GM Foods and what they are doing to us...

[Katy]

Quote:
That sure would be nice, but with input costs raising faster than grain prices, I'm not holding my breath!! It would be nice tho to make enough money after expenses not to qualify for food stamps!!....and no I've never applied for them even tho most years we would qualify. We make do with what we have.

 

[Guitartists]

I've decided that I am not even going to continue with this thread......

I believed what I believed LONG before seeing the video in the thread and I don't appreciate being called "in not so many words" ignorant and/or niave for believing something that I saw in a video or read in an article. All the video did was, in my opinion, offer up more evidence to support the standing that I already had. I am being told not to believe what one researcher (or many) says, but rather to believe what another person says just based on their opinion.

I agree to disagree, and time will reveal the truth.

 

[seedcorn]

what one researcher (or many) says, but rather to believe what another person says just based on their opinion.


Name one recognized researcher (forget the many as that is not TRUE) that says glysophates are doing half what you believe. NAME ONE..........

Based on "my" opinion.....let's see FDA, USDA, every college research department, Monsanto's competitors, EU, Asian union, South American governments all say it's safe.....My does Monsanto have power to fool everyone. They must be Monsatan as they are kidded.

Edited for breaking rules 3,4 and 5

 

[tiki244]

Quote:
I agree with you guitarist and I have been to a University and studied in the science field: sometimes a person reacts strongly because they are passionate about it

 

[DuckyBoys]

Quote:
Certainly people are allowed to base opinions on emotions - I think most people have done that at one time or another. But you must understand that people in the science field get crazed with people calling these emotional opinions factual science.

There is no one entity who says - Yes alright this here study is real science. It is a collective opinion in our field - a more of a "I'll know it when I see it" type of thing - only we pick apart journal articles as our form of seeing it.

Seedcorn is right - if there are no peer reviewed journal articles about it - it doesn't exist. The peer review process is the collective "Yes - this is real".

That being said - there are many examples of science changing its collective mind. Will that be the case here? Who knows. But in the mean time - people who want to state emotional opinions as fact must expect to be challenged - and challenged in a BIG way, I mean challenged so hard that you feel small and insignificant - by the scientists.

That's what we do. That is what they teach us in grad school, they stick us in impossible scientific situations and then make us talk about what we THINK we did in front of hundreds of smarter, better paid, more prestigious scientific people who only want to show us how stupid we really are.

We are hammered with the notion that WE MUST ASSUME ALL OF IT FALSE - UNTIL PROVEN TO BE TRUE. That is how one makes a true scientist, and before you judge our process, thank your lucky stars that they mold us in such a way. Because if they didn't, nothing in science would be sacred.

So understand that a scientist arguing with non-scientists isn't personal - it is professional...it is part of the job, OUR job, that's all.

 

[kstaven]

THIS is my first and last post on this subject. I will close it for good if the insults do not end here and now! Belittling those who have another opinion is against the rules on this site and I EXPECT to see some apologies put on this thread from those who have insulted rather than discuss as adults should be capable of.

There is nothing wrong with presenting an opposing opinion. BUT it needs to be done without calling people down. This is an emotional issue. I am sure people want to see both sides presented, BUT the reactionary posts will end now.

 

[kstaven]

One thing "any researcher" has to admit, is when it comes to peer reviewed, is that it only means that "current scientific study" shows this to be true. Or the consensus of opinion of this group agrees that _______________. This does not mean it will never be questioned, possibly proven false by other peer reviewed work in the future, or that other current work in progress does not disagree with it. This is all simply a function of how we learn and science progresses or blunders as the case may be. In science there are very few things we ALL agree on 100%.

On the subject of lawsuits. This may be informative http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm

 

[dlhunicorn]

Quote:
I DID here below:

http://www.ibiblio.org/london/pesticide … glyphosate
From [email protected] Fri May 19 14:54:24 2000
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 11:20:06 -0400
From: Chris McCullum <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Roundup Ready

"Research is already suggesting that Roundup may not be as safe as we are being led to believe.
Roundup has now been linked to several types of cancer, including non-Hodgkins' Lymphoma."

>Yes, I've heard similar reports. Although I don't have all my references off hand, here are a few
that I do have:
>Research has shown that the application of glyphosate can increase the level of plant estrogens in the bean, Vicia faba (Sanderman and Wellman, 1988). ........................

>Although adverse effects of herbicide-resistant soybeans have not been observed on certain feeding animals, genotoxic effects have been
demonstrated in other non-target organisms (Cox, 1995 a,b)

>Earthworms have been shown to be severely damaged by the glyphosate herbicide at 2.5-10 1/ha (Rebanova et al., 1996). In addition, aquatic organisms, including fish, can sometimes be severely damaged as well (Henry et al., 1994; WHO, 1994).

>Cox, C. 1995a. Glyphosate, part 1: Toxicology. J Pest. Ref. 15(3):14-20
>Cox, C. 1995 b. Glyphosate, part 2: Toxicology. J. Pest. Ref. 15(4):14-20.
>Henry et al. 1994. Acute toxicity and hazard assessment of Rodeo,
>Spreader, and Chem-Trol to aquatic invertebrates Act. Environ.Contam. Toxicol. 27:3):392-399.
>Rebanova et al. 1996. Effect of the herbicide Roundup on earthworms of the family Lumbricidae in the mountainous meadow ecosystems. Zootechnicka Rada, Ceske Budejovice 13(2):63-70.
>Sanderman, H. and Wellman, E. 1988 Biologische Sicherheit 1:285-292.
>WHO, 1994. Glyphosate. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.

Once again ROUNDUP is not simply another name for glycophosate and as they pointed out in the French documentary which interviewed the the Phd scientists that conducted the studies (and many subsequently lost their jobs as a result) the problem is NOT simply glycophosate but the combination of it with other ingredients in ROUNDUP (ROUNDUP is the sum of all its parts and not simply another name for glycophosate)

Product: ROUNDUP
Active ingredient: GLYPHOSATE 41%
Type: HERBICIDE, (Systemic)
Other ingredients: 59% includes polyethoxethyleneamine (POEA) and isopropylamine (amount undisclosed); identity of remaining ingredients withheld by manufacturer as trade secrets.
Mode of Action: Inhibits enzymatic activity necessary for aromatic amino acid biosynthesis, a process specific to plants. Other enzyme systems in plants and animals not specific to this biosynthetic pathway are affected by glyphosate. (Heitanen et. al. 1983)

http://www.pitt.edu/~relyea/Roundup.html
A brief description of the Relyea (2005a) study
"A recent paper in Ecological Applications (Relyea 2005a) has demonstrated highly lethal effects of the herbicide Roundup

on amphibians..."

http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/ … nerts.html
(excerpt)
Scientists question the continued use of POEA in Roundup............
Glyphosate herbicides, such as Monsanto’s popular Roundup, have an environmentally friendly reputation because their active ingredients are relatively nontoxic and degrade rapidly in the environment. But University of Pittsburgh biologist Rick Relyea is challenging this view. He has found that Roundup at environmentally relevant concentrations kills or harms tadpoles because of the presence of the surfactant POEA , an ingredient that is defined as inert and doesn’t appear on the label (Ecol. Appl. 2005, 15, 618–6......).

Relyea’s work is one of several studies that shed light on the behavior of “inerts” in the environment, a topic largely ignored by the U.S. EPA, say many environmental toxicologists inside and outside the agency. ..."

http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricula … 2005/EcoAg Winter/Handouts/...
"Case of Roundup
(glyphosate)surfactant POEA (polyethoxylatedtallow amine)

http://www.wtvl.net/fen/herb.htm
(summaries of several studies addressing full formulation ROUNDUP toxicity issues>>> surfacant factor )

http://www.trentu.ca/biology/berrill/Research/Roundup_Poster.htm
The Acute and Chronic Toxicity of Glyphosate-Based Pesticides in Northern Leopard Frogs
"...Conclusions
Chronic Effects of Glyphosate versus Formulations: Throughout this study glyphosate itself showed no chronic effects on developing tadpoles. The tadpoles reared in the formulations Roundup Original

and Transorb

did show significant physical abnormalities. Abnormalities were also found upon exposure to the surfactant POEA. For all endpoints POEA showed practically identical results to the Roundup Original

formulation whereas the same cannot be said for the Transorb

formulation.. The surfactant used in the Transorb formulation is not known (being protected as “Trade Secret”), but has been described as a “surfactant blend”. This “surfactant blend” may be responsible for inhibition of metamorphosis, as well as the skewed sex ratio towards female seen in the present study. Developmental abnormalities induced by Roundup are likely a result of endocrine disruption. The thyroid axis can be greatly affected by corticoids and sex steroids which influence hypothalamic and pituitary control (See Dodd and Dodd, 1976, and Hayes, 1997 for review). Corticoids, sex steroids and prolactin have caused delayed metamorphosis and decreased size by both antagonizing and inhibiting thyroid action (Hayes, 1997). Sex steroid can induced sex reversal and intersex in amphibians and mammals, while low thyroid levels interfere with vitellogenesis. A concentration at which the animals were not effected (NOEC) by The Roundup formulations was not determined by this study.

Future Research and Policy Measures: Toxicological research should always focus on the formulated product entering into the environment, instead of focusing on the active ingredient used. Different types of surfactants and their degradation products produce different toxicity. Other, less toxic, glyphosate-based herbicides have been registered in the United States, Canada, and Australia, all with different surfactants (for example Roundup Biactive

, Glyphos “AU”

, Glyphose “CHA”, and Touchdown

). Research should be conducted examining the same endpoints with exposed Rana pipiens tadpoles to observe the chronic effects they may have. Further, more research should be conducted on the acute and chronic effects of surfactants as a group. Methods should be made available to be able to test for surfactants as well as their degradation products in the environment and more information should be available on the type(s) of surfactants included with pesticides and other commercial products. This would allow the public and research communities access to specific information pertaining to the surfactants used in pesticides and would allow these assessments to be made. "

http://www.safe2use.com/ca-ipm/02-05-29a.htm

http://www.positivehealth.com/article-v … cleid=1761
"....
Roundup's Toxic Effects
Take Roundup as an example. The active ingredient in Roundup is glyphosate and the 'inert' ingredient is a surfactant known as POEA. However, recommendations are based on tests using glyphosate alone. Although results indicate increased incidence of liver, thyroid, and testicular cancer in rats, the Environment Protection Agency in the US does not consider the 12% incidence of testicular cancer in treated animals of statistical significance to the 4.5% incidence in the non-treated group. Hence glyophosate is considered toxicologically benign.[3] However, further tests show that Roundup is three times more lethal than glyphosate. This suggests that it is the synergistic "mix" of chemicals that may cause the problems – not the single component. It should also be noted that epidemiological evidence supports a three-fold risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in farm workers using Roundup. This is not an isolated case.

Other studies show that minute doses of multiple chemicals tend to be more lethal than a single chemical dose alone.[4] Unfortunately, studies on single chemicals rather than the multi-chemicals in commercial products are accepted as sufficient evidence for assessing the toxicity of products – as in the case of Roundup, which has never been tested in its product form for licensing.

The saga continues. Glyphosate is persistent and can remain in the soil and contaminate it and everything grown in it for up to three years. Its use has more than doubled from 17-20 million kilograms in 1995 to 45 million kilograms in 2001. We have no method of assessing the total residue of Roundup on crops. No government agency has even considered the issue of glyphosate on GE/GM crops – thus nobody has included the effects of increasing the use of glyphosate in the risk/benefit analysis carried out on GE crops.[2]

So here is the rub: if GM crops are implicated in degenerative disease, will this be due to the genetic engineering of the crops, the vast toxic residue of herbicides that these crops carry, or Roundup's effect of inhibiting the protein synthesis of the plant, leading to a deficiency of two essential amino-acids and malnutrition? Will it be a deficiency disease, a toxic disease or a disease caused through genetic modification? We have no way of knowing, and nothing in place to determine the safety. In layperson's terms, this means there is no risk management...."​

 

[dlhunicorn]

regarding RESISTANCE issues (due to over use):
http://www.biotech-info.net/cropping_up.html
"Washington, D.C. - Few inventions have altered agriculture recently as much as Roundup weedkiller, but now scientists are concerned that farmers are using the herbicide so heavily it is losing its effectiveness against some of the world's peskiest weeds.

"It's going to happen. It's inevitable," said Bob Hartzler, a weed scientist at Iowa State University.

Known generically as glyphosate, Roundup is powerful yet environmentally benign. It has led to the widespread adoption of soil-saving techniques that reduce land erosion and combat global warming. Even home gardeners are likely to have a version of Roundup in their garage arsenal.

Roundup has been around for nearly 30 years but exploded in popularity in the late 1990s with the development of genetically engineered soybeans, cotton and other crops that are immune to the herbicide. That change means farmers can spray their fields with the relatively cheap weedkiller whenever it's needed with no fear it will harm the crops.

Roundup-immune soybeans now account for 75 percent of all the soybeans planted nationwide and in Iowa. Some 33 million pounds of glyphosate were sprayed on soybean crops alone in 2001, a five-fold increase from 1995, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Scientists are finding Roundup-resistant weeds in a variety of states, from Iowa to Delaware. Scientists are so concerned that some 200 showed up for a symposium on the issue last month in St. Louis.

Monsanto Co., which invented both Roundup and the Roundup-immune crops, has applied to the Environmental Protection Agency to alter Roundup labels to add special instructions for farmers in areas with resistant weeds.

A rival manufacturer of glyphosate, Syngenta, is advising farmers not to apply the chemical more than twice in every two-year period and not to plant glyphosate-resistant crops in the same field every year.

"The warning signs are already out there," said economist Charles Benbrook, a critic of the biotech industry and a former executive director of the National Academy of Sciences" board on agriculture.

If herbicide-tolerant weeds gain hold, land prices could slip and farmers would be forced to start using additional chemicals, adding to their costs and potentially increasing environmental risks.

No alternatives to Roundup are on the horizon. Industry experts say Roundup has been so effective for so long that there has been no financial incentive for chemical companies to develop a substitute.

Farmers love the bioengineered soybeans because they say Roundup makes it easier and cheaper to control the weeds. Ron Heck of Perry, Ia., says he used to spend $20 to $40 an acre on weed control. Now the cost is down to about $15 an acre, even accounting for the special fee for the seed.

Growers also say the biotech soybeans have allowed them to farm more land and spend more time with their families, or in some cases take a second job.

Monsanto throws in some more incentives: If the biotech crops fail, the company will refund some of the seed cost. And if the herbicide doesn't kill the weeds, farmers can get additional Roundup for free.

Roundup is so effective as a herbicide that many farmers are no longer tilling their fields to control weeds. Less tillage means less erosion and stores carbon in the soil, thereby limiting the production of the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming. No-till soybean acreage increased by 35 percent from 1995 to 2000, according to one study.

Herbicide resistance in weeds is nothing new. It happens regularly with weedkillers, except, until recently, with Roundup.

Some of the first significant reports of Roundup-resistant weeds in the United States surfaced in Delaware. Mare's-tail, or horseweed, that could not be killed by the herbicide was found on several farms in 2000. Scientists said they had to spray the weeds with 10 times the recommended rate of the herbicide to kill the plants.

Scientists in Iowa and Missouri have found fields with types of waterhemp, a prolific Midwestern weed, that are significantly more tolerant of glyphosate than others. More than a quarter of the weeds collected from one Iowa field survived being treated with Roundup.

The scientists say it remains to be seen how quickly the hardier weeds will spread.

"Everybody is in reasonable agreement that the evolution of glyphosate resistance in waterhemp is inevitable," said ISU scientist Mike Owen.

Monsanto, which generates 50 percent of its annual sales from Roundup, says there are two U.S. weeds that are resistant to it - mare's-tail and ryegrass - but company officials say the problem isn't serious. They don't consider waterhemp resistant.

David Heering, who manages the technical side of the Roundup business for Monsanto, said rival companies like Syngenta are trying to discourage farmers from using the glyphosate-resistant, or Roundup Ready, crops because they cut into sales of other herbicides. "As we see increased adoption of Roundup Ready, they are going see lost business," Heering said.

Chemical companies have another reason to discourage use of Roundup Ready crops: Monsanto profits from the special technology fee it charges on every bag of the gene-altered seed. Other companies do not.

Syngenta officials say they are trying to ensure that glyphosate, which they market as Touchdown, remains effective.

In Iowa, farmers typically don't plant soybeans in the same field two years in a row, as some Eastern growers do, so there is less chance of overusing the herbicide. But some farmers are considering growing Roundup Ready corn in addition to Roundup Ready soybeans, and that could increase use of the weedkiller and speed up the spread of resistant weeds, some scientists say.

More about Roundup

Roundup herbicide, introduced by Monsanto Co. in 1974, works by interfering with a key enzyme in plants and preventing then from making essential amino acids. People and animals don't have the enzyme, making the chemical relatively safer than many other pesticides.

POPULARITY: Use of Roundup, known generically as glyphosate, exploded when Monsanto scientists figured out how to make crops immune to it by inserting into them a soil bacterium gene. The bacterium contains an enzyme similar to the one that plants naturally have. The biotech crops accounted for about 75 percent of the soybeans, 50 percent of the cotton and 10 percent of the corn planted by U.S. farmers last year. .........

** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed for research and educational purposes only. ** "

 

[farm_mom]

I don't need to talk about the scientific reports, I don't need to read the latest research or see the latest video. I live directly smack in the middle of big ag. (fields on all 4 sides, and as far as the eyes can see.) My husbands's family used to farm this land, until his father died from terminal brain cancer in his early 50's. My husband's grandparents? 3 types of cancer between them. My MIL is currently fighting breast cancer and they all worked with the chemicals.
Last year we had round up ready corn surrounding us on three sides. They'd come and spray with no regard for the fact that we were outside with our two toddlers. They sprayed in a two foot perimeter into our property on all sides and everything died. I love how it's so factually stated "everyone knows it causes cancer if sprayed directly on you." Yeah.....tell me about it. My Aunt had to have her breasts removed at christmas this year, and the cancer institute could tell her which county she lived in. They say we live in the worst county for cancer "it's all the agriculture" they say. We had our water tested a few years back, all kinds off goodies in there from the chem runoff. And as for worm health in the farm fields, I can dig for my hearts content and never find a one. In my own garden, deep, dark earth. The field is a chalky grey with all it's nutrients sprayed on. There are good arguments on both sides of this issue, but there is no doubt in those of us who actually live with it, that the current system is making us sick.