gmos, and im the luddite?

Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
So farmers use moar herbicide, and its the plant's fault?

And why do these so called scientists call Roundup a pesticide when it is a herbicide?

Swallow that organic pecker, swallow it deep.
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
http://www.ewg.org/agmag/2014/04/extreme-levels-herbicide-roundup-found-food

but, you say, transgenic food is so much better for us and the planet. Now we have surpassed even monsanto's limits.
Click to expand...
Canndo, you need to stop reading these crappy, propaganda-spewing comic books. This reminds me of you "Natural News" article that referenced a study that showed BT toxin was present in pregnant women in Canada, and the Seralini study. Both were total bullshit, and were picked apart by legitimate scientists.

My advice is stick to global warming, at least "the science is settled" in that piece of political gospel.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
there goes desertdude with his GMOs as deity PROPAGANDA.

that old man just can not stop with his PROPAGANDA.

would have done well working with goebbels with his love of PROPAGANDA.
 
T

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
Given that the vast majority of the corn and soy grown in the United States has been genetically modified to allow application of this particular chemical, the chemical is presumably used a lot. Shouldn't we be seeing increases in disease and other problems if the levels of that chemical are concerning? Where are they?
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
Canndo, you need to stop reading these crappy, propaganda-spewing comic books. This reminds me of you "Natural News" article that referenced a study that showed BT toxin was present in pregnant women in Canada, and the Seralini study. Both were total bullshit, and were picked apart by legitimate scientists.

My advice is stick to global warming, at least "the science is settled" in that piece of political gospel.
Click to expand...
The seralini study was not picked apart and there seems to have been a great deal of political chicanery surrounding its being pulled.

this particular gmo was designed so that less herbicide would be used but now more is. So any efficacy that you and the others attribute to roundup ready crops is lost. So now, exactly what is round up ready corn good for?

it doesn't taste better, it is not better for you, it doesn't yield more and now farmers are having to buy.... More Roundup!

kindly explain the point of this stuff.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
tokeprep said:
Given that the vast majority of the corn and soy grown in the United States has been genetically modified to allow application of this particular chemical, the chemical is presumably used a lot. Shouldn't we be seeing increases in disease and other problems if the levels of that chemical are concerning? Where are they?
Click to expand...

like? Increases in heart disease obesity, and cancer? While I am not offering a causal link between glyphosate and these diseases, what I am saying is that we can't really know what is happening to our national health.
 
T

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
like? Increases in heart disease obesity, and cancer? While I am not offering a causal link between glyphosate and these diseases, what I am saying is that we can't really know what is happening to our national health.
Click to expand...
Right. Those links have been evaluated and denied in epidemiological studies. Given the vast amounts of GM food consumed, wouldn't you expect to see something if the chemical is actually dangerous to human health? Your original link merely points out the levels of the chemical in crops.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
tokeprep said:
Right. Those links have been evaluated and denied in epidemiological studies. Given the vast amounts of GM food consumed, wouldn't you expect to see something if the chemical is actually dangerous to human health? Your original link merely points out the levels of the chemical in crops.
Click to expand...

That is all I am talking about tokeprep, the chemicals associated with this particular GMO. I saw someone state "GMOs" are bad. Which is simply an impossible statement. So too, however is "GMOs are good". In order to deal with the subject, they have to be taken one at a time. I asked and will ask again, what good, exactly is corn that requires more and more glyphosate in order for it to compete with stronger and stronger weeds while it gives no more and possibly less yield, uses no less water, no less fertilizer and no less labor, tastes no better and is worth no more than ordinary corn?

There are few if any difinitive results regarding the effects of Round Up on humans and animals. I say Roundup because in order for Monsanto to placate the FDA they performed their round of tests - not on Round Up, but on Glyphosate. The surfactants and other chemcials in Round Up were not tested, only the ",main ingredient".
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
tokeprep said:
Given that the vast majority of the corn and soy grown in the United States has been genetically modified to allow application of this particular chemical, the chemical is presumably used a lot. Shouldn't we be seeing increases in disease and other problems if the levels of that chemical are concerning? Where are they?
Click to expand...

Let us also approach this in another way. Did you really want us all to be test subjects? "well, we have all been eating this stuff for 20 years and.... no one has died". Is a rather poor way to test transgenic food.
 
T

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
That is all I am talking about tokeprep, the chemicals associated with this particular GMO. I saw someone state "GMOs" are bad. Which is simply an impossible statement. So too, however is "GMOs are good". In order to deal with the subject, they have to be taken one at a time. I asked and will ask again, what good, exactly is corn that requires more and more glyphosate in order for it to compete with stronger and stronger weeds while it gives no more and possibly less yield, uses no less water, no less fertilizer and no less labor, tastes no better and is worth no more than ordinary corn?
Click to expand...
No one is forcing farmers to use the GM crop. Given that such a huge proportion of the crop is GM, farmers must have a "good" reason for using it. If they weren't making more money than they otherwise would they wouldn't use it.

There are few if any difinitive results regarding the effects of Round Up on humans and animals. I say Roundup because in order for Monsanto to placate the FDA they performed their round of tests - not on Round Up, but on Glyphosate. The surfactants and other chemcials in Round Up were not tested, only the ",main ingredient".
Click to expand...
I took your claim at face value and investigated it. I found several anti-GM web sites repeating a more general claim that I'll paraphrase: "Federal agencies only focus on active ingredients when they evaluate pesticides; they don't test the whole product because the formula is proprietary and not required to be disclosed." This claim is absolutely false--an outright lie. I'm not sure about the FDA, but the federal law that mandates EPA testing of pesticides requires that they evaluate the active and inert ingredients independently, in addition to evaluating the whole product with all of the ingredients combined.

If you're conceding that the EPA does test everything and are making a specific case about the FDA, I would love to see something that didn't come off an anti-GM web site that substantiates that.
 
T

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
Let us also approach this in another way. Did you really want us all to be test subjects? "well, we have all been eating this stuff for 20 years and.... no one has died". Is a rather poor way to test transgenic food.
Click to expand...
The GM crops were tested. How much testing and study do you want? 20 years? 50 years? Why are you so focused on food? What about cell phones? Microwaves (not the kitchen appliance)? Electronics like tablets? Wireless internet signals? If you look around, you'll see people alarmingly declaring that there are cancer, reproductive, and other risks associated with some of these technologies. Should we study any new technology for 20 years to ensure its safety before we use it? Without strict long-term testing, aren't we all constant test subjects? Haven't we been constant test subjects as technology has developed?

You know what I think is bizarre? There is a scientific consensus, based on thorough research, that GM crops pose no additional health risks to people. And yet some of the same people who trump a scientific consensus in favor of global warming decry it with GM food. Am I crazy or does studying the health risks of GM food in animals--in generations of them, birth to death--seem easier than studying the Earth's climate, which is presumably substantially more difficult to experiment with? I don't know how you feel about global warming, so don't be offended if this is inapplicable to you, I'm just making a general observation. It seems like an irrational distinction.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
tokeprep said:
The GM crops were tested. How much testing and study do you want? 20 years? 50 years? Why are you so focused on food? What about cell phones? Microwaves (not the kitchen appliance)? Electronics like tablets? Wireless internet signals? If you look around, you'll see people alarmingly declaring that there are cancer, reproductive, and other risks associated with some of these technologies. Should we study any new technology for 20 years to ensure its safety before we use it? Without strict long-term testing, aren't we all constant test subjects? Haven't we been constant test subjects as technology has developed?

You know what I think is bizarre? There is a scientific consensus, based on thorough research, that GM crops pose no additional health risks to people. And yet some of the same people who trump a scientific consensus in favor of global warming decry it with GM food. Am I crazy or does studying the health risks of GM food in animals--in generations of them, birth to death--seem easier than studying the Earth's climate, which is presumably substantially more difficult to experiment with? I don't know how you feel about global warming, so don't be offended if this is inapplicable to you, I'm just making a general observation. It seems like an irrational distinction.
Click to expand...

we have a choice to use cellphones. We have options with regard to most of the other items you mention. However, we don't eat any of those things.

we do eat gmos and the pesticides and herbicides they are drenched with.

I hold that age is already here, in fact the USDA just released nee growing zones.

note again, I am not here taking issues with the genetics but only the acompanying chemicals.

also, many farmers have no choice. They are stuck. The transgenic companies have them by the balls.

the FDA does not test. Companies do. Do you really trust a company that told us that dioxin and agent orange are safe to tell us the food they are making us eat is safe?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top