tuna nut, by any chance?

Those of us criticizing GMOs are concerned about
exposure to toxins, among other things. You're putting
a lot of effort into rebutting that concern with various
data that you haven't actually looked at, yet you
also claim that you don't care about GMOs. And you
you regard concern about GMOs as pointless fear.
.....You seem a rather hotheaded partisan for someone
who doesn't care about the topic.

"Mayayana" writes:

| I went directly to where everyone else that has background
| in the issue has gone. The wikipedia authors have undoubtedly fought
| out the exact wording of that section for years. What remains is full
| of attributions (cites). Any of which you are free to research
| yourself.
|

Which is what I did, as I explained. I went
to EPA and downloaded their PDF info file on
glyphosate -- the one that *you* referenced
in your posted quote. It's dated 1993.

You STILL have not established that a study in 1993
is wrong, or superceded by information from a better study.
What's wrong with a study from 1993?

It was a similar case to what you did in the
other thread, where you referenced a study
claiming 80% of people think DNA should be
banned from foods. It turned out that the study
was a sham defense of GMOs perpetrated by
a college in farm country.

That's your claim, and not relevant to this issue.

You not only hadn't
looked at the actual study. You also didn't
recognize it when I responded.

How the F do you know what I recognized?
I recognized that you are using 1993 as if
it somehow implies the study is flawed.
That's just wrong, so I had no reason to look
any more than I did.

In a humorous twist of irony it turned out that
study related to GMOs and I assumed you knew
that. I only realized afterward that you hadn't
actually seen the study and had no idea that you
were posting on-topic. That was just a coincidence.
Your only intention was apparently to make fun of
scientific ignorance.

Please try to stay on subject.

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

Yes. More cherry picking.

Really, answering a question is cherry picking?
How does that work?

But you did, at one point,
make clear that you thought concern over GMOs
was unwarranted. You advanced the interesting
"scientific" theory that your personal health depends
on exercise and is unrelated to what you eat:

"I believe I preserve my health through activity,
not fear of what I eat."

Yes, unreasoning fear.

| 3) At the EPA's own site they make clear, as they
| always have, that they see their job as one of balanced
| assessment and action. They don't just decide whether
| something is poison and should therefore be banned.
| They weigh economic and other factors.
|
| And that's a problem how?
|

As the page explains, the EPA takes various factors
into consideration. For instance, the EPA issues guidelines
for "allowable" mercury exposure from tuna. In setting
that limit they'll take into consideration both research
and the tuna industry. Tuna catchers need to make
a living. People want to eat tuna. So the EPA will never
say, "Don't eat tuna. Period."

Not that I'm complaining about the EPA. They're better
than nothing. But nor would I base my own dietary
guidelines on EPA reports.

If you think the EPA only considers cost of remediation
you are completely wrong. If the amount of mercury in
Tuna was thought to be causing harm, Tuna would be banned.

The EPA does give some cautions:

http://www.epa.gov/mercury/advisories.htm

Fish Consumption Advice

To enjoy the benefits of eating fish while minimizing exposure to mercury, you should:

eat mainly types of fish low in mercury, and
limit your consumption of types of fish with typically higher levels of mercury.

Fish are important in a healthy diet. They are a lean, low-calorie
source of protein. However, some fish may contain methylmercury or other
harmful chemicals at sufficiently high levels to be a concern.

| 4) The referenced EPA fact sheet is *22* years old.
| Why, when glyphosate is so common in the food
| supply, has it not been looked at in 22 years? Could
| that possibly have anything to do with Monsanto's
| clout in gov't? Maybe not. But if one searches for
| 'monsanto revolving door' a lot of interesting links
| come up.
|
| Congratulations. More idiocy.
| You have been watching all this time and no further
| research has been done? How do you know that?

Hello?! That was the fact sheet that *you* linked
to! It was the reference (note 20) in your quote from
Wikipedia. Again you're not even looking at your own
references.

And you appear to be, and the best you come up with is
1993. What's the problem with a study from 1993?
Do you have a subsequent study that gives a different result?
You haven't posted it, so all I can conclude is that your
mind is already made up and you'll try any tactic to
try to confirm your beliefs.

If 1993 is the best you can come up with then I was fine
assuming that since the article was full of references
it wasn't somebody pulling information out of the air.

| So, from the right, we hear about how the Dems are trying
| to destroy business with over regulation, but your theory now is that
| the EPA is in cahoots with Monsanto (for at least 22 years).
|
Did you look at any revolving door links? Where
do you think gov't regulations come from? Just
today the NYT has an expose on how the company
that's been making faulty guardrails has responded
with a massive lobbying push. If Glyphosate is found
to be more toxic than expected, do you think Monsanto
will say, "That's OK. We don't need those billions of
dollars. We've got plenty of money now." ? Or might
they call up a few congressmen and start making
more donations? Do you want to bet your health on
your answer to that?

Like I said, unreasoning fear.

| Your counter arguments don't even make sense.
| Especially where you tell me I'm not on topic.
| My reply was obviously not addressing GMO.

Right. And GMOs are the topic. That's another
example of what I mean by cherry picking to avoid
further thought.

Still not making the slightest bit of sense.
The thread is about GMOs. Someone else made
comments about Roundup. I looked it up,
trimmed the post down to only the part I was replying to and replied
with a credible source.

Cherry picking? Not in the least.

(Are you a tuna nut, by any chance?

Tuna is a fish, not a nut.

I don't eat any kind of fish, I don't like the taste of fish.

Those of us criticizing GMOs are concerned about
exposure to toxins, among other things. You're putting
a lot of effort into rebutting that concern with various
data that you haven't actually looked at, yet you
also claim that you don't care about GMOs. And you
you regard concern about GMOs as pointless fear.
....You seem a rather hotheaded partisan for someone
who doesn't care about the topic.

Yeah, citing information is a common tactic of a hot head.

--
Dan Espen

| the GMO folks don't care and have the courts and laws
| stacked against the small gardener or the organic farmer.
|

I first heard about this in a PBS documentary. I think it
was this one, which I linked earlier:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food%2C_Inc.

Prior to that I had little idea of what was going on.


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


Corn farmers who saved their own seed were
interviewed in that documentary and said they
were not only risking an infected crop, but that
Monsanto was actually threatening a patent lawsuit
if the farmers kept using their own seed. The logic
was that their fields were probably already infected
and therefore the farmers should be paying for
Roundup Ready seed. Or to put it another way, since
Monsanto GMO pollen was spreading on the wind,
Monsanto figured it was reasonable to say that
corn farmers in the US could no longer save their
own seed legally!

It's hard to believe things could come to that, but
I suppose it's not really a legal issue. Rather, Monsanto
probably considers it a marketing expense, easily
able to drag out mickey mouse lawsuits until the
farmers either go broke or give in. Whether or not they
actually have a legal case apparently doesn't come
into it.

| You STILL have not established that a study in 1993
| is wrong, or superceded by information from a better study.
| What's wrong with a study from 1993?
|
And you still haven't even looked at the document
you're referencing as evidence! It's not a study. It's
a 22 year old EPA fact sheet -- the official EPA position
on glyphosate. Don't you think a fact sheet on one
of the most popular agricultural toxins should maybe
be updated more often than 22+ years?

| It was a similar case to what you did in the
| other thread, where you referenced a study
| claiming 80% of people think DNA should be
| banned from foods. It turned out that the study
| was a sham defense of GMOs perpetrated by
| a college in farm country.
|
| That's your claim, and not relevant to this issue.
|

Yes, it's my claim. You could check it out for
yourself if you take the trouble to read the study
you're referencing. Comically, it also happens to
be the claim of the man writing the blog that you
linked to in the first place:

http://tumblr.benlillie.com/post/108...es-dna-in-food

(de-obfuscated link)

He linked to the sham study that you never
read. You also clearly didn't read the blog post
you linked. Not really. Part of his point is that
people were spreading around a misleading number
about the DNA question. You came across the blog
post and proceeded to do exactly what he was
talking about: You saw fuel for the snide dig about
public stupidity and ran with it. The real kicker here
is that you continue to represent yourself as someone
who appreciates and understands science. You're
free to have your opinion about GMOs and organic
food, but if you're going to pretend it's somehow
scientific then you shouldn't be surprised when
someone challenges you on it.

| You not only hadn't
| looked at the actual study. You also didn't
| recognize it when I responded.
|
| How the F do you know what I recognized?

You said so yourself:

"You appear to have me confused with someone else."

| I recognized that you are using 1993 as if
| it somehow implies the study is flawed.

You're mixing up the EPA fact sheet with the
sham U of OK study that you originally referenced.
Perhaps it would help if you re-read the two
threads. You're conflating a number of things.
Then you might want to actually read the
documents you're offering as evidence.

Essentially you've just thrown in two unexamined
monkey wrenches, apparently because concern about
GMOs and organic food bugs you. First you made fun
of the general public for alleged scientific illiteracy,
equating "chemophobia" with stupidity. Now, in this
thread, you've thrown in a quote saying glyphosate
is safe. In neither case did you even look at, much less
consider, the alleged evidence for your statements.

On 02/12/2015 08:36 PM, Mayayana wrote:
1) First is the obvious point: Why would anyone decide to
trust a gov't agency that says it's safe to eat poison?

Hi Mayayana,

1+

USDA had a carbohydrate calculator up there for a while.
At my height, weight, and age, I was suppose to consume
398 grams of carbs a day.

I don't trust those guys as far as I can spit.

Big business and even bigger government, a incestuous
relationship from hell.

-T

On 02/13/2015 01:44 AM, warren wrote:
On 02/12/2015 09:36 PM, Mayayana wrote:
1) First is the obvious point: Why would anyone decide to
trust a gov't agency that says it's safe to eat poison?

2) The issue being discussed here is not specifically
how dangerous glyphosate might be, but rather the
general issue of GMO crops. Roundup Ready GMO
crops are designed to tolerate*even more* toxic
herbicide than other crops.

Exactly!

Anyone that defends GMOs is either ignorant of the facts or a
chemical/agriculture industry shill.

Or they trust their countries institutions. I took me
being injured by T2 Diabetes and having information withheld
from me by the medical institution to get as jaded as
I am now. I trusted them. But, no more.

On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 17:24:22 -0800, T wrote:

Or they trust their countries institutions. I took me
being injured by T2 Diabetes and having information withheld
from me by the medical institution to get as jaded as
I am now. I trusted them. But, no more.

Clarify pls
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On 02/09/2015 06:08 PM, N. Cognito wrote:
Americans are waking up!

http://www.wsj.com/articles/fields-o...ers-1422909700


More U.S. consumers are seeking out non-GMO foods, which proponents
perceive as healthier and friendlier to the environment.
Retail sales of GMO-free cereal, salad dressing, eggs and other food
products increased 15% to $9.6 billion last year, among the
fastest-growing U.S. food segments, according to market-research firm
Nielsen NV.
Nielsen sharply increased its non-GMO food sales estimate last year
after incorporating a broader range of products and stores.

The free market is the proper way to handle this. People
don't want to buy their products -- they are out of here.

I do think GMO products need to be labeled so that the
consumer can make an informed choice.

Of course, I also think that free glutamic (MSG) acid should
be labeled too, but I lost that one. (I gets included under
about 100 other liar names, such as Yeast Extract. Trader
Joe's is really bad about this.)

On 02/13/2015 05:32 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 17:24:22 -0800, T wrote:

Or they trust their countries institutions. I took me
being injured by T2 Diabetes and having information withheld
from me by the medical institution to get as jaded as
I am now. I trusted them. But, no more.

Clarify pls
[]'s


Hi Shadow,

1) I was told T2 just happens to some people.

Truth: T2 is an injury. It is caused by
carbohydrate poisoning. I was following
a *fad diet* called "Healthy Carbs". I ate
way, way too many carbs. The poison is in
the dosage.

2) When asked how to get drug free, I was told
that it was unusual and you had to exercise
your ass off.

Truth: it is easy. Take Vanadyl Sulfate
and gets your carbs down under 60 grams
a day (30 is better). The carbs you do
eat need to be the hard to digest ones.
And no grains. And you don't have to do
all that much exercising.

All of this was withheld from me.

3) Was told that Metformin was safe. Some rare
instances, it caused digestive problems and
running down the hall.

Truth: while both of those are true, Met is
a controlled dosage of a poison. And as such,
it has rebound and side effects. (As I reduced
my Met to zero, my blood sugar when down every
time.)

Other side effects: memory loss, hair loss, cognitive
decline, sleeplessness (sometime permanent),
skin spots, lethargy, and my all time favorite,
which I had really bad, depression manifested
by delusions of persecution. Yep EVERYONE was
picking on me. All these were withheld from me.

When I got off Met and the "dark curtain" lifted,
I had a lot of apologizing to do to those around me.

This is Big Ag (unnatural high carb food), Big
Medicine (amputations, side effects, etc.), Big
Pharma (drugs), and even bigger Government
(who makes it all possible) all waxing each others
palms.

Did you know that Big Pharma funds the FDA. Insanity!!!

And the ADA (American Diabetes Association) takes
bribes from Big Pharma? (There is a copy of their donation
floating around out there somewhere.) Even wonder
why the ADA's carb recommendations are so high carb and why
folks following them all take drugs? Now you know.

As I said, the institutions your are suppose to trust.
They all get rich and the public suffers.

I hope this is what you were after as I am now babbling.

-T

I am now drug free and completely under control for over
a year now. Those a-- holes!

"Mayayana" writes:

Now, in this
thread, you've thrown in a quote saying glyphosate
is safe. In neither case did you even look at, much less
consider, the alleged evidence for your statements.

Yes, I quoted Wikipedia, which makes a pretty strong statement that
glyphosate is safe to use. I searched in the first place
because I had read before that the chemical is considered
safe and a poster asked:

The key issue there would seem to be:

A - Is glyposate at the levels found in foods consumed by people
a poison? Bleach is a "poison", yet it's added to municipal
water systems. So is flouride, which is also added to many
water systems.

B - What amount of glyphosate is left when the crop is consumed?
And is that level harmful? Crops are sprayed with a variety of
chemicals prior to harvest, eg insecticides. If that is OK, then
what is so unique about glyphosate on GMO crops?

So, my reply covered points A & B pretty well I think.

You think there is something wrong with me quoting that
section and not reading the 5 documents the article referenced?
I didn't follow any of the 3 links in that article either.
I'm SOOO guilty.

I offered up the article since I believe it was peer reviewed
and represents a consensus.

I didn't even look at the edit history, which I'm sure has been
quite active, you'd probably find all kinds of support for your
position, whatever it is, in the edit history.

I read the article, and I have some knowledge of how Wikipedia
works, and figured the article answered the questions posed.

I disagree that what I did is somehow wrong.

So, now I reviewed all the links.
I was going to post about each one, I typed it all in,
but I think I'm going to spare everyone...

So, one can drink a significant amount of Roundup and
not get real sick. It's not something to spray in the air to keep
cool, but spot application on weeds in my yard doesn't sound like a
risk.

--
Dan Espen

On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 18:05:08 -0800, T wrote:

On 02/13/2015 05:32 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 17:24:22 -0800, T wrote:

Or they trust their countries institutions. I took me
being injured by T2 Diabetes and having information withheld
from me by the medical institution to get as jaded as
I am now. I trusted them. But, no more.

Clarify pls
[]'s


Hi Shadow,

1) I was told T2 just happens to some people.

Truth: T2 is an injury. It is caused by
carbohydrate poisoning. I was following
a *fad diet* called "Healthy Carbs". I ate
way, way too many carbs. The poison is in
the dosage.

2) When asked how to get drug free, I was told
that it was unusual and you had to exercise
your ass off.

Truth: it is easy. Take Vanadyl Sulfate
and gets your carbs down under 60 grams
a day (30 is better). The carbs you do
eat need to be the hard to digest ones.
And no grains. And you don't have to do
all that much exercising.

All of this was withheld from me.

3) Was told that Metformin was safe. Some rare
instances, it caused digestive problems and
running down the hall.

Truth: while both of those are true, Met is
a controlled dosage of a poison. And as such,
it has rebound and side effects. (As I reduced
my Met to zero, my blood sugar when down every
time.)

Other side effects: memory loss, hair loss, cognitive
decline, sleeplessness (sometime permanent),
skin spots, lethargy, and my all time favorite,
which I had really bad, depression manifested
by delusions of persecution. Yep EVERYONE was
picking on me. All these were withheld from me.

When I got off Met and the "dark curtain" lifted,
I had a lot of apologizing to do to those around me.

This is Big Ag (unnatural high carb food), Big
Medicine (amputations, side effects, etc.), Big
Pharma (drugs), and even bigger Government
(who makes it all possible) all waxing each others
palms.

Did you know that Big Pharma funds the FDA. Insanity!!!

And the ADA (American Diabetes Association) takes
bribes from Big Pharma? (There is a copy of their donation
floating around out there somewhere.) Even wonder
why the ADA's carb recommendations are so high carb and why
folks following them all take drugs? Now you know.

As I said, the institutions your are suppose to trust.
They all get rich and the public suffers.

I hope this is what you were after as I am now babbling.


You were babbling from the beginning. I suggest you read up DM
II. From a real source. Vanadyl Sulfate is a fad.

I am now drug free and completely under control for over
a year now. Those a-- holes!

Which is what real doctors aim for. Like I said, read it up.
Bush put big pharma in charge of the FDA, yes. Why independent trials
like ALHAT for hipertention are so important.

https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/allhat/qckref.htm

I'd check if you were really diabetic in the first place.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On 2/13/2015 9:05 PM, T wrote:
As I said, the institutions your are suppose to trust.
They all get rich and the public suffers.

I hope this is what you were after as I am now babbling.

-T

I am now drug free and completely under control for over
a year now. Those a-- holes!


One fellow I consider a friend, don't see him often. Swears
that the doctors killed his Dad. One pill, and then another
pill for the side effects of the first pill, and so it goes.
Finally, he's got so much chemicals in him.

My soap box issues is ingrown toe nails. I gave myself the
problem, the doctors made it worse. About two grand later
(this in 1995 to 2000 dollars) I got my first computer.
One evening I looked up ingrown toe nails. Find out I did
it to myself, and the doctors made it worse. They get
paid for surgery. If they would have told me, I'd stop
being thier cash cow. Mooo!

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

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

Except that glyphosate wasn't the issue being
discussed. GMOs was. You picked a post from
someone who doesn't understand -- and doesn't
want to understand -- the threat of GMOs. But
I think we've pretty much wrung that one dry,
anyway. Your "scientific" opinion is that all GMOs
are healthy to eat so long as you don't think about
it and keep jogging. So... bon appetit.

| So, one can drink a significant amount of Roundup and
| not get real sick. It's not something to spray in the air to keep
| cool, but spot application on weeds in my yard doesn't sound like a
| risk.

Which has nothing to do with the implications
of GMOs. But at least now I see where your view is
coming from.

You're spraying toxic chemicals on your own
land because you don't feel like bending down
to pull weeds? And what are you not risking?
Lowering your property values? It sounds to me
like you never considered risk in the first place.
Nor did you want to, because then you might
have to sacrifice some convenience and do yard
work.

Presumably you saw TV ads, wherein triumphant
homeowners defeated hordes of evil, cartoon
weed demons with only a spray bottle, then proceeded
to the backyard, superhero style, for a relaxing
barbecue, without fear that their loved ones might
be attacked by man-eating dandelions or crabgrass
monsters. If ads like that work, even on scientific
experts like yourself who know what DNA is, then
who needs Monsanto lobbying and sham studies?
They convinced you to buy and use their toxic chemicals,
which you don't need, at your own house, and all it
took was cartoon TV ads.
I can only hope for your sake that Monsanto
doesn't decide to remarket Roundup as a mouthwash
or jock itch cure.

On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 12:49:05 PM UTC-5, songbird wrote:
trader_4 wrote:
...
As usual, just hyperbole, totally devoid of any fact.
Speaking of fact, where's the cite I've asked for 10 times
now to backup your claim that Monsanto "forced" farmers to use
their product?

last year a farmer lost a claim that he wanted to be
compensated for a loss on his property due to GMO
contamination (he was an organic farmer using non M
seeds, a neighbor planted GMO seed and infected his
crop and he lost his organic certification).

the decision is being appealed:

http://www.theland.com.au/news/agric...px?storypage=0

That's an interesting case, but it has nothing to do with Monsanto
"forcing" anyone to use their seed, which is what was claimed.

What I didn't see in that article was any reference to exactly
what the level of contamination was. I did see the defendent state
this:

"He said Mr Marsh only found nine plants growing on his property 12 months after the GM swaths blew over from his farm. "

The court ruling said:

"The judgement was also highly critical of processes used by Mr Marsh's organic certifier, the National Association for Sustainable Agriculture Australia, and its zero tolerance for GM crops. "


Which doesn't surprise me, because in almost every case I've seen,
the environmental, hippie nuts are totally unreasonable. So, I wouldn't
be surprised that they had some extreme, zero tolerance standard
because they have an irrational fear of GMO and many other things.





in my own area there are GMO beets, corn and
soybeans grown (and probably others) these are forced
upon me in that i have no way to isolate my crops from
the surrounding fields. my only recourse is to not
grow them.

Why is that the only recourse? From what I understand, your
whole crop won't become contaminated. There is the probability
that some small contamination through pollination will occur.
Given that rat droppings and worse are tolerated in crops for human consumption, it seems like an overreaction to me.



i already have a non-GMO alfalfa patch growing that
has taken me several years to get going. if it becomes
infected with GMO alfalfa i will not know it, there is
no testing place i can send samples to that will verify
it as non-GMO without some expense to me. this is an
additional expense that was not there before. the same
goes for every other non-GMO crop that i grow that might
become infected from the surrounding fields.

That would seem to be a legitimate problem. The question
is, if there is a GMO crop nearby, what exactly is the range
of innocent contamination that's possible? If 90% of your
crop can get contaminated, then I would agree it's a problem.
If .01% typically can get contaminated, then it's a different
story and gets back to the zero tolerance issue.




the low cost approach for annuals used to be that you
could save your seeds from year to year and know that
there was no problem. now for annuals to ensure non-GMO
seeds i'd have to source and buy them each time i plant
or risk contamination (and that forces you to trust the
seed growers to test and properly get things right).


The same question would apply. How likely is it that some
innocent contamination would then contaminate next year's
crop to the point that it doesn't meet non-GMO standards?
If it's easy to get it contaminated in just one or a few growing
cycles to the point that it's not certifiable as non-GMO,
then I agree that's a problem. It would force you to do
some testing and then start over with new seed when needed,
which would increase your costs.




for the biannuals or perennials it's worse because to
get an alfalfa field established takes several years or
to harvest a beet seed crop takes a few years.

the GMO folks don't care and have the courts and laws
stacked against the small gardener or the organic farmer.


How exactly did the GMO folks allegedly stack the courts?
Sounds like hyperbole to me.



instead of requiring GMO contamination to be remediated
by the GMO companies they just certify it all as ok and
then those of us who don't want it are forced to work
around their BS. and it is BS. whoever thinks that GMO
alfalfa was a good idea is a complete idiot, but they
fit right into the poisoner and big ag mentality which
has destroyed the land and poisoned the water and air.


Here comes the extremism. The big ag mentality feeds the
world. Won't someone please think of the starving children?



most of the people who think this isn't a problem are
old and almost dead.

More hyperbole.


poisoners who spray large areas of
land. the problem is that to protect your own lands from
poisoners you have to have enough money to buy a large
enough space. poor folks and small growers aren't going
to be able to afford that much space.


songbird

One approach would seem to be to coordinate with your neighbors
so that you plant different crops, if you have the same crops,
they plant their GMO crop as far as possible from yours and
vice-versa.

On Saturday, February 14, 2015 at 8:09:42 AM UTC-5, Mayayana wrote:
| The key issue there would seem to be:
|
| A - Is glyposate at the levels found in foods consumed by people
| a poison? Bleach is a "poison", yet it's added to municipal
| water systems. So is flouride, which is also added to many
| water systems.
|
| B - What amount of glyphosate is left when the crop is consumed?
| And is that level harmful? Crops are sprayed with a variety of
| chemicals prior to harvest, eg insecticides. If that is OK, then
| what is so unique about glyphosate on GMO crops?
|
| So, my reply covered points A & B pretty well I think.
|

Except that glyphosate wasn't the issue being
discussed. GMOs was. You picked a post from
someone who doesn't understand -- and doesn't
want to understand -- the threat of GMOs.

Say what? Did someone hijack your PC and post this:

"Which is what I did, as I explained. I went
to EPA and downloaded their PDF info file on
glyphosate -- the one that *you* referenced
in your posted quote. It's dated 1993. "

There you are, discussing glyphosate.




But
I think we've pretty much wrung that one dry,
anyway. Your "scientific" opinion is that all GMOs
are healthy to eat so long as you don't think about
it and keep jogging. So... bon appetit.


It's not just his scientific opinion. It's the opinion
of most of the scientific community. You haven't provided
us with a single study that says GMO is harmful.



| So, one can drink a significant amount of Roundup and
| not get real sick. It's not something to spray in the air to keep
| cool, but spot application on weeds in my yard doesn't sound like a
| risk.

Which has nothing to do with the implications
of GMOs. But at least now I see where your view is
coming from.

It does address glyphosate though, which *you* were discussing.
Good grief.



You're spraying toxic chemicals on your own
land because you don't feel like bending down
to pull weeds? And what are you not risking?
Lowering your property values? It sounds to me
like you never considered risk in the first place.
Nor did you want to, because then you might
have to sacrifice some convenience and do yard
work.


Now the loony birds are really starting to sing. I'd like
to see you pull weeds on a large area. Not everyone has
just a 5ft x 5 area to deal with, you know.



Presumably you saw TV ads, wherein triumphant
homeowners defeated hordes of evil, cartoon
weed demons with only a spray bottle, then proceeded
to the backyard, superhero style, for a relaxing
barbecue, without fear that their loved ones might
be attacked by man-eating dandelions or crabgrass
monsters. If ads like that work, even on scientific
experts like yourself who know what DNA is, then
who needs Monsanto lobbying and sham studies?
They convinced you to buy and use their toxic chemicals,
which you don't need, at your own house, and all it
took was cartoon TV ads.
I can only hope for your sake that Monsanto
doesn't decide to remarket Roundup as a mouthwash
or jock itch cure.

More loon hyperbole. Stop, just stop already. He presented
you with what looks like a balanced article at wiki on glyphosate.
It has no hysteria and overall the risks from glyphosate appear
very low.

trader_4 wrote:
songbird wrote:
trader_4 wrote:
...
As usual, just hyperbole, totally devoid of any fact.
Speaking of fact, where's the cite I've asked for 10 times
now to backup your claim that Monsanto "forced" farmers to use
their product?

last year a farmer lost a claim that he wanted to be
compensated for a loss on his property due to GMO
contamination (he was an organic farmer using non M
seeds, a neighbor planted GMO seed and infected his
crop and he lost his organic certification).

the decision is being appealed:

http://www.theland.com.au/news/agric...px?storypage=0

That's an interesting case, but it has nothing to do with Monsanto
"forcing" anyone to use their seed, which is what was claimed.

What I didn't see in that article was any reference to exactly
what the level of contamination was. I did see the defendent state
this:

"He said Mr Marsh only found nine plants growing on his property 12 months after the GM swaths blew over from his farm. "

The court ruling said:

"The judgement was also highly critical of processes used by Mr Marsh's organic certifier, the National Association for Sustainable Agriculture Australia, and its zero tolerance for GM crops. "

if i don't want GMO crops, i have zero tolerance for
them, i don't see that as a problem, i do not want
GMO anything on my land. i am being forced to accept
contamination constantly.

this is not an issue of a radical liberal, it's the
opinion of someone understands that if someone damages
me or my land it is a crime. personal property is
the issue and personal values. i don't want poison on
my land. i don't spray it any longer and i don't want
it in the air or in the water or in the dust or in
the pollen. what is hard to understand about that?


Which doesn't surprise me, because in almost every case I've seen,
the environmental, hippie nuts are totally unreasonable. So, I wouldn't
be surprised that they had some extreme, zero tolerance standard
because they have an irrational fear of GMO and many other things.

it isn't irrational to want to keep our plants
uncontaminated by GMO technologies no matter if
those technolgies are found to be harmful later on
or not. i already think they have been shown to
be harmful so i do not want any of them around.


in my own area there are GMO beets, corn and
soybeans grown (and probably others) these are forced
upon me in that i have no way to isolate my crops from
the surrounding fields. my only recourse is to not
grow them.

Why is that the only recourse? From what I understand, your
whole crop won't become contaminated. There is the probability
that some small contamination through pollination will occur.

how can i determine from looking at a soybean if it
is contaminated or not? i can't. same for corn, beets,
etc. the technology is invisible to the unaided eye
or easy other means of testing.


Given that rat droppings and worse are tolerated in crops for human consumption, it seems like an overreaction to me.

you complain about hyperbole and hysteria and the use of
negative phrasing, but you engage in it just as well.


i already have a non-GMO alfalfa patch growing that
has taken me several years to get going. if it becomes
infected with GMO alfalfa i will not know it, there is
no testing place i can send samples to that will verify
it as non-GMO without some expense to me. this is an
additional expense that was not there before. the same
goes for every other non-GMO crop that i grow that might
become infected from the surrounding fields.

That would seem to be a legitimate problem. The question
is, if there is a GMO crop nearby, what exactly is the range
of innocent contamination that's possible? If 90% of your
crop can get contaminated, then I would agree it's a problem.
If .01% typically can get contaminated, then it's a different
story and gets back to the zero tolerance issue.

no, the issue originally in question was whether i'm
being forced to use M technology. i am. i have no way
to avoid it now that GMO alfalfa is out. it will only
be a matter of time before my previously uncontaminated
alfalfa patch will contain GMO alfalfa plants.


the low cost approach for annuals used to be that you
could save your seeds from year to year and know that
there was no problem. now for annuals to ensure non-GMO
seeds i'd have to source and buy them each time i plant
or risk contamination (and that forces you to trust the
seed growers to test and properly get things right).


The same question would apply. How likely is it that some
innocent contamination would then contaminate next year's
crop to the point that it doesn't meet non-GMO standards?

if there is one plant with a GMO residue of any kind
in it then it's one plant too many. this is my standard.
you may not agree with that standard and that's fine with
me, but i seem to recall some provision of the Constitution
i live under giving me rights to personal property and that
it cannot be taken away without due process or compensation.


If it's easy to get it contaminated in just one or a few growing
cycles to the point that it's not certifiable as non-GMO,
then I agree that's a problem. It would force you to do
some testing and then start over with new seed when needed,
which would increase your costs.

yep, exactly. a cost i previously did not have
unless i wanted different seeds, but those used to
all be non-GMO by definition, they were all produced
by natural cross-pollenation or hybridization techniques
which do not operate in the same manner as what has
been done to derive many GMO crops.


for the biannuals or perennials it's worse because to
get an alfalfa field established takes several years or
to harvest a beet seed crop takes a few years.

the GMO folks don't care and have the courts and laws
stacked against the small gardener or the organic farmer.


How exactly did the GMO folks allegedly stack the courts?
Sounds like hyperbole to me.

no, read up on any case related to GMO contamination
these days.

i just found out about GMO apples. cripes, there goes
another crop the government is going to screw up. i've
just been forced out of the apple business.


instead of requiring GMO contamination to be remediated
by the GMO companies they just certify it all as ok and
then those of us who don't want it are forced to work
around their BS. and it is BS. whoever thinks that GMO
alfalfa was a good idea is a complete idiot, but they
fit right into the poisoner and big ag mentality which
has destroyed the land and poisoned the water and air.


Here comes the extremism. The big ag mentality feeds the
world. Won't someone please think of the starving children?

no, it really doesn't, the mythology of big ag is
false, in time it has shown repeatedly to degrade the
lands, to poison animals and to kill workers exposed
repeatedly to toxins, to pollute the ground water,
streams and rivers, to kill off large areas of what
used to be productive oceans, kill corals, etc.

it is a horrible and destructive scam.

the starving children is the usual response, but any
educated person who's actually studied the issue finds
that starvation is not an issue of production it is a
problem of social instabilities, poor distribution,
corruption and get this often it relates to degraded
environments brought on by, you can guess it, big ag.

i can point you to many cases of productive systems
which can feed people that do not need big ag in any
manner. actual working results, not scams, not made
up, documented, solid.

this also includes my own experiences here in food
production. i can outproduce in variety of foods and
quality any of the farms around me and i don't need
*cides of any kind to do it.


most of the people who think this isn't a problem are
old and almost dead.

More hyperbole.

look up the age of the farmer and the trends...


poisoners who spray large areas of
land. the problem is that to protect your own lands from
poisoners you have to have enough money to buy a large
enough space. poor folks and small growers aren't going
to be able to afford that much space.

One approach would seem to be to coordinate with your neighbors
so that you plant different crops, if you have the same crops,
they plant their GMO crop as far as possible from yours and
vice-versa.

they won't change a thing, i've asked repeatedly.

i can only avoid contamination by not planting related
crops. as you can see above, i'm losing crop choices by
continued GMO developments. as it is i'm repeatedly
sprayed and polluted.

people who are doing this are not really understanding
what they are doing. any person with open eyes who
watches the natural world and the processes sees the
damage done to various organisms, the soil, the water
the air...

you may say that i no longer have any right to keep
GMO organisms from my lands, but i don't agree with you.
that is a moral argument as much as a scientific one,
right down to the root of it, the right of a person
to have an individual belief or a religion, the right of
the person to have property and to control the results
of their labor. if i'm growing any one GMO plant it is
not by choice. that to me is the definition of force,
but our society is moving beyond personal freedoms so
this is yet another version of that happening too. i
don't like it and i don't accept it and will work to
prevent it.


songbird

On Saturday, February 14, 2015 at 10:45:45 AM UTC-5, songbird wrote:


if i don't want GMO crops, i have zero tolerance for
them, i don't see that as a problem, i do not want
GMO anything on my land. i am being forced to accept
contamination constantly.


When you have a zero tolearance policy, it frequently is
a problem. How about if I have a zero tolerance policy
with regard to some small amount of dust coming onto
my property when my neighbor mows his lawn? You could
come up with plenty of similar examples.




this is not an issue of a radical liberal, it's the
opinion of someone understands that if someone damages
me or my land it is a crime.

Apparenly prosecutors disagree. I don't see anyone being
charged criminally and looks like even in civil court your
side isn't winning.



personal property is
the issue and personal values. i don't want poison on
my land. i don't spray it any longer and i don't want
it in the air or in the water or in the dust or in
the pollen. what is hard to understand about that?


Nothing hard to understand. It's just that it's an extreme
position. There is no scientific evidence that GMO is poison.
And the courts apparently don't agree with you. I could
believe that my neighbor's dust is poison too.





Which doesn't surprise me, because in almost every case I've seen,
the environmental, hippie nuts are totally unreasonable. So, I wouldn't
be surprised that they had some extreme, zero tolerance standard
because they have an irrational fear of GMO and many other things.

it isn't irrational to want to keep our plants
uncontaminated by GMO technologies no matter if
those technolgies are found to be harmful later on
or not. i already think they have been shown to
be harmful so i do not want any of them around.


You're entitled to your opinion. Most scientists and the
courts disagree. So far, in all these two threads about GMO,
I haven't seen one actual scientific paper cited that shows
GMO is poison, dangerous or harmful.




in my own area there are GMO beets, corn and
soybeans grown (and probably others) these are forced
upon me in that i have no way to isolate my crops from
the surrounding fields. my only recourse is to not
grow them.

Why is that the only recourse? From what I understand, your
whole crop won't become contaminated. There is the probability
that some small contamination through pollination will occur.

how can i determine from looking at a soybean if it
is contaminated or not? i can't. same for corn, beets,
etc. the technology is invisible to the unaided eye
or easy other means of testing.


How can I determine if the small amount of dust from my neighbor
has contaminated my property? I think the point here is that science
says GMO is not harmful. And even if it is, if you wind up with .0001%
on your property, at that level it almost surely wouldn't be harmful.
Farms aren't clean rooms are they?



Given that rat droppings and worse are tolerated in crops for human consumption, it seems like an overreaction to me.

you complain about hyperbole and hysteria and the use of
negative phrasing, but you engage in it just as well.


I don't know what that has to do with what I stated. It's acceptable
for grain crops to have some minor contamination with rat droppings,
insects, etc. So, I don't see the big deal if it's similarly contaminated
with some negligible amount of GMO. If we had a zero tolerance, I can't
live with any contamination of anything in crops, it would be a pretty
crazy world.





i already have a non-GMO alfalfa patch growing that
has taken me several years to get going. if it becomes
infected with GMO alfalfa i will not know it, there is
no testing place i can send samples to that will verify
it as non-GMO without some expense to me. this is an
additional expense that was not there before. the same
goes for every other non-GMO crop that i grow that might
become infected from the surrounding fields.

That would seem to be a legitimate problem. The question
is, if there is a GMO crop nearby, what exactly is the range
of innocent contamination that's possible? If 90% of your
crop can get contaminated, then I would agree it's a problem.
If .01% typically can get contaminated, then it's a different
story and gets back to the zero tolerance issue.

no, the issue originally in question was whether i'm
being forced to use M technology. i am.

I see, so there is no room for reason. If one GMO plant winds up
on an acre of your property, game over, Monsanto is "forcing you".
That's extreme.


i have no way
to avoid it now that GMO alfalfa is out. it will only
be a matter of time before my previously uncontaminated
alfalfa patch will contain GMO alfalfa plants.


How about if the next door farmer who plants GMO, has an
irrational fear of non-GMO. My God! You're contaminating his
land, similarly, by some tiny amount of whatever you're growing
showing up there. If a soybean wound up in his corn field, OMG,
think of the catastrophe.




the low cost approach for annuals used to be that you
could save your seeds from year to year and know that
there was no problem. now for annuals to ensure non-GMO
seeds i'd have to source and buy them each time i plant
or risk contamination (and that forces you to trust the
seed growers to test and properly get things right).


The same question would apply. How likely is it that some
innocent contamination would then contaminate next year's
crop to the point that it doesn't meet non-GMO standards?

if there is one plant with a GMO residue of any kind
in it then it's one plant too many.

Now you're sounding like a typical nutty hippie.


this is my standard.
you may not agree with that standard and that's fine with
me, but i seem to recall some provision of the Constitution
i live under giving me rights to personal property and that
it cannot be taken away without due process or compensation.


Take it to the courts then. From what I see, they don't agree.
Probably because they apply some measure of reasonableness and
aren't extremist.





If it's easy to get it contaminated in just one or a few growing
cycles to the point that it's not certifiable as non-GMO,
then I agree that's a problem. It would force you to do
some testing and then start over with new seed when needed,
which would increase your costs.

yep, exactly. a cost i previously did not have
unless i wanted different seeds, but those used to
all be non-GMO by definition, they were all produced
by natural cross-pollenation or hybridization techniques
which do not operate in the same manner as what has
been done to derive many GMO crops.


So, you pass the cost on to your customers for your 100%
absolutely pure product that they are paying premium prices for.
Somehow I suspect that the buyers aren't the real problem at all.




for the biannuals or perennials it's worse because to
get an alfalfa field established takes several years or
to harvest a beet seed crop takes a few years.

the GMO folks don't care and have the courts and laws
stacked against the small gardener or the organic farmer.


How exactly did the GMO folks allegedly stack the courts?
Sounds like hyperbole to me.

no, read up on any case related to GMO contamination
these days.


I just read two cases that were cited here. I didn't see a thing
about GMO people stacking the courts. You made the claim, you
prove it.



i just found out about GMO apples. cripes, there goes
another crop the government is going to screw up. i've
just been forced out of the apple business.


No, it's just your whacky beliefs that are forcing you out.
It's like me running away from my house, claiming everything
is contaminated, I can't live here anymore, because some dust
blows over from the neighbor cutting his lawn.




instead of requiring GMO contamination to be remediated
by the GMO companies they just certify it all as ok and
then those of us who don't want it are forced to work
around their BS. and it is BS. whoever thinks that GMO
alfalfa was a good idea is a complete idiot, but they
fit right into the poisoner and big ag mentality which
has destroyed the land and poisoned the water and air.


Here comes the extremism. The big ag mentality feeds the
world. Won't someone please think of the starving children?

no, it really doesn't, the mythology of big ag is
false, in time it has shown repeatedly to degrade the
lands, to poison animals and to kill workers exposed
repeatedly to toxins, to pollute the ground water,
streams and rivers, to kill off large areas of what
used to be productive oceans, kill corals, etc.

it is a horrible and destructive scam.


No, you're a loon. Modern agriculture is feeding the world.
If we listened to extremists like you, we'd be back in caves.


the starving children is the usual response, but any
educated person who's actually studied the issue finds
that starvation is not an issue of production it is a
problem of social instabilities, poor distribution,
corruption and get this often it relates to degraded
environments brought on by, you can guess it, big ag.

Then we should all be starving here in the USA. There
goes that nonsense.



i can point you to many cases of productive systems
which can feed people that do not need big ag in any
manner. actual working results, not scams, not made
up, documented, solid.


Then go do it, put big AG out of business and make yourself
rich. Good grief.




this also includes my own experiences here in food
production. i can outproduce in variety of foods and
quality any of the farms around me and i don't need
*cides of any kind to do it.


most of the people who think this isn't a problem are
old and almost dead.

More hyperbole.

look up the age of the farmer and the trends...


Typical farmer isn't going to know squat about the safety of
GMO. You do many studies?




poisoners who spray large areas of
land. the problem is that to protect your own lands from
poisoners you have to have enough money to buy a large
enough space. poor folks and small growers aren't going
to be able to afford that much space.

One approach would seem to be to coordinate with your neighbors
so that you plant different crops, if you have the same crops,
they plant their GMO crop as far as possible from yours and
vice-versa.

they won't change a thing, i've asked repeatedly.


Given what I've heard here regarding your zero tolerance views,
I think they might have a reason.




i can only avoid contamination by not planting related
crops. as you can see above, i'm losing crop choices by
continued GMO developments. as it is i'm repeatedly
sprayed and polluted.

people who are doing this are not really understanding
what they are doing. any person with open eyes who
watches the natural world and the processes sees the
damage done to various organisms, the soil, the water
the air...


Sounds more like I just know it to be true. How does one
see with open eyes whether GMO is poison or not? What level
of glyphosate is toxic?



you may say that i no longer have any right to keep
GMO organisms from my lands, but i don't agree with you.
that is a moral argument as much as a scientific one,
right down to the root of it, the right of a person
to have an individual belief or a religion, the right of
the person to have property and to control the results
of their labor. if i'm growing any one GMO plant it is
not by choice. that to me is the definition of force,
but our society is moving beyond personal freedoms so
this is yet another version of that happening too. i
don't like it and i don't accept it and will work to
prevent it.


songbird

To me when not even one plant contaminating an acre is
acceptable, it's the definition of an extremist, loon position.
And that's my problem with the whole environmentalist movement.
It's extremist. In the end, virtually nothing is ever acceptable.

"Mayayana" writes:

You're spraying toxic chemicals on your own
land because you don't feel like bending down
to pull weeds? And what are you not risking?
Lowering your property values? It sounds to me
like you never considered risk in the first place.
Nor did you want to, because then you might
have to sacrifice some convenience and do yard
work.

Still playing the idiot I see.

I pull plenty of weeds but when it comes to the poison ivy in the
pachysandra, I'm going to paint the leaves with Roundup.
When it comes to killing the sprouts coming out of a cut down
tree stump, I'm still going with Roundup.

Presumably you saw TV ads, wherein triumphant
homeowners defeated hordes of evil, cartoon
weed demons with only a spray bottle, then proceeded
to the backyard, superhero style, for a relaxing
barbecue, without fear that their loved ones might
be attacked by man-eating dandelions or crabgrass
monsters. If ads like that work, even on scientific
experts like yourself who know what DNA is, then
who needs Monsanto lobbying and sham studies?
They convinced you to buy and use their toxic chemicals,
which you don't need, at your own house, and all it
took was cartoon TV ads.
I can only hope for your sake that Monsanto
doesn't decide to remarket Roundup as a mouthwash
or jock itch cure.

You insult me, I'm going to return the favor.

Jerk.

--
Dan Espen

http://www.anh-usa.org/half-of-all-c...entist-at-mit/

On 02/14/2015 03:40 AM, Shadow wrote:
You were babbling from the beginning. I suggest you read up DM
II. From a real source. Vanadyl Sulfate is a fad.

Hi Shadow,

Where did you get that? I would seriously like to know.

There is solid research that it works. It also
worked on me. I researched it throughly before
I start using it. I am a big believer in the
scientific method.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24842144

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25215302

"VOSO4 treatment normalized plasma glucose and insulin
levels and improved insulin sensitivity in
STZ-experimental diabetes and induced beta cells
proliferation and/or regeneration in normal or diabetic
rats.

Hmmmm. The effect lasts after the treatment is discontinued.
Something that heals, not just an endless treatment.

If you have T2 Diabetes, it won't hurt you to try it. There
are no side effects. It takes about a months to see a result.
Bear in mind you have to remove the insult and get you
carbs down for it to work.

-T