Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    5:45 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Are GMO foods safe? Back to Topics
flyboyUT

Champion Author
Utah

Posts:30,577
Points:1,757,565
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2013 1:47:22 PM

Shoddy and biased research was used to try and show they are not it seems. More deception by environmentalists to get the answers they want it seems.
.
.
>>>GMO opponents use a lot of shady evidence to try to demonstrate that genetically modified organisms are bad for human health, but no evidence is more infamous than the study looking into the “Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize” in 2012. And fortunately for science, technological progress and Facebook arguments everywhere, the journal that originally published this study has printed a retraction after an investigation of lax research practices.
.
.
.
The retraction of this study is a victory not only for proponents of GMOs and scientific innovation, but also a blow against the use of junk science and research. New technologies will always have naysayers and fearmongers following their development. The showboat, pseudoscientific attacks by anti-GMO activists have the same intentions as Thomas Edison filming the electrocution of a circus elephant, to scare the hell out of people about a new technology.

With the battle for GMO labeling beginning in the United States and already raging in Europe, consumers need to be armed with the facts, not junk science. And when even the journal that published the original GMO tumor study has published a study showing that GMOs cause no harm to humans, the anti-GMO activists begin to look like they have very little evidence to stand on. GMOs can not only help to more efficiently grow crops, but also can help to lower food costs and bring nutrient enhanced food to people starving in third world countries.<<<

We need honest discussions of matters like this - not politically motivated junk science.

REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
timothyu
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:19,477
Points:236,885
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Apr 20, 2015 3:58:10 PM



“An entire department” (waving his arm for emphasis) dedicated to “debunking” science which disagreed with theirs.”
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:30,577
Points:1,757,565
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Apr 19, 2015 6:34:10 PM

Tim while the source is shaky the content is nonsensical at best. You live in the village of DeLusion on the river DeNile...
Profile Pic
timothyu
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:19,477
Points:236,885
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Apr 19, 2015 6:28:14 PM

The fact the original source was Reuters goes right over some heads just as the content does.
Profile Pic
daylily2009
Champion Author Fayetteville

Posts:2,727
Points:1,341,775
Joined:Oct 2009
Message Posted: Apr 19, 2015 6:12:16 PM

I hope so!
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:30,577
Points:1,757,565
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Apr 19, 2015 5:33:31 PM

Yes Timmy its time four you to go to bed.
Profile Pic
timothyu
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:19,477
Points:236,885
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Apr 19, 2015 5:26:35 PM


Yawn
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:30,577
Points:1,757,565
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Apr 19, 2015 4:08:40 PM

Tim your sources are "interesting" to put it mildly. RT - the Russian source????? Really?????

Tim you really need to get a clue.....
Profile Pic
timothyu
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:19,477
Points:236,885
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Apr 19, 2015 12:19:22 PM



'industrial agriculture uses 70% of the world’s agricultural resources to produce just 30% of the global food supply, while small-scale farmers provide 70% of the global food supply while using only 30% of agricultural resources'
Profile Pic
timothyu
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:19,477
Points:236,885
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Apr 3, 2015 12:41:04 PM


Common sense application of the brakes
Profile Pic
timothyu
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:19,477
Points:236,885
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Apr 2, 2015 3:46:56 PM



Feed the world or megalomania?
Profile Pic
timothyu
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:19,477
Points:236,885
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Mar 29, 2015 9:57:56 PM


Mockery passes as intelligence?
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:30,577
Points:1,757,565
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Mar 29, 2015 9:10:27 PM

Tim - yada yada yada ---- lots of treehugger balderdash claims but no good information. Next your going to tell us that the sky is falling and we all gonna die from excess CO2 in the air displacing all the oxygen or something.
Profile Pic
timothyu
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:19,477
Points:236,885
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Mar 29, 2015 8:34:11 PM


'Tim the reason the farmers buy the improved seed from the suppliers is they make more money using improved seed.'

You mean to make enough to keep up to the yearly purchase of now patented seed instead of using their own? Or perhaps to keep up to the growing cost of chemical as more is needed to keep up the depleted and chemically killed soil and keep up with the mutation of plant matter overcoming existing chemicals? It a viscous circle that only Monsanto ever wins.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:30,577
Points:1,757,565
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Mar 29, 2015 8:25:59 PM

If every year we produce double the food needed where does it go?

I have this strange feeling that that figure might be suspect.

Tim the reason the farmers buy the improved seed from the suppliers is they make more money using improved seed. This allows them to stay in business as farmers. If farmers had to use the same seed as they did fifty years ago the crop yields would be so low that they could not afford to keep farming. Thats how I see it anyway....For fun - look up the effects of the work of Norm Borlaug and how he played with rice.
Profile Pic
timothyu
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:19,477
Points:236,885
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Mar 29, 2015 8:04:01 PM

At present the world produces almost double yearly the food needed. This is more a matter of profit from a closed system of produce where the supplier always profits even if the producer loses. Agriculture is a yearly gamble for a farmer but if you own the seed and the chemicals you always win.

[Edited by: timothyu at 3/29/2015 8:05:33 PM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:30,577
Points:1,757,565
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Mar 29, 2015 7:53:33 PM

And Tim your going to say that the past manipulation of genes has no possible effects? Come on look at the real world.

When and if we know that a certain GMO organism/plant does in fact present a hazard then yes by all means we need to remove it from production and take steps to safeguard the food supply - no question on that at all. But to base your decisions on research done by people with an objective in mind and research that cannot be replicated by other folks then it is foolish.

But and listen to this now --- if in fact we do find one plant produced via this method that does not indicate that all GMO technology should be scrapped.

But please dont try to say that research that measures a chemical in food in PPT proves a chemical is a hazard when its found in much much higher concentrations in the real world.

By the way when are you going to try to attempt to deal with the effects of the lowered food production if you get your wishes? What is your answer to the food shortages?
Profile Pic
timothyu
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:19,477
Points:236,885
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Mar 29, 2015 12:00:58 PM

Having a name to call somebody certainly does not up your cred, but it does create a great team mentality where us against them becomes more important that facts.

Ultimately we are what we eat and when plants were created by grafting we were guaranteed a modified version of a natural food nature perfectly developed. Now we have foreign genes implanted to manipulate outcome rather than food value with no clear consensus yet on what that alteration will do to us as we become what we eat.

Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:30,577
Points:1,757,565
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Mar 29, 2015 10:36:53 AM

Rumble you dont follow my reasoning very well it seems - or maybe I am unclear.

I have never said that those corporations exist "only to feed us". They exists, like all corporations, to make a fair profit for the owners of the companies. The fact that they also produce good things in the process is part of the way things work. They produce what people want and that will benefit them and they sell it and make a profit.

Then you jump to the absurd again with the statement of -"They could never harm us, so to do research into their products is a ridiculous waste, and the results of it are to be dismissed out of hand.".

Once more a gross distortion of what reality is. Any corporation is apt to or could cause damage. No one but a fool would say otherwise.

Yes we do need to conduct honest fair research into potential problems with the products and processes of a corporation. But when you start using "research" that says amounts of a chemical measured in PPT in food can cause harmful things and that the corporations dont care that is ridiculous at best and sheer stupidity in fact.

It is especially outrageous when that exact same chemical is registered by the govt for use around homes to poison weeds and people use (and abuse) it and are exposed to vastly higher doses in the process of normal use. You are crying that these corporations dont care if they poison our food but say nothing about the govt saying it is just fine to use the same stuff in a way that results in orders of magnitude higher rates of human exposure to the exact same chemical.

Rumble if you want to have a reasonable discussion of the consequences of GMO foods fine we can do so but dont try to insult people by such tactics as that - its asinine.

As to the question of patenting of work and products - what do your laws say Rumble - if you dont like the laws then advocate to change them - but dont play the silly games the Luddite treehuggers and environmentalists play.

By the way there are many more companies than Monsanto involved in modern farming. Are you going to go after them too?

.
.
.
.

I do notice that for whatever reason you have tried to avoid dealing with the question of crop yields and the consequences of not using modern farming methods.

TELL ME RUMBLE - IF YOU GET YOUR DESIRE (WHICH SEEMS TO BE TO ABOLISH MONSANTO AND ALL GMO CROPS) HOW DO YOU PLAN TO REPLACE THE LOST CROP YIELDS?
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:26,488
Points:3,947,635
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Mar 29, 2015 12:34:45 AM

From timothy's link: "if it goes through as written, will dramatically expand the power of corporations to use closed-door tribunals to challenge—and supersede—domestic laws, including environmental, labor, and public health, and other protections"

But going by flyboy's reasoning, these corporations only exist to feed us, and to make our lives healthier and more productive. They could never harm us, so to do research into their products is a ridiculous waste, and the results of it are to be dismissed out of hand.
Monsanto has only sued hundreds of small farmers, many of whom never dealt with Monsanto, to show us how much they care for us.

"Can living organisms be owned by corporate patents? What about a farmer’s right to grow organic crops? What about a farmer’s right to use his own seed? And,
Who can patent life?
In this case, it is a single gene put into the canola seed that makes the canola plant immune to the herbicide roundup. Because Monsanto put this single gene into the canola plant, does this mean that Monsanto can patent the entire plant?"
Who Owns Life? Canadian Farmer Sued by Monsanto
"Monsanto has sued many a farmer when their GM crops have turned up on the farmer's fields even though the farmers say they never planted them. Farmers who get into the Roundup-Ready (RR) System lose their independence, and are obliged to sign a lengthy and restrictive agreement."
Goliath and David: Monsanto's Legal Battles against Farmers

Monsanto doesn't have our best interests at heart, and they obviously have little respect for the farmers who feed us.

[Edited by: rumbleseat at 3/29/2015 12:36:06 AM EST]
Profile Pic
timothyu
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:19,477
Points:236,885
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Mar 28, 2015 1:18:17 PM


This is who the flys of the world defend
Profile Pic
PiqueOil
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:6,778
Points:812,300
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 28, 2015 11:40:41 AM


flyb's "reasoning" (better known as a kneejerk reaction) appears to be that chemicals in question can't possibly be dangerous.

"After all, them chemicals is commonly used to kill weeds, so how can they be dangerous? That don't make no sense! Next, your going to say theirs a difference tween 'your' and 'you're'!?!"

Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:20,716
Points:3,481,910
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 27, 2015 10:08:26 PM

>>But I do object to absolutely garbage "information"<<

Funny, he doesn't seem to object to 'absolutely garbage "information"' when he's the one posting it.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:30,577
Points:1,757,565
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Mar 27, 2015 6:58:25 PM

Yes I ridiculed the post. You are making the assertion that a common chemical that most homeowners have out in their garage and use around the house is dangerous to the point of being a cause of cancer if its found in amounts measured in PPT. That is utter nonsensical. So say 10PPT in your breakfast cereal is gonna kill you while you go out and spray it on the lawn and the mist comes back and coats your shorts covered legs and bare feet wearing flip flops?

As far as the Agent Orange - the problem was not Monsanto or the other manufacturers - it was the Army who would not listen to the chemical companies or follow the directions on how to use the herbicide.Oh yeah DDT ----- How many lives do you think were saved by that nasty ol stuff? HOw many folks died as a result of it being banned?

Tell you what will you next trot out harmful effects of the use of lead oxide as a tooth whitener in Europe around the 1700's or whenever and try to blame soem company for that too?

Rumble I have no problems holding a company responsible for intentional damage they do or falsifying research to increase profits.

But I do object to absolutely garbage "information" like parts per TRILLION of a chemical in food will cause major problems when that same chemical is in widespread use in almost all neighborhoods in orders of magnitude higher concentrations and exposures.
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:26,488
Points:3,947,635
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Mar 27, 2015 6:25:33 PM

No, you ridiculed the post, you have different standards of acceptance for data in what you post and like, and what others post that you don't like. Low concentrations don't mean they can be ignored as posing no danger.
No regulatory authority requires mandatory chronic animal feeding studies to be performed for edible GMOs and formulated pesticides, and the only 90 day feeding trials were conducted by the biotech industry.
So, if you like, go ahead and believe Monsanto, oner of the companies that manufactured DDT, Agent Orange, and PCBs has more interest in our safety than biotech researchers.
Monsanto spent $8.1 million opposing the passage of Proposition 37, which would have mandated the disclosure of genetically modified crops used in the production of California food products. It was the largest donor against the initiative. Surely they had nothing to hide?
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:20,716
Points:3,481,910
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 27, 2015 2:53:09 PM

>>I was writing up the NEPA document and heading up the project. This lady tried to sue us in Federal Court to stop the project unless we could Prove - yes PROVE - that one molecule of the herbicide would not enter the environment and cause her to develop cancer.<<

Maybe that lady figured it was an easily winnable case, since you never prove anything you write.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:30,577
Points:1,757,565
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Mar 27, 2015 10:12:50 AM

Rumble - I never said that breast cancer is nothing to be concerned about now did I? What I did say is that if you r going to get all wrought up and concerned about a concentration of one part per trillion parts of a chemical possibly in food might cause a cancer somewhere in someone you are bordering on the foolish for sure.

At the same time you are trying to say that this may be a major health hazard and that its only there because some people in a company are greedy while you ignore the fact that the chemical in question is very commonly used around the house to kill weeds you are purposely painting a false picture of concern.

If yo subscribe to that ideology of research that one PPT of a chemical may cause cancer then lets look at all the other known strong carcinogens that people are exposed to that we know have a much higher chance of causing cancer.

By the way just what caused all the cancers in the world before we had you bugaboo chemical.

Your concerns are flat out insignificant in terms of real danger.
Profile Pic
timothyu
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:19,477
Points:236,885
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Mar 26, 2015 11:35:16 PM


You mean to say global capitalism puts profits before people? Well, I'll be.
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:26,488
Points:3,947,635
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Mar 26, 2015 11:20:09 PM

Or maybe I should have just said
"its the principle that matters."
or "your beef is really with" the people who posted the research on the net.
But you might have those locked up for your own use.
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:26,488
Points:3,947,635
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Mar 26, 2015 10:58:53 PM

"You are trying to tell folks to be oh so concerned"

At a Glance - breast cancer stata from National Cancer Institute

Estimated New Cases in 2014 232,670
% of All New Cancer Cases14.0%

Estimated Deaths in 2014 40,000
% of All
Cancer Deaths 6.8%

Yeah, cancer is nothing to be concerned about.
No point in doing research and hedging bets on the side of safety, Monsanto only exists to protect us, just like the big oil companies, and the big pharmaceutical companies that only give usonder drugs.

[Edited by: rumbleseat at 3/26/2015 11:07:56 PM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:30,577
Points:1,757,565
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Mar 26, 2015 10:42:20 PM

Rumble - PPT--- PPB - give me a break - concentrations like that are a complete joke and you should know it.

People use many orders of magnitude more than that in their lives to control weeds around their homes.

You are trying to tell folks to be oh so concerned with concentrations of a herbicide so slight that only a few years ago could not be measured and today can probably only be accurately measured by a few labs in the entire world.

At the same time your saying this --- people are exposed to actual measurable amounts from the same herbicide that is stored in their garage. GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!!!!!

If the neighbor three houses down used it to kill weeds your getting so much more exposure that there is no possible way to say the food is contaminated.

You are beginning to remind me of the lady that tried to stop a herbicide spraying job on a couple of thousand acres of pine plantations in a National Forest about 1978 or so. I was writing up the NEPA document and heading up the project. This lady tried to sue us in Federal Court to stop the project unless we could Prove - yes PROVE - that one molecule of the herbicide would not enter the environment and cause her to develop cancer. She lived about 180 miles from the proposed project and multiple watersheds away. The herbicide was 2-4,D. That is the exact same stuff used to kill broadleaf weeds in peoples lawns and is one of the most used urban herbicides around. Its called "Weed-be-gone".

For some strange reason you are beginning to remind me of that lady.....

[Edited by: flyboyUT at 3/26/2015 10:43:55 PM EST]
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:26,488
Points:3,947,635
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Mar 26, 2015 8:57:35 PM

Glyphosate is a major component of Monsanto’s Roundup.

"A number of scientific studies surrounding glyphosate have shed light on the danger it posses to the human body. A new groundbreaking study has now found that the most active ingredient in Monsanto’s best selling herbicide “Roundup” is responsible for fuelling breast cancer by increasing the number of breast cancer cells through cell growth and cell division."
Groundbreaking Study Links Monsanto’s Glyphosate To Cancer

"Among the unsettling results of the Séralini study [1], which almost certainly lie behind its notorious retraction by the journal editor a year after it was published ([2] Retracting Seralini Study Violates Science & Ethics, SiS 61), are cancers in rats fed GM maize and/or exposed to Roundup. Although the word ‘cancer’ was never used by the authors, they recorded three ‘metastases’ (i.e., cancers) — two in females and one in a male — plus two kidney Wilm’s tumours in male rats, which had to be euthanized a year early because the cancerous tumours grew to more than 25 % of body size."
GM and herbicide cancer warning suppressed in retracted study

"A story broke that revealed glyphosate -- the chemical name of Roundup herbicide -- multiplies the proliferation of breast cancer cells by 500% to 1300%... even at exposures of just a few parts per trillion (ppt)."
"The study found that breast cancer cell proliferation is accelerated by glyphosate in extremely low concentrations: ppt to ppb. The greatest effect was observed in the ppb range, including single-digit ppb such as 1 ppb."
Toxic shock: California allows up to one thousand times more glyphosate in drinking water than needed to cause breast cancer in women
Profile Pic
reb4
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:26,540
Points:2,748,040
Joined:Sep 2004
Message Posted: Mar 26, 2015 8:43:59 PM

"Do you believe in little green men under the bed too?"


You mean there aren't?Green Giant...
Profile Pic
timothyu
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:19,477
Points:236,885
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Mar 26, 2015 8:39:33 PM


Biased against who?
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:30,577
Points:1,757,565
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Mar 26, 2015 6:53:04 PM

WHO is not biased?????? Do you believe in little green men under the bed too?
Profile Pic
timothyu
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:19,477
Points:236,885
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Mar 26, 2015 6:08:17 PM

WHO is not a biased organization and before Monsanto the world was handily kept fed save for slow distribution of sold product or emergency aide. What we did not have was third world countries forced to grow commodities for us but as a result not allowed to grow their own food in a day when you claim we can now feed the world.
We feed it now, not due to drought, but on the terms of the capitalist elite. That is what you really support.

Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:30,577
Points:1,757,565
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Mar 26, 2015 5:41:55 PM

The link just takes one to a place that says some unnamed study accepted by a biased organization is good while ignoring the research done by others. Pardon me if I wait for all sides to be heard and evaluated by people who know what they are talking about.

By the way Tim - you still haven't said just how you will go back to crop yields of yesteryear with todays populations and not have massive starvation.

Before the advent of modern hybrid seed, fertilizers, pesticides and other present day farming technology the yields of corn were about 30 bushels per acre. Today they are around 130 bushels per acre. Other crops have seen increases that are quite remarkable also.

Tell me Timmy - how are you gonna feed these folks.
Profile Pic
timothyu
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:19,477
Points:236,885
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Mar 26, 2015 12:52:10 PM


Monsanto upset an independent study challenges their own.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:30,577
Points:1,757,565
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2015 4:57:12 PM

Tim again you refuse to discuss the substance of the topic. You toss out accusations and when those are shown to be utter falsehoods you run back to your pseudoreligious garbage to hide.

Profile Pic
timothyu
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:19,477
Points:236,885
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2015 4:05:52 PM

Gotta love how you continually cheer on the wrong team. Gain regardless of cost to others. A true worldly being. BTW regardless of who is using it do two wrongs make one or the other right?

[Edited by: timothyu at 3/5/2015 4:07:32 PM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:30,577
Points:1,757,565
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2015 3:57:18 PM

And Tim your article was another huge pile of bullshine and propaganda but real light on fact.
.
.
.First of all the chemical companies did not spray any "Agent Orange" on anyone.

The chemical companies were given purchase orders/contracts by the US Government to produce the herbicide mix the military labeled "Agent Orange". It was called "agent Orange" because of the orange painted band on the barrels.

Now why was this so toxic - well the two parts of the mix were 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T in equal parts. The real problem with toxic effects was in a contaminant called 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin which was in the 2,4,5-T. The chemical companies that were told to produce massive amounts of it at short notice told the govt officials that the levels of the Dioxin contaminant would go sky high. The govt said to meet the schedule and the high contamination was acceptable. This level of contamination was orders of magnitude higher than what was produced for domestic production to use on golf courses and agricultural uses.

The chemical companies said to mix the concentrate in the barrels with roughly 8-10 gallons of water and 1-2 gallons of diesel oil or JP4 or some other oil product per gallon of the "Agent Orange". The reason for this oil was to act as a spreader sticker and to act to neutralize the Dioxin in a short time in the presence of sunlight. They were also supposed to avoid human habitation and waterways and only spray once or twice in a long period of time. As an aside - once in Italy a chemical process went bad and contaminated a town with 2,4,5-T with high levels of Dioxin. The people sprayed the contaminated surfaces with a solution of olive oil and fuel type oils (what they had handy) to decontaminate the place.

.
.

So what did the military do with their Agent Orange??????

Often they did not mix the product as specified by the chemical companies.
They often did not put any oil product in the mix.
They, on occasion, would use the concentrate right straight out of the barrel.
They sprayed the same area repeatedly.
They, on occasion, would purposely or accidentally spray people, villages and waterways.

So they repeatedly did multiple things that were not supposed to be done and you wonder why there were problems????? Gollllyeeee doing everything wrong causes problems - who wudda thunk it???

And yet you armchair quarterbacks come one here and start blowing smoke about how horrible it was. I suppose you will apply your same concerns about all other chemicals we encounter in modern life like for instance unleaded gas.

You know a couple of stiff drinks will not kill you. But if I force you to drink a gallon of whiskey you just might get hurt by it.

Oh by the way I sure do hope you dont eat peanut butter and a few other foods. They have a chemical in them called Aflatoxin, produced by fungi, that is chemically similar to Dioxin - you know that bad stuff in 2,4,5-T. It just happens to be one of the most carcinogenic substances known.

When you so called 'environmentalists' learn about what the heck your talking about come on back in to the discussion. But stop with the flat out lies and nonsensical garbage.

You remind me of the individual who was going to sue the folks I worked with for applying 2,4-D to a Pine Plantation. We were going to apply less per acre than is applied to lawns and golf courses to kill dandelions. We were going to apply it once in a 125 year rotation of the trees. We were going to apply it at least five watersheds and over 200 miles from her home.

She demanded that we prove that one molecule of the 2,4-D would not enter the environment and cause cancer in someone in her neighborhood. All the while all her neighbors were busy using Weed-B-Gone on their yards (chemically the same stuff).
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,758
Points:487,905
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2015 3:49:42 PM

"The truth is that RoundUp, in the form of glyphosate, is just another product of the military industrial complex, and an evolution of Agent Orange."

Not precisely the same exact chemical compound so they get to say it's not agent orange.

But it does the exact same thing as agent orange.

Which is why a Monsanto Killing Field looks so ugly.
Profile Pic
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:26,717
Points:4,044,340
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2015 3:25:51 PM

"Yet they stick sugar, predominantly from corn, unnecessarily into almost any manufactured product including milk."

Nobody is forcing you to eat anything you think is unhealthy. The milk I buy has no sweeteners added. Our pantry is full of products with no sugar added. Do I eat things with sugar added? Of course, but I choose to eat them. No one is forcing me or you as you implied several posts ago.
Profile Pic
timothyu
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:19,477
Points:236,885
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2015 2:52:19 PM

Yet they stick sugar, predominantly from corn, unnecessarily into almost any manufactured product including milk.
Profile Pic
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:26,717
Points:4,044,340
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2015 2:44:15 PM

"Good for you. So I am to presume that is all you live on?"

Of course not. It was meant to show how foolish it is to claim we are forced to live on sugar and starch.
Profile Pic
timothyu
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:19,477
Points:236,885
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2015 1:44:31 PM


RoundUp is not Agent Orange
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:30,577
Points:1,757,565
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2015 1:37:25 PM

"Basically, they come and spray it with Agent Orange (yes the same thing that caused so much trouble in Viet Nam) and it kills everything there."

Absolute pure bullshine Steve. You have little if any knowledge of what you are talking about!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Profile Pic
timothyu
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:19,477
Points:236,885
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2015 1:16:34 PM

Good for you. So I am to presume that is all you live on?
Profile Pic
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:26,717
Points:4,044,340
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2015 12:59:46 PM

"one of the richest continents in the world is forced to eat it."

I just brought home several bags of fresh fruits and vegetables from my local grocery store. Nobody forced me to buy sugar or starch.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,758
Points:487,905
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2015 12:48:33 PM

Ever seen a Monsanto Killing Field?

If you are driving in the country and come across a sickly red-brown field with absolutely nothing green and everything the same sickly color, THAT is a Monsanto Killing Field. Basically, they come and spray it with Agent Orange (yes the same thing that caused so much trouble in Viet Nam) and it kills everything there.

Then they come and plow it all under, thus adding insult to injury and destroying the structure of the soil, which turns it into a loose sand that repels moisture and forces a need for more irrigation than healthy soil.

Then they plant the genetically altered crops which have been modified to be able to survive in the poisoned sand.

And they have to over-water it to get them to grow. And they have to apply lots of pesticides and fertilizers to replace what would have been in the healthy soil.

And all of that run-off goes into streams and rivers polluting our waters, coasts and beaches and the basic food chain of the sea.

What a marvelous advancement.

NOT.

None of this would be necessary if we simply limited our human population to what the land could support naturally.

And we think we know so much to be able to do all of this. We think we are so fantastic and amazing.

What we know is enough to be dangerous.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:30,577
Points:1,757,565
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2015 10:38:14 PM

Tim - still no honest answers to valid questions I see.
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:26,488
Points:3,947,635
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2015 6:19:23 PM

"Before the FDA decided to allow GMOs into food without labeling, FDA scientists had repeatedly warned that GM foods can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects, including allergies, toxins, new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged long-term safety studies, but were ignored."

Genetically modified foods… Are they safe?

65 Health Risks of GM Foods
Post a reply Back to Topics