Monsanto

[bayoudragon]

The viscous cycle some farmers face.

 

[Bear Foot Farm]

Quote: All your sources seem to have an agenda


Quote: If you read ENOUGH articles about it,, you'll find Roundup and Bt never harmed them at all

Quote: Reading biased sites like Mother Earth News, NPR, or Mercola wont give you a TRUE perspective
They all just parrot the same misinformation
If all they claim is real, people and animals would be dropping like flies everywhere

 

[KristyHall]

All your sources seem to have an agenda


If you read ENOUGH articles about it,, you'll find Roundup and Bt never harmed them at all

Reading biased sites like Mother Earth News, NPR, or Mercola wont give you a TRUE perspective
They all just parrot the same misinformation
If all they claim is real, people and animals would be dropping like flies everywhere

And what will give me true perspective? did you check the citations listed, and all of the areas I posted, including the same wiki pages that you used to support your claim? So show me what is a TRUE perspective, if I am getting my information from a wrong area?

If you check out mother earth news and their discussion of persistent herbicides, you will find this is more than an opinion piece, but a true problem when dealing with using commercial compost coming from livestock grazed on land sprayed with persistent herbicides.

Speaking of parroting, I have to wonder, what is your relationship with Monsanto? You rarely post on this part of the forum unless it is to vehemently defend Monsanto.IN your defense of Monsanto, you even put " Dangerous" in "" marks when discussing the affects of Agent Orange on our veterans, which says to me you truly doubt that Agent Orange is dangerous at all.

I have heard you say certain key phrases that comes from Monsanto's own PR responses to concerns. Sort of none answers including one variation of the same phrase " If you want to feed the world" and several variations of the sort, a sort of suggestions that the means justify the cause. Are you an employee?

If you are a farmer who enjoys the benefits of using roundup and GMO crops, then please, share your experiences. I have seen you insist many times that people who are suspicious of Monsanto are misinformed.

So please, clarify things for us. Share your multiple resources that aren't official Monsanto press releases. If I am misinformed I wish to know. Perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle.

 

[KristyHall]

Quote:

Got a link for that statement?

Of course:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange
Quote:
But in 1969, it was revealed to the public that the 2,4,5-T was contaminated with a dioxin,2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD), and that the TCDD was causing many of the previously unexplained adverse health effects which were correlated with Agent Orange exposure

The quote you posted said it was revealed to the public that was contaminated, it does not say that Monsanto revealed this, you left that part out, though it is in the article you cited.

how was the product contaminated? If agent orange was not designed to have dioxin in it, then are we saying that the manufacturers were so lax they randomly contaminate their' product? either way it doesn't make them look good.

Someone also said (Hemet i think?) the product was not meant to be used as much as it was, so how was it meant to be used when it was being sold to the government to be used by its men in jungles? How much is enough to cause part of his brain "dissolve" (to quote the VA doctor) as is happening with my step father from his LIMITED exposure to agent orange? What about the continual environmental and human damage that is STILL happening in Vietnam right now from agent Orange?

That chemical is still in the soil and water. Is that the US government's fault still? Are they running over there every night and spraying the chemical on pregnant women as they sleep to ensure the babies are born with devastating birth defects?

Why are you so resistant to the idea that these chemicals might very well be dangerous? That there might actually be a problem with a product made by a company that makes a massive profit off of it's broad use? When we look at sources we must question what will the sources benefit from what information? What stake does the people providing information or lack there of have in it's use and distribution? That the company might very well have a history of playing fast and loose with the truth and people's health, and has a lot of money to cover its tracks?

 

[KristyHall]

uote:

Got a link for that statement?

Of course:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange
Quote:
But in 1969, it was revealed to the public that the 2,4,5-T was contaminated with a dioxin,2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD), and that the TCDD was causing many of the previously unexplained adverse health effects which were correlated with Agent Orange exposure

furthermore the very artical you used to show your point said this:

"Chemically, Agent Orange is an approximately 1:1 mixture of two phenoxyl herbicides – 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T) – in iso-octyl ester form.[13]
Numerous studies have examined health effects linked to Agent Orange, its component compounds, and its manufacturing byproducts.[14]
Prior to the controversy surrounding Agent Orange, there was already a large body of scientific evidence linking 2,4,5-T to serious negative health effects and ecological damage.[15] But in 1969, it was revealed to the public that the 2,4,5-T was contaminated with a dioxin, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin(TCDD), and that the TCDD was causing many of the previously unexplained adverse health effects which were correlated with Agent Orange exposure.[16] TCDD has been described as "perhaps the most toxic molecule ever synthesized by man".[17] Internal memoranda revealed that Monsanto (a manufacturer of 2,4,5-T) had informed the U.S. government in 1952 that its 2,4,5-T was contaminated.[18] In the manufacture of 2,4,5-T, accidental overheating of the reaction mixture easily causes the product to condense into the toxic self-condensation product TCDD. At the time, precautions were not taken against this unintended side reaction, which caused also the Seveso disaster in Italy in 1976.
In 1979, the Yale biologist Arthur Galston, who specialized in herbicide research, published a review of what was known at the time about the toxicity of TCDD. Even "vanishingly small" quantities of dioxin in the diet caused adverse health effects when tested on animals.[17] Since then, TCDD has been comprehensively studied. It has been associated with increased neoplasms in every animal bioassay reported in the scientific literature.[19] The National Toxicology Program has classified TCDD as "known to be a human carcinogen", frequently associated with soft-tissue sarcoma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Hodgkin's lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).[20][21]
While the two herbicides that make up Agent Orange, 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T, remain toxic over a short period—a scale of days or weeks—they quickly degrade.[citation needed] A 1969 report authored by K. Diane Courtney and others found 2,4,5-T could cause birth defects and stillbirths in mice.[22]Several studies have shown an increased rate of cancer mortality for workers exposed to 2,4,5-T. In one such study, from Hamburg, Germany, the risk of cancer mortality increased by 170% after working for 10 years at the 2,4,5-T-producing section of a Hamburg manufacturing plant.[19] Three studies have suggested prior exposure to Agent Orange poses an increased risk of acute myelogenous leukemia in the children of Vietnam veterans.[14]
Starting in 1991, the US Congress asked the Institute of Medicine to review the scientific literature on Agent Orange and the other herbicides used in Vietnam, including their active ingredients and the dioxin contaminant. The IOM found an association between dioxin exposure and diabetes.[23][24] "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
this says to me that even if monsanto warned the us government, it was still lack of precautions on monsanto's part that lead to the contamination, and these lack of precautions and contaminations occured over a period of several years meaning either A: monsanto has some seriously lax safety standards or B: monsanto willfuly and knowingly distributed deadly substances without concern for its affects. Also even without Dioxin the herbacides are still toxic with history of causing cancer and other health issues, but that the chemicals eventually stop becoming toxic after being applied. it doesn't change the fact that when it is first applied it is toxic at the time and limited exposure is all that is needed to cause adverse affects.

I also state again what i stated before, Wiki is a source to be wary off. Even when I post it as a source I caution that Wiki is not fully reliable.

 

[KristyHall]

also from the Wiki page Bear foot posted, after the part where these companies were sued and payed a settlement to veterans affected:

"In 2004, Monsanto spokesman Jill Montgomery said Monsanto should not be liable at all for injuries or deaths caused by Agent Orange, saying: "We are sympathetic with people who believe they have been injured and understand their concern to find the cause, but reliable scientific evidence indicates that Agent Orange is not the cause of serious long-term health effects."[61] However, when offered a cup of this harmless and refreshing beverage, she refused it, stating allergies as the cause.[citation needed]"

 

[Peaches Lee]

All your sources seem to have an agenda


If you read ENOUGH articles about it,, you'll find Roundup and Bt never harmed them at all

Reading biased sites like Mother Earth News, NPR, or Mercola wont give you a TRUE perspective
They all just parrot the same misinformation
If all they claim is real, people and animals would be dropping like flies everywhere

Well, Milkweed is a weed and poisonous to various livestock animals. How do farmers get rid of it?

 

[KristyHall]

Well, Milkweed is a weed and poisonous to various livestock animals. How do farmers get rid of it?

Most livestock is smart enough to leave it alone. I have various toxic plants in my pasture and my animals all have sense enough to leave it be. Also in a ecologically stable pasture, the weeds do not take over. That is the joy of a rich diverse ecosystem. One plant has a hard time taking over. All the farmer has to do is practice a little common sense and proper land management. If they do this, then resorting to a quick fix and instant gratification of toxic chemicals will become unnecessary.

 

[hemet dennis]

Quote:

Got a link for that statement?

Of course:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange
Quote:
But in 1969, it was revealed to the public that the 2,4,5-T was contaminated with a dioxin,2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD), and that the TCDD was causing many of the previously unexplained adverse health effects which were correlated with Agent Orange exposure

The quote you posted said it was revealed to the public that was contaminated, it does not say that Monsanto revealed this, you left that part out, though it is in the article you cited.

how was the product contaminated? If agent orange was not designed to have dioxin in it, then are we saying that the manufacturers were so lax they randomly contaminate their' product? either way it doesn't make them look good.

Someone also said (Hemet i think?) the product was not meant to be used as much as it was, so how was it meant to be used when it was being sold to the government to be used by its men in jungles? How much is enough to cause part of his brain "dissolve" (to quote the VA doctor) as is happening with my step father from his LIMITED exposure to agent orange? What about the continual environmental and human damage that is STILL happening in Vietnam right now from agent Orange?

That chemical is still in the soil and water. Is that the US government's fault still? Are they running over there every night and spraying the chemical on pregnant women as they sleep to ensure the babies are born with devastating birth defects?

Why are you so resistant to the idea that these chemicals might very well be dangerous? That there might actually be a problem with a product made by a company that makes a massive profit off of it's broad use? When we look at sources we must question what will the sources benefit from what information? What stake does the people providing information or lack there of have in it's use and distribution? That the company might very well have a history of playing fast and loose with the truth and people's health, and has a lot of money to cover its tracks?
The military used Agent Orange in higher concentrations then was recommended. It wasn't made to be sprayed by airplanes over populated areas. When you spray any weedkiller or pesticides you should wear protection and they even say not to use on a windy day. If you don't follow the directions bad things can happen.
If you look down the barrel of a gun and pull the trigger with it loaded should your family be able to sue the gun maker ?

 

[oldrooster]

Quote:

Got a link for that statement?

Of course:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange
Quote:
But in 1969, it was revealed to the public that the 2,4,5-T was contaminated with a dioxin,2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD), and that the TCDD was causing many of the previously unexplained adverse health effects which were correlated with Agent Orange exposure

The quote you posted said it was revealed to the public that was contaminated, it does not say that Monsanto revealed this, you left that part out, though it is in the article you cited.

how was the product contaminated? If agent orange was not designed to have dioxin in it, then are we saying that the manufacturers were so lax they randomly contaminate their' product? either way it doesn't make them look good.

Someone also said (Hemet i think?) the product was not meant to be used as much as it was, so how was it meant to be used when it was being sold to the government to be used by its men in jungles? How much is enough to cause part of his brain "dissolve" (to quote the VA doctor) as is happening with my step father from his LIMITED exposure to agent orange? What about the continual environmental and human damage that is STILL happening in Vietnam right now from agent Orange?

That chemical is still in the soil and water. Is that the US government's fault still? Are they running over there every night and spraying the chemical on pregnant women as they sleep to ensure the babies are born with devastating birth defects?

Why are you so resistant to the idea that these chemicals might very well be dangerous? That there might actually be a problem with a product made by a company that makes a massive profit off of it's broad use? When we look at sources we must question what will the sources benefit from what information? What stake does the people providing information or lack there of have in it's use and distribution? That the company might very well have a history of playing fast and loose with the truth and people's health, and has a lot of money to cover its tracks?
The military used Agent Orange in higher concentrations then was recommended. It wasn't made to be sprayed by airplanes over populated areas. When you spray any weedkiller or pesticides you should wear protection and they even say not to use on a windy day. If you don't follow the directions bad things can happen.
If you look down the barrel of a gun and pull the trigger with it loaded should your family be able to sue the gun maker ?
You mean it's not right to hold YOU resposible if I do something stupid? next thing you know they will put warning labels on lawn mowers that tell me not to put my hands and feet under it while it's running... wait I guess they already do...