Photo by Melody
Are you ready? It's time for our 14th annual photo contest! Enter your best pictures of the year, for a chance to win a calendar and annual subscription here. Hurry! Deadline for entries is October 21.

Vegetable Gardening: Continuing on with this silliness. GMO.

Communities > Forums > Vegetable Gardening
bookmark
Forum: Vegetable GardeningReplies: 362, Views: 2,047
Add to Bookmarks
-
AuthorContent

CountryGardens

CountryGardens
Lewisville, MN
(Zone 4a)

March 24, 2013
6:24 AM

Post #9459857



This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:11 AM

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

March 24, 2013
6:27 AM

Post #9459861

I thought we were complaining about excessive government intervention in our lives. You know how threads can evolve here...
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 24, 2013
7:56 AM

Post #9459942

G G,
I do want to compliment you again, as i did with the last post on the old thread.

You brought up the perfect example of the mess Government Regulations cause with your query as to whether Gay Marriage and Abortion should be regulated by Government.

I strongly believe they should be left to the individuals concerned. Just as i have never heard of any actual damage caused by GMO, i have never heard of a good solid Hetero marriage that was harmed by Gay Marriage, and Abortion must be one of the toughtest decisions anyone will ever have to make, and it should be left to the person that has to make and live with the decision.

So, thank you again for pointing out the perfect examples.

Ernie

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

March 24, 2013
9:42 AM

Post #9460095

And as I said on the previous thread, I am with you 100% there.

But to continue in that vein, I also think we should be free to eat GMOs or not, as we choose, but we can't choose if we don't know. It should not be up to the government to decide that we don't need that information.

ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 24, 2013
1:01 PM

Post #9460307

GG,
We do agree on some things, but it seems to me that it should not be up to the government to force labels be put on anything unless it is proven harmful.

I just do not think the Government should do anything but build our roads and fight our wars, and such as that. We are all developed human beings, and we should be able to do our own thinking. And asking the government to regulate the OTHER GUY, but leave me alone, just does not seem like a workable plan.

Ernie
rjogden
Gainesville, FL
(Zone 8b)

March 24, 2013
2:39 PM

Post #9460407

[quote="greenhouse_gal"]And as I said on the previous thread, I am with you 100% there.

But to continue in that vein, I also think we should be free to eat GMOs or not, as we choose, but we can't choose if we don't know. It should not be up to the government to decide that we don't need that information.[/quote]
If you buy "organic" (whatever that is these days), it should at least be non-GMO, and there are already a growing number of brands that are labeled "non-GMO". Since you feel strongly about it and are willing to spend the extra money, I suggest you seek them out and encourage more companies to offer non-GMO foods. Then you'll be paying for the labels you want, and the extra labor, fuel and pesticides required to grow non-GMO corn and soy, and the rest of us will be able to choose whether we want to spend the extra money. That is the way the market economy is supposed to work.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 24, 2013
2:55 PM

Post #9460424

Rich,
You have expressed my feelings exactly. Absolutely no one should be forced to eat GMO foods, and absolutely no one should be forced to pay for labels they do not want.

There is an old Aphorism that i believe is the truth, that says, "A person that will steal for you, will steal from you," And if the Government will steal my freedom making him pay for labels for you, the Government will turn around and steal your freedom, making you pay for something someone else wants that you do not.

We should all try to keep the Government out of our personal decisions.

Ernie

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

March 24, 2013
4:43 PM

Post #9460535

GMO ingredients are in so many products where you wouldn't expect them now, though. I had to switch my chickens to organic feed because I realized that just avoiding medicated feed was no longer enough to ensure an old-fashioned diet with unadulterated ingredients. It's a very heavy burden to place on a populace, the majority of which would like to see GMO labeling according to the studies I see referenced in the mainstream media. Apparently the U.S. and Canada are among the few industrialized nations that don't require labels. Here's a quote:

"If companies say genetic engineering is fine, then OK let's label it and let the consumers make their own decisions," said Michael Hansen, a senior scientist at Consumers Union, which produces Consumer Reports. "That's what all the free market supporters say. So let's let the market work properly."
rjogden
Gainesville, FL
(Zone 8b)

March 24, 2013
5:45 PM

Post #9460617

[quote="greenhouse_gal"]"If companies say genetic engineering is fine, then OK let's label it and let the consumers make their own decisions," said Michael Hansen, a senior scientist at Consumers Union, which produces Consumer Reports. "That's what all the free market supporters say. So let's let the market work properly."[/quote]
The problem is STILL that we're talking about paying more taxes to have our hopelessly inept government set up yet another ridiculously inefficient bureaucracy and create more regulations we will all pay for, whether we are interested in GMO or not. That is most decidedly NOT letting the market work properly.

If you are HONESTLY interested in eating only non-GMO food, here's where you can start WITHOUT dragging us all into it:

http://www.nongmoproject.org/
http://www.nongmoshoppingguide.com/

Have fun!

CountryGardens

CountryGardens
Lewisville, MN
(Zone 4a)

March 24, 2013
5:48 PM

Post #9460621



This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:12 AM
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 24, 2013
7:22 PM

Post #9460714

G G,
You sound like a very intelligent person. Why don't you focus on locating cases of actual proven damages that are directly related to GMOs damaging people's health or killing them. Forget the hyped up propaganda in the fringe press, and look for people that have died from GMO. Once you get some solid factual and provable evidence, the mainstream press will be on your side, as that will be big news.

But presenting doubtful or ridiculous evidence like the French Study, which was written by a Scientist that had his nose out of joint because he had not been chosen to sit on the panel of scientists that wrote the report, causes a huge loss of credibility to your cause.

If you could prove it was harmful, like say, Thalidomide was, you would immediately get support to have it banned. But as of now, there apparently is not any concrete evidence that the process is harmful, so the majority of people do not want to incur a lot of unnecessary expense.

If you can come back with evidence that will stand in a court of law, I would join your cause, but the causes would no longer be necessary because the Government and the lawyers would shut the Industry down.

Ernie
nancynursez637
Madras, OR

March 24, 2013
10:35 PM

Post #9460840

Actually I believe Monsanto may now be able to sell seeds that are gmo's but not reveal that they are. Since they have purchased a number of seed companies, who to this point have provided organic seeds, this could be cause for concern.

here is just one backroom deal

http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/03/22/monsanto-protection-act-sneaks-through-spending-bill
rjogden
Gainesville, FL
(Zone 8b)

March 24, 2013
10:55 PM

Post #9460850

[quote="greenhouse_gal"]It's a very heavy burden to place on a populace, the majority of which would like to see GMO labeling according to the studies I see referenced in the mainstream media.[/quote]
If I had a dime for every inaccurate or politically slanted or completely fabricated "report" I've seen in the "mainstream media", I could treat everyone here to a good (non-GMO) meal. I seriously doubt a "majority" of people in the US even know what a GMO is.

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

March 25, 2013
4:12 AM

Post #9460907

You don't like ABC News? Here's a quote:

*Polls show Americans overwhelmingly support GMO labeling. An ABCNews.com survey conducted last summer found that 93 percent of Americans say the federal government should require labels on food that indicate whether it has been genetically modified or "bio-engineered." At least 22 states are considering legislation requiring GMO labeling for foods.*

You guys cherrypick your sources, attack ours no matter what their origin is, and then accuse those with concerns of being biased? We're not talking about harm from GMOs, all we're asking for are labels, in the same way that the government requires labeling of irradiated foods and addition of artificial colors and flavors. What are the producers of GMOs so afraid of?

Thanks; I'm done.

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 25, 2013
12:37 PM

Post #9461518

>> An ABCNews.com survey conducted last summer found that 93 percent of Americans say the federal government should require labels on food that indicate whether it has been genetically modified or "bio-engineered."

I may be nit-picking, but very little food has been genetically modified unless you eat alfalfa. Is GM corn eaten as such, or does it all go for oil and syrup and animal feed? I don't know. Golden rice is not available in the USA (or anywhere?) Soybeans?

Ingredients USED IN food came FROM plants that were genetically modified (and in some cases fed to animals). And those ingredients are in almost every food in the USA.

But "bio-engineered food" sounds scary enough to provoke a "news-worthy" sound bite. Personally, I despise every "TV News" program I've seen since around the mid-70s. Now we have entertainment, pure an d simple, not anything I would call news (at least on TV).

I would have respected questions like:

"Should GMO labels be required on any food made with any ingredients from any GM plant (XX% of all products in a supermarket) if it cost YY times as much to identify, track and regulate such labeling?"

"How much extra would YOU be willing to pay to buy food with such labels?"

"How dangerous do YOU think ingredients from these GMOs are?" ... and then provide a list

And, because I'm a nerd:
"What EVIDENCE do you have that there are any risks in the ingredients currently made from GMOs?"

Polls are even easier to slant than scientific studies (or semi-scientific studies, or pseudo-scientific studies).

In this case, the bias is too clear in the way the question was asked. They might as well have asked "are you in favor of truth?" or "do you prefer healthy food?" and touted that as support for GMO labeling.

P.S. I think a fair answer would be: "I don 't know, but neither does anyone KNOW what the long term effects will be if we go much further in the GMO direction."

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 25, 2013
1:01 PM

Post #9461546

Aside from the economic consequences, I WOULD like to see a European-style labeling law enacted in the USA - as an educational process. Truth in labeling. Why not?

At first, every box, can, diary and meat product (or 99%) would have to be labelled. That would not be very expensive, just change the graphics on the label.

But many consumers' heads would explode as they found they have been eating all "GM food" for decades, and nothing else has been available on the shelves.

A few producers would try to leverage their existing organic certification and make the extra effort to exclude GM alfalfa, corn and soy products from their animals' feed, making THEIR products even more expensive.

Hopefully some manufacturers of corn and soybean oil, corn syrup, cane sugar and beet sugar would find ways to identify and exclude GM corn, GM soybeans etc from their raw materials, and pass those costs on down.

Hopefully some manufacturers of processed foods would buy the "GM-free sugar" and "GM-free corn syrup" so they could label their consumer-level packaging "GM-free ingredients". And pass their costs down to THEIR customers.

The education would occur when people were able to see how many GM ingredients are already in their diet, and how much it costs to exclude them. Optimistically, people would then even THINK about it and make reasoned decisions.

Some will pay a lot extra to avoid even minute perceived risks.

Some will pay more, or drop some ite4ms out of their diet out of fear, with or without evidence or a plausible theory.

Most will keep eating what they have been eating, at only slightly higher prices.

Maybe the "non-GM-ingredient" label would become like Kosher labels: different levels or degrees. For example, one level might mean "no ingredients from GM plants EXCEPT sugar, oil and corn syrup". If that caught on, it MIGHT serve the valuable purpose of deterring release of marginal GMOs. If it exerted a consumer-level pressure so that only GMOs with clear economic and ecological benefit were released, probably good.

On the other hand, if fear trumped reason, and even GM corn, alfalfa and sugar beets became unsellable, farmers would go back to spraying with much more toxic, more persistent herbicides to keep prices down without having to add the dread "non-GM-ingredient" label.

And if global climate change leads to more frequent regional famines, the GMOs that were developed but not released will be released when people com pare the real risk of famine and war against the perceived risk of "maybe someday something bad will happen if we do something new or different".


CountryGardens

CountryGardens
Lewisville, MN
(Zone 4a)

March 25, 2013
3:13 PM

Post #9461693



This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:13 AM

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 25, 2013
4:16 PM

Post #9461755

GMO sweet corn? That's new to me. ... Oh, I see, 2012 release. Thanks. I almost posted that the frozen vegetable isle ought to be mostly GMO-free.

Potatoes? I thought Monsanto discontinued Newleaf. (I read that McDonald's stopped using them due to consumer complaints.) I heard about field trials a year or two ago ... I'm far from on top of it. Thanks for mentioning those. I thought there were no "humans-eat-the-plant-itself" GMOs since Flav-r-saver and maybe soybeans.

CountryGardens

CountryGardens
Lewisville, MN
(Zone 4a)

March 25, 2013
5:08 PM

Post #9461808



This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:13 AM

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 25, 2013
6:29 PM

Post #9461912

>> Before GMO sweet corn, they would spray with an airplane. The stuff was so potent they placed warning signs around the fields so people stayed out. 4 days would pass before they harvested the corn.

Way back in the '70s, my girlfriend wrote a senior paper about organo-phosphates for an organic chemistry project. Under "Uses" she made an illustration showing the chemical structure of a dozen organo-phosphate compounds. They all looked very similar - just minor variations on a theme (from the organic chemistry perspective).

In the left-hand column were 4 compounds designed as human neuro-toxins: war gasses.
In the right-hand column were four compounds designed and used as insecticides. They looked very similar.
The middle column had four compounds that could be used either way. "Keep Out", indeed.

But "bio-engineered" sounds scary because it's new. "Toxic insecticide residue" is old news, hence not sexy enough for the evening "news" or scary enough to arouse popular outcry.

BTW, I like the new thread title! You have to know what you're interested in, and make up your own mind, to keep following it.

CountryGardens

CountryGardens
Lewisville, MN
(Zone 4a)

March 25, 2013
7:15 PM

Post #9461969



This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:14 AM

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 25, 2013
7:20 PM

Post #9461971

I think it was Columbo who said "follow the money".

Most of the time, if you ask "why do professionals all do it that way", the answer is "it's cheaper" or some other version of "more profit".

Or "less likely to go bankrupt this year".
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 25, 2013
7:58 PM

Post #9462005

Rick, CG,
Very interesting NEW information you have been posting. Thanks,

Corn Farmers have been making big easy money because of Biofuels demand the last few years, but over the years, Farmers do not make a decent return on their Capital Investments. So we cannot blame them for using GMO or anything else that will help them make a living.

Ernie
rjogden
Gainesville, FL
(Zone 8b)

March 26, 2013
5:16 PM

Post #9463163

[quote="RickCorey_WA"]I think it was Columbo who said "follow the money".

Most of the time, if you ask "why do professionals all do it that way", the answer is "it's cheaper" or some other version of "more profit".

Or "less likely to go bankrupt this year".
[/quote]
Absolutely. We b*tch and moan when our gasoline prices go up, but farmers get hit all sorts of ways besides fuel costs. Nitrogen fertilizer is very energy-intensive to produce, and phosphorus fertilizer takes quite a bit. Most potassium comes from China, and they use the supply as a political tool. I used to use a purified form of potassium chloride in my water softener. It was $8 for a 40 pound bag only a couple of years ago, 3X the cost of ordinary salt but easier on the environment. That same bag now costs around $26 - out of my budget. Farmers don't have a choice whether to pay or not.

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 26, 2013
5:38 PM

Post #9463183

>> Biofuels demand the last few years,

There's a topic I know little about, but still have an opinion. at least I know it may be an UNFOUNDED opinion. Maybe I was just captured by a snappy saying.

Corn is a pretty demanding crop, heavy-feeding crop right?
And mostly edible, so little is returned to the soil?
The kind of thin g that used to be grown in rotation with less demanding crops and green manure?

The snappy saying was: "Burning biofuel is like burning our topsoil."

Perhaps unfair. What do you think?


CountryGardens

CountryGardens
Lewisville, MN
(Zone 4a)

March 26, 2013
7:24 PM

Post #9463313



This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:14 AM
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 26, 2013
7:39 PM

Post #9463328

C G, Is it true what we hear about the demand for Corn to make Biofuel has doubled the price of corn, driving up the price of fed beef, along with Chickens and other uses for the corn?

If so, just imagine how much more expensive it would be without the GMO boost in Corn production. Almost everything in the economy is tied together, either directly or indirectly.

Ernie

Solace

Solace
Monte Vista, CO
(Zone 4a)

March 27, 2013
1:10 AM

Post #9463480

By the way, how many here, involved in agriculture on a small or large farm, grow GMO corn or other GMO crops?

This message was edited Mar 27, 2013 2:45 AM
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 27, 2013
8:19 AM

Post #9463740

Solace,
Regardless of how many are directly involved in the actual growing, we are all involved in the Economy, which is the major underlying subject of this discussion. Remember: "No Man is an Island unto Himself."

Ernie

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 27, 2013
1:56 PM

Post #9464090

Thanks, CG.
rjogden
Gainesville, FL
(Zone 8b)

March 28, 2013
1:49 PM

Post #9465171

[quote="Solace"]By the way, how many here, involved in agriculture on a small or large farm, grow GMO corn or other GMO crops?[/quote]
I would bet that most people who are actual farmers either don't bother with a gardening list or dropped off the thread as soon as they saw the topic.
rjogden
Gainesville, FL
(Zone 8b)

March 28, 2013
1:54 PM

Post #9465174

[quote="CountryGardens"]Corn & soybeans fed to hogs, goes back into the soil as manure. They can get enough on the soil so they don't have to use other fertilizers.[/quote]
You make it sound like it is common practice to use hog manure as fertilizer, or even for every hog farmer to grow their own feed. Is this the case really? I was under the impression that feed lots constituted one problematic source of nitrogen pollution.


This message was edited Mar 28, 2013 4:55 PM

CountryGardens

CountryGardens
Lewisville, MN
(Zone 4a)

March 28, 2013
2:09 PM

Post #9465183



This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:15 AM
risingcreek
sun city, CA
(Zone 9a)

March 28, 2013
7:43 PM

Post #9465427

I have but one question, and this if GMOs are not harmful, why was the monsanto protection act just signed into law, prohibiting anyone from suing them for damages caused by their GMO products?
1lisac
Liberty Hill, TX
(Zone 8a)

March 28, 2013
8:34 PM

Post #9465459

I was wondering when somebody was going to bring that up. I think it was just signed on Mon. I thought if people were so concerned and so knowledgeable about GMOs somebody would be up on what was going on right now.

Hum...I wonder why they need protection...? Why would they even ask for it if their products are so safe. It reminds me of the asbestos companies. They knew it was harmful but they sold it anyway.

If we lived without GMOs until 10 yrs ago why can't we do it now?

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

March 29, 2013
7:12 AM

Post #9465699

Luckily the Monsanto Protection Act expires in six months, and hopefully the outcry over its passage will encourage Congress to take a closer look at labeling laws. Unfortunately Obama has no line item veto in this type of legislation so if he had refused to sign it we would have had a government shut-down. Here's a link explaining that
http://www.politicususa.com/congress-sequester-crisis-slip-corporate-give-monstanto.html

and here's an excerpt from an excellent explanation by proorganic.org.

*Section 735 "Monsanto Rider" is reported by NY Daily News to have been written in concert with Mosanto by Sen. Roy Blount (R-MO), perhaps Monsanto’s biggest Senate contribution beneficiary. Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) allowed the language to stand without consultation with the Agriculture Subcommittee, or any others, for that matter. This infamous action has been widely criticized in the strongest terms, even within the Senate. Sen. Mikulski's Facebook page has dozens of comments in opposition. Unlike a typical "Rider," the "Section 735" paragraph did not appear at the end of the bill. Because of this, the President could not issue a Signing Statement nullifying it. We know Mr. Obama consulted the White House Consul in detail to explore this possibility.

Most believe Section 735 of this bill violates the US Constitution’s “Separation of Powers” which provides for the Courts to maintain authority whenever cases are brought. This provision requires the Secretary of Agriculture to grant permits and temporary deregulation without Court intervention. Additional opinions suggest it violates the National Environmental Policy Act which calls for vairous Environmental Impact disclosures among other procedures.*

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 29, 2013
12:19 PM

Post #9465974

We have the finest Senators that money can buy.


1lisac
Liberty Hill, TX
(Zone 8a)

March 29, 2013
1:00 PM

Post #9466017

Thank you gg!

On his FB page? Lol

Why do they need protection?

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

March 29, 2013
1:22 PM

Post #9466042

Lisa, beats me!

Oh, and Mikulski's a she.
1lisac
Liberty Hill, TX
(Zone 8a)

March 29, 2013
1:24 PM

Post #9466044

Yap, he is a she I didn't read it right. I don't understand much that it says anyway.

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

March 29, 2013
1:32 PM

Post #9466055

Some of it's kind of in legalese.
rjogden
Gainesville, FL
(Zone 8b)

March 29, 2013
8:34 PM

Post #9466389

[quote="CountryGardens"]Yes, that's why a thread like this shows up. Everybody has their own idea & not the facts.

Land is getting expensive here. $10,000.00 & up per acre. Rents are running $350.00 & up per acre.
Each hog barn is connected to a certain piece of land to put the manure on. If you rent that piece of ground you pay the hog farmer for the manure. The manure goes on fields that will be planted to corn. The next year it grows soybeans, no manure. Soybeans help build up the nitrogen in the soil, which the corn uses a lot of.[/quote]
Thing must have changed since I was in agriculture school ;o).

Living legume plants (soy or otherwise) only make enough nitrogen for their own use; they don't release appreciable quantities of nitrogen into the surrounding soil while they are growing, and in fully mature annual legumes like soy the nitrogen has been concentrated in the beans, which are removed from the field along with their nitrogen (as protein), not turned in to the soil. Some legumes were (and maybe still are) cut in the "green" stage (up to flowering but before any seeds have formed) and turned in to the soil (aka "green manure"), which then causes any nitrogen the plant has accumulated to become available to the following crop.

Soy is not a spectacular nitrogen-fixer as legumes go, and the seeds/beans are too valuable on their own to waste the plant turning it into green manure. At least in the 70's and 80's, rotations between soy and corn were mostly practiced to minimize disease and pest carryover. The manure was applied prior to the corn planting because the corn needs more nitrogen.

Later I believe some rotations were carried on to minimize weeds because some of the broad-lead herbicides of the day would kill soy but had less effect on corn (different chemistry) and could be used on corn fields the season prior to planting soy.

-Rich


This message was edited Mar 29, 2013 11:40 PM
rjogden
Gainesville, FL
(Zone 8b)

March 29, 2013
8:50 PM

Post #9466398

[quote="greenhouse_gal"]*...the President could not issue a Signing Statement nullifying it. We know Mr. Obama consulted the White House Consul in detail to explore this possibility..*[/quote]
When I was growing up it was still understood that the role of the President under our Constitution is to enforce and implement the laws that Congress passed, not to cherry-pick the parts he liked. That's one of the major differences between a republic and a dictatorship. The President can *propose* laws to Congress, but he is not supposed to have much say in what gets passed. Too much power concentrated in one person's hands - what a nightmare. You have to really study history to understand what a horror that is - and it seems that's where President after President seem to be taking us. In spite of some people's "hope for change", this one isn't very different at all.
1lisac
Liberty Hill, TX
(Zone 8a)

March 29, 2013
10:35 PM

Post #9466433

All my formal education and all the information I've ever read goes along with what CG says. Certain plants should be planted AFTER legumes to use up the N they release into the soil. Always been told to leave the roots of these in the ground. But that isn't what this thread is about.

I'm still trying to figure out why Monsanto needs protection, if they are so sure their stuff is safe. Don't understand the needless nit picking.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 29, 2013
10:52 PM

Post #9466438

Rich,

I have never grown Soybeans, but have grown Alfalfa, and I believe the Nitrogen is fixed in the nodes on the roots, and remains in the soil when the plants are removed.

And I have always heard, and believed that you do not turn green manure under to increase the nitrogen, as the decomposition requires more nitrogen than the vegetation provides.

And since i was not sure after reading your post that Soybeans were a good source of Nitrogen, i googled it, and Soybeans can provide up to 250 pounds of nitrogen per acre, while Alfalfa does not produce quite that much.

But what CG says, does reflect what most Farmers seem to believe.

Lisa, I believe the first post on the first thread of this, concerned the problems or danger of Roundup building up in the soil. But for sure, we have drifted far off that path.



Ernie
rjogden
Gainesville, FL
(Zone 8b)

March 30, 2013
11:56 PM

Post #9467297

[quote="ERNIECOPP"]Rich,

I have never grown Soybeans, but have grown Alfalfa, and I believe the Nitrogen is fixed in the nodes on the roots, and remains in the soil when the plants are removed.

And I have always heard, and believed that you do not turn green manure under to increase the nitrogen, as the decomposition requires more nitrogen than the vegetation provides.

And since i was not sure after reading your post that Soybeans were a good source of Nitrogen, i googled it, and Soybeans can provide up to 250 pounds of nitrogen per acre, while Alfalfa does not produce quite that much.

But what CG says, does reflect what most Farmers seem to believe.

Ernie[/quote]
Hmmm. Let's start with the soybeans. I guess I'll have to look up my old agronomy professors at the University of Georgia and tell them they were wrong :o).

Seriously, though, the nitrogen produced in the root nodules does not stay in the root nodules. It is translocated to the rest of the plant and used to make proteins and other nitrogenous compounds. A couple of things you can pretty much count on from plants: every structure evolved to serve some purpose that is useful to the species, and they are not altruistic. In the symbiotic relationship between legumes and the symbiotic Rhizobium bacteria, the bacteria gets a place to set up shop and reproduce and energy from the plant's photosynthesis, and the plants get the nitrogen they need to make amino acids. The nodules are still there when the plant dies; the nitrogen produced in the nodules mostly isn't, unless the plant is sacrificed. As the plants mature, the bulk of the nitrogen is moved into the seeds. That's why beans are such a good source of protein. By the time the seeds are fully ripe and ready to harvest, the plant has largely lost it's green color as nutrients are moved into the seeds.

Some math (not my favorite subject, but occasionally useful):

1) In the US in 2011, the average soybean yield in the US was 43.5 bushels per acre. (http://www.soystats.com/2012/page_04.htm)
2) One bushel of soybeans contains on average 21 pounds of protein.
3) The common conversion factor for estimating protein content from nitrogen analysis is 5.3. That is, for every 1 gram of nitrogen measured, there will be about 5.3 grams of protein.

So one acre of soy can produce (43.5 X 21) or 913.5 pounds of protein, which contains (913.5 / 5.3) or 172.35 pounds of nitrogen, all of which is removed when the soybeans are harvested.

4) Soybeans can cut the nitrogen requirement for later corn plantings by 30 pounds per acre. (http://extension.missouri.edu/p/WQ277)

Per acre, that's 172.35 pounds of nitrogen for us (in the form of protein) and 30 pounds of nitrogen left behind for the next crop, a total of 202.35 pounds of nitrogen produced per acre including what is harvested and removed and what is left behind. Assuming soy fixes the nitrogen it uses and is not fertilized with additional nitrogen fertilizer, only about 15% of the nitrogen produced in the root nodules is left when the soybeans are harvested. Fertilizing with nitrogen has been shown in numerous studies to suppress nitrogen production by the root nodules.

Gosh, ain't science wonderful... ;o)

BTW, isn't it a contradiction to say that green manure uses more nitrogen than it produces, when green manuring using soybean residues can reduce the nitrogen fertilizer requirement of subsequent corn crops? I don't think both can be correct.

-Rich
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 31, 2013
7:25 AM

Post #9467497

Rich,

I was rather tentative in my comments, relying on practices that Farmers, all the way back in history have observed, believed, and practiced. As the results i saw confirmed what others believed, i saw, and still see, no reason to doubt it.

We all are aware that you have had some higher formal education and you certainly make some impressive sounding arguments, but if you are not familiar with his work, i suggest you look up Omar Khayam's short story: "The Book Seller's Donkey."

I was not as clear in the sentence as i could have been, but i was referring to the decomposing period of the green manure, and i have seen many references, indicating the bacteria digesting the vegetable matter in large amounts require additional nitrogen during that process. I assume it does remain in the soil. Whether those other experts or you are correct, i wil leave for others to decide.

Ernie

rjogden
Gainesville, FL
(Zone 8b)

March 31, 2013
1:45 PM

Post #9467787

[quote="ERNIECOPP"]Rich,

I was rather tentative in my comments, relying on practices that Farmers, all the way back in history have observed, believed, and practiced. As the results i saw confirmed what others believed, i saw, and still see, no reason to doubt it.

We all are aware that you have had some higher formal education and you certainly make some impressive sounding arguments, but if you are not familiar with his work, i suggest you look up Omar Khayam's short story: "The Book Seller's Donkey."

I was not as clear in the sentence as i could have been, but i was referring to the decomposing period of the green manure, and i have seen many references, indicating the bacteria digesting the vegetable matter in large amounts require additional nitrogen during that process. I assume it does remain in the soil. Whether those other experts or you are correct, i wil leave for others to decide.

Ernie

[/quote]
Ernie,

What other experts are you referring to? The people I learned from were "Farmers" and people who worked closely with "Farmers".

What I took exception to were two statements you made.

The first was "the Nitrogen is fixed in the nodes on the roots, and remains in the soil when the plants are removed." The measurable, verifiable fact is that the vast bulk of nitrogen fixed in the nodules is used by the plant to make the amino acids that the plant needs to manufacture everything from structures to enzymes. Only a small percentage of the nitrogen fixed by leguminous crops remains in the soil when the plants or their seeds are harvested. Actual, provable, measurable data doesn't depend on belief.

The second was "And I have always heard, and believed that you do not turn green manure under to increase the nitrogen, as the decomposition requires more nitrogen than the vegetation provides". I see you later backpedaled on that. One of the main reasons legume green manures are grown and turned under is to increase soil nitrogen to subsequent crops. What you were talking about - the loss of available nitrogen - is a very short-term effect. The net nitrogen balance isn't adversely affected unless you have anaerobic soil conditions.

No belief is required for any of what I said, only years of accurate measurement and record keeping.

-Rich
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 31, 2013
2:38 PM

Post #9467830

Rich,

You are trying to pick an argument with me, and i am trying to avoid one. If you recall, the last time you did that, was because those teachers you put your faith in, let you leave school without having learned the correct definition of the word, FRUIT.

Knowledge can be taught, learned, bought and sold, but wisdom must be acquired, and perhaps your technical knowledge of the behavior of nitrogen is correct, but i also have faith in the Wisdom of the many farmers that rotate their crops believing the crop following a legume crop will benefit from the nitrogen left in the residue from the prior crop.

There seem to be many differences of opinion concerning this question among the different articles written by Professionals in the field, on the Google website, so I am sure there is material for a lot of arguments about the details, percentages, etc, but it is not an subject i care enough about to argue about.

Ernie

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

April 2, 2013
5:53 PM

Post #9470144

ERNIECOPP said:
>> Is it true what we hear about the demand for Corn to make Biofuel has doubled the price of corn, driving up the price of fed beef, along with Chickens and other uses for the corn?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130401151028.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Latest+Science+News%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

I hope this isn't too-far off topic, but it's a good example of a technology or method being adopted for one (good) ecological reason, then possibly having a different (bad) ecological outcome.

In this case, no-till farming, autumn surface fertilization, and corn-for-biofuel may interact with more-frequent intense spring rainstorms to cause phosphate run-off and toxic algae blooms killing Lake Erie (again).

This article blames toxic algae blooms in Lake Erie (partly) on no-till farming, producing corn for biofuel (ethanol), and trends toward applying fertilizer (phosphate) in autumn. Also, they predict more of the same since they expect unusually intense spring rainstorms to be more common with rising CO2 levels keeping more heat energy in the atmosphere. atmospheric

Those lead to higher concentrations of dissolved reactive phosphorus near the surface of soil, where Intense spring rainstorms can wash it right out and into the Maumee River, then western Lake Erie.

"an algae bloom that covered about 2,000 square miles by the time it peaked in early October 2011. That's more than three times larger than any previously observed Lake Erie algae bloom,"

" composed almost entirely of toxic blue-green Microcystis algae. Concentrations of mycrocystin, a liver toxin produced by the algae, peaked at about 224 times World Health Organization guidelines, "

" ... used 12 computerized climate models ... which incorporate the anticipated effects of human-caused climate change due to the buildup of heat-trapping greenhouse gases, showed that the frequency of spring rainstorms that drop more than 1.2 inches is likely to double in this region by the end of the century."

Oh, yes, and also:

"a trend in the Midwest toward declining acreage reserved for conservation purposes, "

"A paper summarizing the team's findings is scheduled for online publication April 1 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences."

Everyone wants to save money, and that is easy to measure and motivate on a month-to-month basis.

But even if everyone wanted to "save the planet" as much as they want to save a buck, it's hard to measure (or predict, or motivate) decades ahead, and easy to simply disbelieve and deny anything that might cost money.

There were some conventional and GM plans for developing crops that would do relatively well in low-nutrient soil ... but will they be used to prevent fertilizer run-off from eutrophying Lake Erie, or will they be used to over-exploit marginal grasslands and turn them in to deserts? Stay tuned ...

>> *Section 735 "Monsanto Rider" is reported by NY Daily News to have been written in concert with Mosanto by Sen. Roy Blount (R-MO), perhaps Monsanto’s biggest Senate contribution beneficiary. ...
>> This infamous action has been widely criticized in the strongest terms, even within the Senate.

So heinous and flagrant that even the Senate criticized it. It must have been PRETTY flagrant!

The precedent of politicians doing whatever Monsanto paid them to do, is not one that makes me feel confident that long-term national decisions will be made in our children's or grand-children's best interests.










ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

April 2, 2013
7:32 PM

Post #9470268

Rick,
Whether it is on topic or off, your posts from the scientific aspect are usually very informative.

Almost everything we try has unexpected consequences, but in spite of that, i think the only way we can make any progress is to take some risks.

But one thing we always need to keep in mind, no one seems to be able to completely keep their personal biases, or self interests, out of their thoughts and decisions. So, the Scientist, the Farmer, the Logger, all look at the benefits and problems from their individual aspect.

So, i would hazard a guess that the neither the rewards from anything will not be as big we hoped, and the problems will not be as bad as we feared.

And as long as the World population keeps expanding, we have to make, and accept, the changes necessary to feed and house those people.

Ernie

CountryGardens

CountryGardens
Lewisville, MN
(Zone 4a)

April 2, 2013
7:54 PM

Post #9470289



This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:16 AM

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

April 3, 2013
12:44 PM

Post #9470845

>> Almost everything we try has unexpected consequences, but in spite of that, i think the only way we can make any progress is to take some risks.

That's the kind of thing I men at when I said that these discussions tend to be un-debate-able. That kind of belief or value (that I agree with, around 85%) is mostly not provable or dis-provable. It's almost personal philosophy.

>> And as long as the World population keeps expanding, we have to make, and accept, the changes necessary to feed and house those people.

That might be provable! Or at least it's a valid question to ask someone who's against some paerticular practice, like fertilizer or herbicide usage: "OK, how would YOU feed the poor?"


CountryGardens said:
>> Everybody blames the farmers for pollution.
>> less chemicals are used now than ever before.
>> Fertilizers are put on only where needed, not just spread everywhere.


>> As far as Lake Erie goes, at one time it was nearly "dead". Now it is one of the best Walleye fisheries there is. This doesn't go along with your saying how polluted it is.

I don't know, myself, that's why I gave the link and the name of the paper they said would be published online. Their claim about the toxic algae bloom was specific enough that I think it could be proved or disproved. Their claims about future spring rains becoming more intense because of "many climate models" is more like speculation or prediction.

It's interesting that they claimed increases in leachable "dissolved reactive phosphorus" (DRP) near the soil surface was INCREASED by these:
- trends toward applying fertilizer (phosphate) on the surface, in the autumn
- no-till farming,
- and corn-for-biofuel

(Maybe traditional phosphate sources were LESS soluble forms, and no-till requires very soluble forms?? Pure guess, no idea.

I would have expected you to be more right about:
>> minimum tillage stops erosion & runoff.

Maybe that's SOIL runoff? Or maybe it is phopshate-runoff-in-the-SPRING that specifically encourages TOXIC algal blooms. Or maybe the authors were grinding some axe of their own, and as you suggest, were pre-inclined to bash farming practices (or biofuel).

That's why I say that no one study is likely to resolve any contentious issue. If you (and 2 other teams) had the time and funding to do studies and write paperse in reply, you might disprove half of what they say and turn their vaguer speculations into more specific claims that could then be proved or disproved. Then the SIX teams writing TWELVE other papers would start to narrow down what is really relevant to what.

But it would take even more studies to figure out what was PRACTICAL to do in response to cure the real root problems. (For example, maybe 80% of the problem is dropping soluble P on the surface in autumn now that spring rains are so hard. STOP THAT.) And politicians would probably shoot that down, too.

THAT'S science in the real world.

I'm inclined to believe that farmers don't spend any more on fertilizer and herbicides than they have to, but if spending an extra $60 on an acre is likely to increase yield by $100, they have to do it. Especially when that is not $40 more profit, but $40 less LOSS.

And home gardeners and lawn care bozos probably drench with herbicides and soluble fertilizer willy-nilly compared to experienced farmers. Then it comes down to relative acreage and concentration and total tonnages: are there more fields or more suburbs? Which one consumes more tons of phosphate?

I agree with you 100% that suburban lawns have a lot less intrinsic value than producing food ... but that's a value judgement that I can't force upon people who love having lawns that look like indoor carpets.

HoneybeeNC

HoneybeeNC
Charlotte, NC
(Zone 7b)

April 4, 2013
11:35 AM

Post #9471849

I've lived in this house for 7 1/2 years an have never fertilized or watered the front yard. Still the darn grass grows! If it were not for deer, something edible would be growing out front!
risingcreek
sun city, CA
(Zone 9a)

April 9, 2013
7:10 AM

Post #9477239

this link is helpful if you want to avoid buying gmo seed

http://www.seminis.com/global/us/products/Pages/Home-Garden.aspx

CountryGardens

CountryGardens
Lewisville, MN
(Zone 4a)

April 9, 2013
7:43 AM

Post #9477300



This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:17 AM
risingcreek
sun city, CA
(Zone 9a)

April 9, 2013
8:17 AM

Post #9477370

yes it is

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

April 9, 2013
10:26 AM

Post #9477548

That's why Pinetree Garden Seeds stopped using Seminis as a provider.

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

April 9, 2013
3:23 PM

Post #9477916

Hi R isingcreek.

Do you mean "seeds of genetically modified strains", or
"seeds sold by companhies affiliated with Monsanto"?

For example, in the link you provided, there is this:
Seminis does not offer GM vegetable seeds for the home garden market.

http://www.seminis.com/global/us/products/Pages/Home-Gardeners.aspx

Or were you saying t6hat in order to AVOID buying genetically engi8neered seeds, we SHOULD b uy from Seminis sinc e they offer that guarantee?

I wish I knew whether Johnnies Seeds was owned by Monsanto, or how much of it was owned.

I do try t o avoid buying f rom Monsanto -owned companies for philosophical reasons: they come too close to a monoply for my taste. Their policies decrease the diversity of commercially-available strains, and I want to vote against that with my tiny little checkbook.




greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

April 9, 2013
4:43 PM

Post #9478014

I'm pretty sure that link lists companies affiliated with Monsanto, rather than companies that sell GMO seeds. As you point out, there are few if any GMO strains offered to the home gardener. But I vote with my pocketbook, too, so I try to avoid sources that enrich companies that are counter to my philosophical beliefs.

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

April 9, 2013
6:48 PM

Post #9478166

I'm glad to answer or debunk my own question.

Here's what Johnnies says:

"Johnny’s Selected Seeds was a sole proprietorship from January 1973 until July 1975, when the company was incorporated in Maine. Over the years, Johnny’s has grown on the good graces of its customers, and the company had never received investments from any source. This changed in July 2006, when Johnny’s Selected Seeds took investment from its employees. Johnny's became 100% employee owned in June of 2012."

Someone else says that only 40 (4%) of Johnny's offerings came from Seminis, and they are trying to find replacements for those.
http://eatclosetohome.wordpress.com/2009/12/29/monsanto-and-johnnys-seeds/

Another person said there were only 18 Seminis products listed in Johnny's in 2010:
http://littlerockurbanfarming.com/who-owns-your-seeds-disclosing-the-johnnysmonsanto-connection/

And just to be clear, none of them were genetically modified or genetically engin eered.

I see that Johnny's made the DG Watchdog Top Fiv e in two recent years.
I sure like the advice they give in thier paper catalogs!

1lisac
Liberty Hill, TX
(Zone 8a)

April 9, 2013
8:33 PM

Post #9478289

That's the point that none of us can seem to get across to people that don't want to hear it. GMO seeds ARE NOT avaliable to the home gardener. There are permits and paperwork that need to be filled out. I don't know why people find this so hard to understand. Until you understand the basics you can't go foreword and it is spreading lies. That's not saying I'm for GMOs but I'm for the truth. Myself and Farmerdill pointed this out at the beginning of the first thread, but still the lies continue.

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

April 11, 2013
5:24 AM

Post #9479695

I haven't heard anyone saying that home garden catalogues sell GMO seeds, 1lisac. It looks to me as though people are just trying to avoid purveyors associated with GMO companies as a way of voting with their wallets and also as a way of supporting places which have taken a stand against GMOs.

CountryGardens

CountryGardens
Lewisville, MN
(Zone 4a)

April 11, 2013
6:37 AM

Post #9479774

t.

This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:17 AM

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

April 11, 2013
10:40 AM

Post #9480144

Zeesh, Country Gardens, of course there are. But some of us are just trying to avoid what toxins and problems we can. Why walk in the middle of a busy street when you can use a sidewalk?
evelyn_inthegarden
Sierra Foothills, CA
(Zone 8a)

April 11, 2013
1:02 PM

Post #9480313

Good to grow our own veggies, huh?? Then we at least know what kind of soil and fertilizers were used, and sprays, or lack thereof...
1lisac
Liberty Hill, TX
(Zone 8a)

April 11, 2013
5:26 PM

Post #9480605

Greenhouse- RC posted that, that link "was good if you wanted to avoid buying GMOs". I don't see a way to misunderstand that statement. The problem is you can't buy them if you are a home gardener, this issue has been dicussed soooo many times.

Solace

Solace
Monte Vista, CO
(Zone 4a)

April 11, 2013
8:31 PM

Post #9480816

...unless you grow them in a larger agricultural program and then grow some in your home garden for yourself or to sell. Plus, I'm not completely convinced that some don't make it into the seed supply. They certainly make it into the food supply. Interesting that my question was never answered as to who grows GMO corn, soy, etc. in an agricultural operation. There was one comment by someone who is not a larger scale (than a home gardener) farmer. There sure are several who are defending it adamately. Why? Those who care about their health and those who care about seed diversity and the health of the planet have been called fearful. They're not fearful. They're awake. They read. They learn. They don't believe everything they hear and they don't believe all the hype about how 'good' something is on television, without doing some research on their own. And they don't insult the members who are concerned and awake by calling it "silliness". How dismissive and condescending can you get? Please don't do that.
1lisac
Liberty Hill, TX
(Zone 8a)

April 11, 2013
9:03 PM

Post #9480838

If round up ready seed did make it in to the seed supply what difference would it make unless you used a weed killer on it. That's the issue that it can be drenched with herbicide but if your not going to do that then what harm is done?

I thought your question wasn't answered bc maybe there aren't many big ag individuals on a site geared more to home gardeners.

Personally Im sorry to say this but many of the people that I think would be considered "fearful" are not willing to learn the truth either. They find sites that back their feelings. If it doesn't back their feelings it's not true. I would be happy if there was labeling so I could knowingly choose not to eat GMOs.

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

April 12, 2013
4:35 AM

Post #9480988

1lisac, you're right, that is what the link purported to do. I overlooked that since the conversation has meandered so much. But since an overwhelmingly high percentage of the corn being grown in the U.S. currently is GMO, I would hesitate to buy garden seed corn from anyone who didn't offer a safe-seed pledge because of the problem of drift and accidental contamination. Regarding the "truth," the fact is that we don't know the truth yet; that's what many of us are concerned about. The research completed on rats that's been accepted by regulatory agencies stopped at 90 days; in Séralini's study, which had a longer duration, the effects didn't appear until after that time period. We don't know what the impact of GMOs will be on those who are now infants, and on their children. And if we don't know, we shouldn't be opening up Pandora's box.

And Solace, I agree with you completely that people who insult other members by ad hominem attacks are breaching the rules of courtesy here; it also seems like the last resort of those who lack the science to back their convictions.

CountryGardens

CountryGardens
Lewisville, MN
(Zone 4a)

April 12, 2013
4:44 AM

Post #9480993



This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:18 AM
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

April 12, 2013
8:34 AM

Post #9481242

GG,
"If God would but, the Gifty Gie Us, To see Ourselves, as Others See Us."

You seem very sensitive to strong words from others that were simply trying to inject some logic and common sense in the discussion, but you were quick to impugn the intelligence of several that did not agree with you.

And your last sentence is a good example. Your own convictions that GMOs are bad are based on your imagination and fears, as there is absolutely no reputable science to back that up.

Ernie

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

April 12, 2013
11:41 AM

Post #9481456

It doesn't sound as though you read what I wrote above so I won't bother rephrasing it, but you might take a look at this:

http://www.gmwatch.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14635

The author of the letter quoted here is a reputable scientist.

We are back to denigrating concerns as stemming only from imagination and fears, so I'll leave you all to your discourse.

1lisac
Liberty Hill, TX
(Zone 8a)

April 12, 2013
12:03 PM

Post #9481481

Greenhouse-I'm not talking about the GMOs in our food supply but the fact that it cannot be sold to the home gardener, that is the truth. But I do agree that I'd rather buy it from a company that has the safe seed pledge. BUT they are 2 different issues. I'm not concerned about drift bc no corn is grown around here.

This issue was discussed in the first 3 posts of the original thread. I don't understand why it keeps getting brought up again and again. I guess if it's ask enough times one sill get the answer they want, but it would be nice to move on.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

April 12, 2013
12:24 PM

Post #9481529

I stand on what i have said before. IF there is ever damage or harm proven, Lawyers will swarm on it like locusts, as it will be a gold mine for them.

Until then, it is just conjecture.

Ernie

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

April 18, 2013
9:30 AM

Post #9488543

Interesting study:

http://gmoevidence.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/GlyModern-diseaseSamsel-Seneff-13-1.pdf

It discusses the deleterious effects of Roundup on living organisms and notes that more Roundup is being used in the U.S.than ever before due to GMO strains which are Roundup resistant.
back40bean
Decatur, GA
(Zone 7b)

April 18, 2013
11:31 AM

Post #9488645

Interesting study, indeed. It's difficult to imagine that all that extra Roundup being used would not have some harmful effects. I certainly will not choose to eat foods that were sprayed with any Roundup, not to even mention an extra heavy dose of Roundup.
evelyn_inthegarden
Sierra Foothills, CA
(Zone 8a)

April 18, 2013
3:48 PM

Post #9488882

If they are not labeled, how do you know if you are eating food that has been sprayed with Round-Up?

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

April 18, 2013
3:54 PM

Post #9488892

Gee, I guess you wouldn't.
savagegardener
Middleton, TN
(Zone 7a)

April 19, 2013
5:45 AM

Post #9489352

Humm...Lisa they sell round up ready corn seed at my local feed store , so it is simply NOT true that GMO seed is not sold to home gardeners

HoneybeeNC

HoneybeeNC
Charlotte, NC
(Zone 7b)

April 19, 2013
5:54 AM

Post #9489361

Food that has the USDA ORGANIC icon should not contain Round-up, or any other herbicide, pesticide, or insecticide.

CountryGardens

CountryGardens
Lewisville, MN
(Zone 4a)

April 19, 2013
10:02 AM

Post #9489635



This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:19 AM
Indy
Alexandria, IN
(Zone 6a)

April 19, 2013
12:53 PM

Post #9489765

CG, I assume that arbitrary distances must be expressed to establish rules and guidelines. What I have noticed from Roundup is that after 10 feet, no noticeable affect is made on non-Roundup plants...2-4-D can revaporize much worse.
1lisac
Liberty Hill, TX
(Zone 8a)

April 19, 2013
3:36 PM

Post #9489952

Savage- you need to tell Farmerdill that GMO seeds are available to the general public. That is something that I've never heard of, but I don't grow corn...he's much more knowledgeable then I am. As far as I know that's the one thing we've never argued about on Daves. Lol.

Can you buy it or do they just sell it there? Our local feed store sells chemicals, but I can't buy them bc I don't have/want a license.

Indy
Alexandria, IN
(Zone 6a)

April 19, 2013
5:08 PM

Post #9490049

1Lisac, Perhaps someone could buy the GMO sweet corn without a contract because no one is going to save the seed.?
Farmerdill
Augusta, GA
(Zone 8a)


April 19, 2013
5:47 PM

Post #9490088

I try to avoid these silly discussions, but this one drew me in. GMO crops are heavily regulated. There are cases in court right now where farmers have violated the licensing agreement. This is a veggie site so GMO is limited to sweet corn. Bt sweet corn has been available for 15 years from Syngenta. Seminis introduced a Bt- RU ready sweet corn in 2012. You must have a license to buy it from either producer and it is limited to commercial growers. On top of that each state has its own rules. We are not a law abiding country ( most of us have at least broken the speed limits) So the greater danger is someone sneaking out GMO seeds cross breeding with with regular corn and introducing into the "heirloom" market. I am still amazed that an unscrupulous graduate student did not take seeds from The University of California's Flavor Rich tomato crossbreed it and throw it on the heirloom market. Fortunately most of the amateur breeders concentrate on tomatoes and apparently did not get a hold of that one. My prediction is that if and when GMO's become available to home gardeners, it will through the "heirloom" market.

CountryGardens

CountryGardens
Lewisville, MN
(Zone 4a)

April 19, 2013
6:11 PM

Post #9490112



This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:20 AM
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

April 19, 2013
7:25 PM

Post #9490207

Back when i was a boy, say 80 years ago, everything was organic. If there were any chemicals no one had money to buy them, so i am surprised that people only lived half as long then as they do now when everything, according to some people, seems to be mostly deadly poisonous chemicals, that just looks on the outside like a vegetable.

And having swallowed and absorbed through my eyes and nose, more Roundup than 99.9% of the people worrying about it ever will, i am living proof it does not harm people.

Ernie

dreaves

dreaves
Hutto, TX
(Zone 8b)

April 19, 2013
7:31 PM

Post #9490212

I would buy BT-enhanced sweet corn seed if I could. I'm almost certain that I am already eating BT sweet corn when I buy corn at the grocery store. It hasn't killed me so far... It would be nice to not have to fight the worms quite so hard and get the freshness of home grown.

dreaves

dreaves
Hutto, TX
(Zone 8b)

April 19, 2013
7:45 PM

Post #9490223

Here's a rational, well written article about BT corn.

http://soursaltybittersweet.com/content/organic-lies-about-bt-sweet-corn
Farmerdill
Augusta, GA
(Zone 8a)


April 20, 2013
5:32 AM

Post #9490499

Ernie, I am about as old as you. Back in the thirties and up into the fifties. Colorado potato beetles were fought with lead arsenate and Mexican bean beetles and about everything else with derrus root ( Rotenone). In those day many regulated poisons like Paris Green, nicotine sulfate,strychnine etc were readily available. When the Colorado potato beetle first arrived in Virginia in the teens, my grandfathers generation used Paris green to try to combat them. One of the disadavantages of a developing transportation system was the spread of pest species into new areas. Most of the plant diseases and many of the insects were not present then or were recently introduced. When something threatened, they fought back with whatever they could lay thier hands on.

CountryGardens

CountryGardens
Lewisville, MN
(Zone 4a)

April 20, 2013
5:34 AM

Post #9490500




This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:21 AM
Farmerdill
Augusta, GA
(Zone 8a)


April 20, 2013
6:59 AM

Post #9490591

It is interesting that Monsanto gets bashed for this as Syngenta (Swiss based company) has marketed Bt Sweet corn for years. Monsanto's claim to fame is Round -Up. Most GMO research takes place at tax supported institutions of higher learning. Most in the area of high volume field crops. No one has to buy GMO seed. Sales are driven by the market place. Farmers try to cut production costs and with the advent of no till farming rely on herbicides. It is expensive to apply insecticides so costs can be reduced by using Bt varieties. Piracy is a major problem in modern society as there are those who try to get the advantage of GMO's with out paying the cost. Farmers complain about the law suits, but that in part is dictated by govermental controls. There are specific methods of production and waste product disposal that are dictated and included in all growers licenses, but there are always those few who try to get around the rules and violate those licenses. Many of the pests we have today came from folks violating quarantine laws and importing plants, fruits , or produce that carried those pests. Even if you invent the proverbial better mouse trap, some one will violate your patent rights with a cheaper knock -off.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

April 20, 2013
8:31 AM

Post #9490701

Farmer Dill,

I appreciate the common sense you and Country Gardens and a couple of others add to this discussion.

I remember hearing of those poisons back then, but during the thirties, we could not afford any of them. All i can remember being used was soaking cigarette butts in water, to get the nicotine for spraying.
But the real scary one for me, was when i went to work in Asphalt paving after the war, and we had to use pure Arsenic under driveways and parking lots to keep grass and weeds from coming through. It was vile, green stuff, and we had to mix it and apply it, no protective gear, just told to be careful as it was poison

So, instead of being upset with Monsanto for developing Roundup, every person on this forum should be eternally grateful for them giving us Roundup for weed control, so we no longer have to use Arsenic.

The two things that keep me returning to this thread are the efforts by some to stop progress by interfering with companies that are trying to create improvements that will help everyone, and the people that want everything they can think of, including labels, but want to be sure someone else pays for it.

Labels are fine with me, so if they would just shut up and pay for the labels they want, there would be no objection.

Ernie

HoneybeeNC

HoneybeeNC
Charlotte, NC
(Zone 7b)

April 20, 2013
9:22 AM

Post #9490754

I am willing to pay any extra that might be incurred to have GMO's labeled, as I already do to have organic food so labeled.

I HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT I AM PUTTING IN MY BODY!

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

April 20, 2013
1:54 PM

Post #9490935

Honeybee, there you go trying to stop progress again. Don't you appreciate all those improvements that the kind pesticide companies are making to your food?

CountryGardens

CountryGardens
Lewisville, MN
(Zone 4a)

April 20, 2013
2:28 PM

Post #9490966



This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:22 AM
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

April 20, 2013
2:52 PM

Post #9490991

GG.
If you do not believe Roundup is a big improvement over arsenic for killing weeds, you are not as smart as i thought you were.

Ernie

dreaves

dreaves
Hutto, TX
(Zone 8b)

April 20, 2013
3:00 PM

Post #9491001

I'm personally happy to have Roundup, fertilizers, and pesticides. I can't imagine how we could possibly feed ourselves, much less the rest of the world. Corporations develop new products to satisfy market demand and to provide profit for their shareholders. They also provide the technology, equipment, and methods that make everything work. I'm not convinced that the big corporations, even Monsanto, are the embodiment of evil that some seem to thing that they are.

David
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

April 20, 2013
3:48 PM

Post #9491053

David,

I have no personal like or dislike for Monsanto, but i am glad to see that I am not the only one that appreciates the good that big corporations do.

The only thing i would add to your list, is they are the only ones, besides the Government, that can afford to take the risk of testing and trying new products or new solutions to old problems.

Thanks,
Ernie

HoneybeeNC

HoneybeeNC
Charlotte, NC
(Zone 7b)

April 20, 2013
4:43 PM

Post #9491126

Yáll might like to read the 30-year farming systems trial report from the Rodale Institute in which they have shown that growing food organically can, indeed, feed the worlds people.

http://rodaleinstitute.org/our-work/farming-systems-trial/farming-systems-trial-30-year-report/

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

April 20, 2013
4:57 PM

Post #9491139

Ernie, you're using ad hominem tactics again. If you're sure of your position, please use facts rather than attacking people's intelligence. That doesn't convince anyone and just lowers the level of discourse, which was actually fairly good here for awhile.

ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

April 20, 2013
5:01 PM

Post #9491141

Honey,

Long before Rodale became known, Louis Bromfield was going to feed the world with his composting methods, but the problem was, the process cost more than it was worth. He did have some success composting tea leaf waste in India, i assume because of cheap labor, but when he tried it in the USA at Malabar Farm, he soon went bankrupt.

And whatever method you choose to feed the world, it has to be economically feasible.

I liked the work Rodale Sr. did, but there is a reason why Organic Food is so expensive.

Ernie
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

April 20, 2013
5:03 PM

Post #9491142

G G,

I was speaking from personal experience. Where did you get your information?

Ernie

HoneybeeNC

HoneybeeNC
Charlotte, NC
(Zone 7b)

April 20, 2013
5:17 PM

Post #9491157

Ernie, of course organic food is more expensive! It may cost a little more than conventionally grown food, but it's superior taste, and the fact that it is free of pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides makes it worth the extra investment for myself and my family.

If you would kindly read the above link I provided, you would see that feeding the world's people can be economically feasible.

Rodale's 30 year trial has taken place in Pennsylvania. Please take the time to read the link, all references have been listed. They can't all be wrong in their conclusions.

I'm not saying that everyone should purchase organic food, just that labels should be provided with the information as to what is in the food. Healthy food keeps us healthy.

Have you ever noticed in your vegetable garden that it's always the unhealthy plants that get eaten by pests? Perhaps that's why I have such success with my own endeavors, my soil is healthy, which, in turn produces healthy plants that resist pests.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

April 20, 2013
6:16 PM

Post #9491246

Honey,
I am very lucky here. My yard has not been planted or watered for 20 years until i started 2 years 2 years ago, so i have not had the disease or bug problems that i will probably have later. I also have a lot of birds here. I believe healthy soil makes healthy plants, but I am more in the middle of the road.

When i get sick, it take medicine for it, and when my plants do get sick, i give them medicine. I had a snail problem and immediately stopped the damage with some snail poison. So i do not qualify as an Organic Grower.

We both understand that Organic produce costs more, and i think it is fine that you buy it and enjoy and appreciate it. But like Malabar Farms, the extra cost of doing it that way eliminates too many potential customers, and so the operation fails.

To change that statement just a little bit, "IF all the people in the World could afford the extra cost, It would be possible to raise enough food organically to feed them." And with that change of wording, you and i are in agreement.

But we can also be sure that if it is truly both better, and economically feasible, it will win out on its own merits. Those two factors generally win the battle at the end.

Ernie

dreaves

dreaves
Hutto, TX
(Zone 8b)

April 20, 2013
6:45 PM

Post #9491272

Honeybee,

I'm not arguing that organics might be more desirable IF they were affordable. But, there is a reason that the Rodale Institute is a charitable entity. If they could make money with organic farming, then it wouldn't be necessary for them to solicit donations.

Solace

Solace
Monte Vista, CO
(Zone 4a)

April 20, 2013
7:37 PM

Post #9491360

That was a great report, Honeybee. Thank you.

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

April 21, 2013
6:34 AM

Post #9491654

Yes, thanks, Honeybee. I've seen similar reports
(for example this one: http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4060)
that also stress the negative impact that conventional agriculture has on our water and soil and discuss how unsustainable these practices are in the long term as well as in the face of climate change.

darius

darius
So.App.Mtns.
United States
(Zone 5b)

April 21, 2013
7:14 AM

Post #9491711

I'm very late in finding this thread. I agree totally that we need to now what's in our foods, and then make our choices.

However much I prefer organics, I have to truthfully say that taste is not a factor nor implicit in organic foods. They do not automatically taste better. I choose organic foods first because I have a damaged immune system that reacts badly with chemicals.

For me, the optimum foods are both organic AND high in brix. Only a high brix increases the nutritional value, which also happens to improve the taste. (How many tasteless cantaloupes have you bought in the last 20 years?) I now carry my refractometer with me to the farmer's markets; there's no point in buying tasteless organic foods that are low in brix just because they are grown without chemicals.

It takes several years to get garden soil to become really good soil. It's all about microbes. I've been working on mine for 5 years now, and I'm making progress.

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

April 21, 2013
7:21 AM

Post #9491723

I don't know that taste per se is better in organic products, but after years of eating nothing but organic apples I've noticed that if I do try a non-organic apple because I'm dying for a Winesap at a farm market, my lips burn! I had no expectations at all when I bit into it, and was very surprised to find that reaction. It's happened a couple of times.

I've certainly bought (and raised) lots of tasteless cantaloupes. You'd think our garden soil would be loaded with microbes by now!

CountryGardens

CountryGardens
Lewisville, MN
(Zone 4a)

April 21, 2013
7:33 AM

Post #9491739



This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:23 AM

darius

darius
So.App.Mtns.
United States
(Zone 5b)

April 21, 2013
8:02 AM

Post #9491762

Leslie, maybe your lips burn from the petroleum-based stuff sprayed on the apples to make them shiny and healthy-looking? Just a thought.

My work to increase the microbial population includes adding inoculated biochar (charred wood saved from my wood stove so I know the origin). I inoculate it with fresh urine, which is sterile and has about 4% urea. I also add fresh urine weekly around the plants, close enough to feed the microbes at the roots, but not close enough to burn the plants (but not right now since I'm taking some meds). Really good compost can feed the microbes throughout the year but I never seem to have enough.

I also work diligently every year to balance the micronutrients, a real battle because runoff from the hill above the house tends to carry soil into the creek just below the house.

Here's an electron microscope photo of some biochar. (Think of the cells as housing for microbes!)

Thumbnail by darius
Click the image for an enlarged view.

HoneybeeNC

HoneybeeNC
Charlotte, NC
(Zone 7b)

April 21, 2013
8:10 AM

Post #9491770

darius - I read your blog almost everyday and am thankful that there are people such as yourself, and others, that are mindful of the fact that we have to pass this planet onto future generations in (hopefully) a better state than that which we found it!

http://2footalligator.blogspot.com/

CountryGardens

[quote]The best thing you people could do is plow up your lovely lawns & plant to vegetables, raising them organically.[/quote]

I couldn't agree more!

Ernie Only time will tell which approach (or approaches) prove to be the most valuable to human, animal, and soil health. Unfortunately I will not be around to see the outcome. My concern is mostly for my children, and all the future children.

HoneybeeNC

HoneybeeNC
Charlotte, NC
(Zone 7b)

April 21, 2013
8:37 AM

Post #9491805

As I arose from my bed this morning, I couldn't help thinking how lucky I am. I will be 69 in a couple of months, and can truthfully say that I have no aches or pains. I take no medications of any kind.

I walk two miles several times a week with my daughter and our dogs. I could probably walk the five miles I used to do, but I can't persuade daughter to do so. I have more energy than some persons half my age!

Perhaps my good health can be attributed to a simple, healthy lifestyle and diet. Perhaps it's genetic. My mother will be 95 in August!

All this leads up to my anguish over current corporations taking liberties with our food system for the sake of the almighty dollar! Personally, I wish to avoid the plants they have tinkered with, especially since such tinkering has only been tested in their own labs. Let them use test-farms, such as Rodale has done. And in the span of 30 years let them prove that these altered food crops are safe for us, our children, and, indeed, all future generations!

darius

darius
So.App.Mtns.
United States
(Zone 5b)

April 21, 2013
8:39 AM

Post #9491808

Honeybee, Thanks. I'm always glad for anyone who sees something useful from my blog! BTW, I have to ask if you have ever read the very first post on my blog, some years and almost a thousand posts back? It doesn't relate to much of anything, but still tickles me when I think about it, LOL.

I see a growing movement/awareness to improve the conditions we have heaped on this lovely blue planet in the last 250 years (The Industrial Age). Not enough yet, but hopeful in spite of Monsanto et al, the USDA and the EPA! When gasoline hits $10+ a gallon, and a head of plain ole iceberg lettuce is $7 or more, maybe more people and things will change.

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

April 21, 2013
8:43 AM

Post #9491815

Darius, could be that spray; that would make sense.

We use the ashes from our wood stove on our garden, too. Hopefully it will make a difference eventually! We don't inoculate it, though.

HoneybeeNC

HoneybeeNC
Charlotte, NC
(Zone 7b)

April 21, 2013
8:56 AM

Post #9491837

Unfortunately, darius, when gasoline becomes $10 per gallon, and lettuce $7 per head, wages will have risen proportionately!

I will check out your first post.

HoneybeeNC

HoneybeeNC
Charlotte, NC
(Zone 7b)

April 21, 2013
9:03 AM

Post #9491842

CountryGardens,

Organic farmers have to conform to strict guidelines. I have not read this link (it's too long), but it will give you an idea of what they have to go through.

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=ORGANIC_CERTIFICATIO

I therefore think this statement of yours, is unfair to organic farmers:

[quote]So if you think the things you buy from Organic section of the grocery store are chemical free, think again. The big boys aren't going to wait years for their soil to get fit to grow without help.[/quote]

darius

darius
So.App.Mtns.
United States
(Zone 5b)

April 21, 2013
9:04 AM

Post #9491844

Honeybee, already wages have NOT kept up, nor has COLA in Social Security. What makes you think that will change, except maybe for CEO's?

Leslie, wood ashes on the garden increase the alkaline content, but don't do much else. I sift through my ashes for bits of charred wood for biochar, but seldom apply the ashes. I try to keep the pH of my garden neutral, and even a bit acidic around some plants. Blueberries and rhubarb love acid soils.

HoneybeeNC

HoneybeeNC
Charlotte, NC
(Zone 7b)

April 21, 2013
9:50 AM

Post #9491895

darius, you are probably correct in saying that wages have not kept up. Personally, I would be happy to have a job at the current wage level, but unfortunately, once one has past a certain age, finding a job is all but impossible.

As to the COLA for social security. I whole heartedly agree. Hubby and I received a $12.00 per month raise between us this year, despite the fact that food prices had risen much more than the increase we were given.

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

April 21, 2013
10:09 AM

Post #9491908

Darius, we are in the Pine Barrens so our soil tends to be quite acid. The wood ashes help, I'm sure. We don't use them near our blueberry bushes.

CountryGardens

CountryGardens
Lewisville, MN
(Zone 4a)

April 21, 2013
10:19 AM

Post #9491914



This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:24 AM

darius

darius
So.App.Mtns.
United States
(Zone 5b)

April 21, 2013
10:26 AM

Post #9491920

Up much earlier in this thread, Rick said:
And, because I'm a nerd:
"What EVIDENCE do you have that there are any risks in the ingredients currently made from GMOs?"


(obviously I haven't learned how to do quotes on DG)

My response is that there is a LOT of documented evidence for those of us with hypo-thyroid problems that GMO's are clearly indicated. soybeans are known goitrogens (and you can bet food manufacturers won't spend the $$ for organic soybeans), disrupting the thyroid hormones. Soy products hunker under about 40+ names as various additives in commercial foods available in grocery stores. It's hard to ferret them out even by reading the label. A label might say just "flavor enhancer" when it really is a soy product.

darius

darius
So.App.Mtns.
United States
(Zone 5b)

April 21, 2013
10:33 AM

Post #9491923

In the U.S., approximately 700 companies are involved in the manufacture of agricultural chemicals, with combined annual revenue of $30 Billion to $40 Billion. Fertilizers and pesticides each account for about 50 percent of industry revenue.
The Fertilizer Institute reports a 7.8 percent increase in U.S. annual fertilizer consumption to 22.90 million tons for the fertilizer year ending June 30, 2007.

The U.S. is the largest importer of nitrogen (over 50 percent of its supply) and potash (over 90 percent of its supply), and the largest exporter of phosphate. Nearly 2 percent of the world’s total energy use goes into fertilizer production, which is becoming ever more costly as fuel prices rise.

In addition to fertilizer production having a high energy price, fertilizer has unacceptably high environmental costs. To cite one example, agricultural run-off of synthetic fertilizers contributes significantly to oceanic dead zones along coastal areas. More than 400 coastal dead zones have been reported, from the Gulf of Mexico to the coast of China.

When the Company conducted field tests of its microbial products a decade or more ago, the results showed fertilizer requirements dropped 25% to produce the same agricultural output.


http://greenbizness.com/blog/wiki/chemical-fertilizer-use-in-usa/

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

April 21, 2013
11:14 AM

Post #9491947

Darius, how do you know that GMO soy is more problematic for hypothyroid issues than organic or non-altered soy? That wasn't clear from what you wrote here.

darius

darius
So.App.Mtns.
United States
(Zone 5b)

April 21, 2013
11:28 AM

Post #9491954

It's perhaps not different from non-organic soy, I think, but I haven't seen any studies.

Most food companies will not spend the $$ for organic soy, and I don't remember if soy was always a goitrogen, or if that happened with the advent of GMO soy.

I probably should not have posted that, since the data is unclear...

HoneybeeNC

HoneybeeNC
Charlotte, NC
(Zone 7b)

April 21, 2013
11:54 AM

Post #9491971

[quote]Organic agriculture practices cannot ensure that products are completely free of residues; however, methods are used to minimize pollution from air, soil and water.[/quote]

I cannot guarantee that in my own backyard garden, either. Birds, wild critters, even my own dog brings in unwanted residues. To require "perfection" in agriculture would be impossible.

Right now I have a large patch of henbit weeds where the tomatoes grew last year. I didn't sow them, the wind did! What other unwanted "residues" have been brought in by the wind and rain, only God knows.

darius

darius
So.App.Mtns.
United States
(Zone 5b)

April 21, 2013
12:00 PM

Post #9491975

LOL, Honeybee... I must have 20 or more square yards of henbit in my lawn and beds this year. Last 2 years it has been chickweed. You can be sure "I" didn't sow either.

HoneybeeNC

HoneybeeNC
Charlotte, NC
(Zone 7b)

April 21, 2013
12:07 PM

Post #9491978

darius - I was going to pull the henbit a couple of weeks ago, but the flowers were covered (and I mean covered) with honey and bumble bees. As an ex-beekeeper I know how vitally important fresh pollen and nectar are to all bees in the spring, so I left the plants alone.

I am really going to pay for my generosity next spring! I dread to think how many seeds have been dropped by those flowers, especially as every flower has been pollinated.

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

April 21, 2013
12:20 PM

Post #9491991

What does henbit look like? We have lots of chickweed but I give that to our chickens whenever possible.

Solace

Solace
Monte Vista, CO
(Zone 4a)

April 21, 2013
12:30 PM

Post #9492000

I've read two different things about henbit- that it's poisonous for hens and that it's edible for chickens and humans. I would certainly do more research before I'd let my hens graze it or eat it myself. It has little purple flowers.

HoneybeeNC

HoneybeeNC
Charlotte, NC
(Zone 7b)

April 21, 2013
1:42 PM

Post #9492058

GreenhouseGirl - Here's a link showing henbit. I don't know if it's edible. I bet darius would know.

http://www.ppws.vt.edu/scott/weed_id/lamam.htm

This message was edited Apr 21, 2013 3:43 PM

HoneybeeNC

HoneybeeNC
Charlotte, NC
(Zone 7b)

April 21, 2013
1:47 PM

Post #9492067

For some reason, this thread has reminded me of the 1973 Paris Peace Accords where, in the beginning, the participants could not agree on the shape of the table.

Only here, we cannot agree on whether or not something should be labeled.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

April 21, 2013
2:17 PM

Post #9492083

Honey,
It is not really the labeling itself we are not able to agree on. It is whether or not we approve of the trends our Country and Government is taking with the continual increase in regulations and the size of our Government.

Each new idea or regulation that is passed does two things. One, it takes away more of our freedom to act as self supporting, independent, human beings that feel we are able to make our own decisions, and Second, each regulation requires an increase in the size of our Government Bureaucracies, and makes us more dependent on the Government to solve our problems and do our thinking for us.

I have been a long time, close observer of the damage to our lifestyles, freedom, and our economy, that the massive increase in regulations and size of Government has done to all of us. So, I am very much against any more regulations.

I think it is time we all start weaning ourselves from dependence on the government to solve all of our problems. They have not been able to do it so far, and there is no chance the government will ever be able to make this a Safe, Risk Free, and perfect world.

So, labeling in itself is not that important, but it is a very clear symptom of the Cancer that is eating away at our Freedom.

You and I have much in common in other areas, and as you posted several posts ago, I am also concerned for my great grandchildren and future generations, because it can only get worse as we continue this downhill slide.

Ernie

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

April 21, 2013
2:21 PM

Post #9492086

HoneyBee, oh yes, we definitely have henbit. Thanks for the link!

Ernie, look what's happening in Texas, a state that prides itself on freedom from regulations. They are amazed to find themselves running out of water, because it takes a larger entity to protect such supplies, and they are also amazed to find that lack of inspections can cause a horrific tragedy - which they now want the federal government to help them with, although their elected officials voted against sending help to the people affected by Hurricane Sandy.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

April 21, 2013
3:07 PM

Post #9492163

G G,
I agree, it is a very complex problem, and i wish there was a simple and clear cut solution, but we, as a country, are in deep trouble on many different fronts. As to Texas, i have not seen details on the three Texas incidents you are referring to, but i know Texas resented the fact that they received only a fraction of the help for their big Hurricane that New Orleans received for Katrina, so there will always be problems like that,

Texas and Southern California have never had enough water for their population, but Texas can handle that themselves by following CA's example. A lot of our water comes several hundred miles fron Northern CA, and the result is, my water bill during the summer is $900.00 for two months for landscape and garden on a half acre lot. So most people in this area, and many Avocado and Citrus farmers, have given up growing anything that requires irrigation.

But i still prefer being able to choose whether to pay the $900.00 water bill, or give up gardening, rather than have the Government ration the water and tell us just how much we can use, and when we can use it.

Thanks,
Ernie

darius

darius
So.App.Mtns.
United States
(Zone 5b)

April 21, 2013
3:14 PM

Post #9492176

Well, I tend to agree with what Ernie said just above... the federal government has taken on far too many "policing" duties that were never intended as part of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Too many in Congress vote with their pockets, full of incentives. Senators and members of the House are supposed to represent us, our desires and wishes. When is the last time your congressional rep called and asked you how he/she should vote on your behalf?

Russia just put a halt on importing meats from the US, a $500 million dollar deal, and the 4th largest importer of US meats. The US meat contains Ractopamine, which is banned in 160 Countries including China,yet the the FDA says it is safe for humans? Most of the major countries label foods for GMO's (if they are even allowed), and the US manufacturers of those foods comply readily to those set standards with no increased costs to the consumer. Only the US and Canada resist.

In my opinion, the only way my food supply (and health) can get better is to grow my own, or buy things like meats from someone that I know follows the same healthy ideals. I haven't been down any aisles (except for occasional winter produce) in a grocery store for 2-3 years now. If it comes with a label, I just don't buy it, or even look at it anymore. Have you ever seen a label on onions or carrots, other than Country of Origin?


ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

April 21, 2013
3:59 PM

Post #9492233

Darius,

Two comments on your excellent post above. I am not familiar with Ractopamine, but almost always those major Import/Export decisions made by Countries are influenced more by domestic production and political situations than by the actual contents of the banned product. Russia is not known for being overly protective of their population. So it is very likely that after getting the concessions from the USA they want, they will again allow US meat imports. That is the way it worked in the Apple Industry when Japam banned USA apples a few years ago.

The other comment is where you mentioned that labels could be put on an item without increased cost to the consumer. I can assure you that every fraction of a penny a Manufacturer or Producer spends on the product, is included in the price passed on to the consumer, either directly or indirectly. It is a sad but true statement that "Everything is Paid for by the Ultimate Consumer."

When you hear Politicians say Environmental Costs or Increased Taxes or whatever, are paid for by the Manufacturer and does not cost the public anything, he is lying, as the manufacture only finances the costs for a short time and then passes them on when he sells the product.

Ernie

darius

darius
So.App.Mtns.
United States
(Zone 5b)

April 21, 2013
4:37 PM

Post #9492287

Ernie, I disagree. On any packaged product in the US, the manufacturer applies a label. What the label contains does not affect the cost of design, printing, and affixing it to a product.

HoneybeeNC

HoneybeeNC
Charlotte, NC
(Zone 7b)

April 21, 2013
4:41 PM

Post #9492294

Ernie: Corporations have been fighting against labeling laws for years. What would our food supply be like without labels? I dare say American citizens would be far more unhealthy if truth in labeling did not exist. Giant corporations would pass-off the cheapest ingredients at the highest cost with no accountability.

Here's a list of the10 most adulterated foods from this link: http://blog.cncahealth.com/post/2012/04/26/Food-Fraud-The-10-Most-Adulterated-Foods.aspx

According to the USP research, below are the most adulterated foods along with a list of the “fake” ingredients found in them.

1.Olive Oil – non-olive oils such as corn oil, hazelnut oil and palm oil.
2.Milk – whey, bovine milk protein, melamine, and cane sugar.
3.Honey – high fructose corn syrup, glucose, and fructose.
4.Saffron – sandlewood dust, starch, yellow dye, and gelatin threads.
5.Orange Juice – grapefruit juice, marigold flower extract, corn sugar and paprika extract.
6.Coffee – chicory, roasted corn, caramel, malt, glucose, leguminous plants and maltodextrins.
7.Apple Juice (Tie) – high-fructose corn syrup, raisin sweetener and synthetic malic acid.
8.Grape Wine (Tie) – apple juice and a toxic sweet chemical called diethyleneglycol.
9.Maple Syrup (Tie) – corn syrup, beet sugar, and cane sugar.
10.Vanilla Extract – synthetically-produced vanillin and maltol.

This is WITH labeling! How much worse could it be without labeling?

One more label is not going to break the bank of any corporation. As you said, the cost will be past along to the consumer.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

April 21, 2013
4:55 PM

Post #9492311

Honey,
No more arguements with you nice ladies. Your lists prints out a very clear picture of the perfidy of the human race, but it also makes the perfect case as to why we do not need labels.

As shown on that list, people are not trustworthy, as they go to a lot of effort to adulterate their products.

So, why in the world do you think labels would be and good or solve any problems? It would be so much easier to lie about the label that it would be to put marigold dust in the orange juice, that nearly everyone on that list would just print out a false label.

And of course, inspectors, being human, that apparently from your list have been allowing all that stuff, would certainly allow the false labels.

Ernie
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

April 21, 2013
5:01 PM

Post #9492326

Darius,

On who pays for the label, trace it back one or two more steps. So, bottled and canned goods are usually labeled after they are filled, but boxes and such, i would agree, come from the box manufacturer already printed.

But think about it, If the printer does that work, he adds his total costs to his products, which passes to the manufacturer who passes it on to the next guy until it reaches the ultimate consumer who has no one left to pass those costs on to.

Nothing, absolutely nothing in commerce is free. As i said, some of the cost passing is direct, added on to the price tag, but some are indirect, included in the base price, but all costs are passed on.

Ernie
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

April 21, 2013
5:10 PM

Post #9492342

Darius, Followup.

On the label costs., while we were talking just about the label itself, i would expect a reputable manufacturer to set up a lab to verify that his products were meeting the claims given on the label. That would be an additional cost over and beyond the cost of the label itself.

But then, with a regulation, there would also have to be a an inspection bureau set up to check to see if the manufacturer was complying with the statements he was making on his labels.

So, all of these unintended consequences just keep piling up, and as i said before, We, the ultimate consumer, is the one that finally pays for all of those costs that were charged to that product.

Or so it seems to me.
Ernie

darius

darius
So.App.Mtns.
United States
(Zone 5b)

April 23, 2013
8:58 AM

Post #9494350

Stunning Difference of GM from non-GM Corn
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Stunning_differences_of_GM_from_non_GM_corn.php

A comparison of US Midwest non-GM with GM corn shows shockingly high levels of glyphosate as well as formaldehyde, and severely depleted of mineral nutrients in the GM corn.

*The GM corn was grown in a field that has been no-till, continuous GM corn (Roundup Ready) for 5-10 years and with a glyphosate herbicide weed control regime for all of the 10 years. The Non-GM corn has not had glyphosate (or Roundup) applied to the field for at least five years. The GM corn test weight was 57.5 lb; and non-GMCorn test weight 61.5 lb.

As Zen Honeycutt, who posted the report commented, glyphosate, shown to be toxic at 1 ppm, is present at 13 ppm in the GM corn. Similarly, formaldehyde at 200 ppm is 200 times the level known to be toxic in animals.

The GM corn was also severely depleted in essential minerals: 14 ppm vs 6 130 ppm calcium; 2 ppm vs 113 ppm of magnesium; 2 ppm vs 14 ppm of manganese 3 ppm vs 44 ppm of phosphate, 3 ppm vs 42 ppm of sulphur, and so on.

It is not surprising that this analysis has been carried out independently; i.e., not by biotech companies. It was done by farmers themselves. The high level of glyphosate is bad enough. Scientific evidence on glyphosate accumulated over three decades documents miscarriages, birth defects, carcinogenesis, endocrine disruption, DNA damage, neurotoxicity, and toxicity to liver and kidney at levels well below recommended agricultural use (see our recent review [2] Why Glyphosate Should Be Banned, SiS 56). The presence of formaldehyde - a genotoxic and neurotoxic poison at such enormous concentration - is totally unexpected.

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

April 23, 2013
9:40 AM

Post #9494380

Wow, thanks for that article, Darius!

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

April 23, 2013
12:02 PM

Post #9494518

Darius, no offense to you personally, but!

Here's another "stunning" difference. Page down in that link to this:

"As Zen Honeycutt, who posted the report commented, glyphosate, shown to be toxic at 1 ppm, is present at 13 ppm in the GM corn."

"shown to be toxic at 1 ppm"? On what planet?

"Shown to be toxic at 1 ppm" is somewhere between willfully fostering a misimpression and an obvious, very-easily-disproved lie. To be charitable, he might be delusional, but more likely just a propagantist willing to lie blatently.

If someone tells me a really, really OBVIOUS lie, I stop beleieving the rest of his narrative. I hope that';s not "argument ad hominem", I hope it's "the witness just impeached himself, your Honor".

My first reaction, before I got to the "lies" section, was "what kind of scientist calls things "Stunning" and "shocking"?

Then I looked at his references, and was skeptical and SUSPECTED bias, but scolded myself for prejudice:
"Moms Across America March"
"www.GMWatch.org"

Sorry, but when they have to go to tissue culture studies to find toxicity in less than tens of grams, and still don't find it, I lose patience flat-out deceit pretending to be science. Scaremongers are one thing, in fact desirable as a counter-weight to Dr. Pangloss. But there is a limit.

I guess he just didn't want to say "we saw 13 PPM in the most polluted ear we could find, and that's 100 or 1,000 or 10,000 times less than anyone can find toxicity from EVEN IN TISSUE CULTURE". So instead he sad something scary but false. "Click" is the sound of me turning off anything else he has to say.


from the MSDS:

"Acute oral toxicity LD50 (rat) > 5,000 mg/kg"
(For a 150 pound person, that would be 340 GRAMS fo0r the LD50 (3/4 of a POUND).

OK, LD50 is a lethal dose. How about "toxicity"?

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Human_2

Deliberate ingestion of Roundup in quantities ranging from 85 to 200 ml has resulted in death within hours of ingestion, although it has also been ingested in quantities as large as 500 ml with only mild or moderate symptoms.[59] There is a reasonable correlation between the amount of Roundup ingested and the likelihood of serious systemic sequelae or death. Ingestion of >85 ml of the concentrated formulation is likely to cause significant toxicity in adults.

In vitro studies on human cells

A 2000 review concluded that "under present and expected conditions of new use, there is no potential for Roundup herbicide to pose a health risk to humans".[60] A 2002 review by the European Union reached the same conclusion.[61]

Other mammals

A review of the ecotoxicological data on Roundup shows there are at least 58 studies of the effects of Roundup itself on a range of organisms.[49] This review concluded that "for terrestrial uses of Roundup minimal acute and chronic risk was predicted for potentially exposed non-target organisms".

[49]
^ a b c d e Giesy, John P.; Dobson, Stuart; Solomon, Keith R. (2000). "Ecotoxicological Risk Assessment for Roundup® Herbicide". Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 167: 35–120. doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-1156-3_2. ISBN 978-0-387-95102-7.

[59]
^ Talbot, Alan Ronald; Shiaw, Mon-Han; Huang, Jinn-Sheng; Yang, Shu-Fen; Goo, Tein-Shong; Wang, Shur-Hueih; Chen, Chao-Liang; Sanford, Thomas Richard (1991). "Acute Poisoning with a Glyphosate-Surfactant Herbicide ('Roundup'): A Review of 93 Cases". Human & Experimental Toxicology 10 (1): 1–8. doi:10.1177/096032719101000101. PMID 1673618.

[60]
^ Williams, Gary M.; Kroes, Robert; Munro, Ian C. (2000). "Safety Evaluation and Risk Assessment of the Herbicide Roundup and Its Active Ingredient, Glyphosate, for Humans". Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 31 (2): 117–65. doi:10.1006/rtph.1999.1371. PMID 10854122.

[61]
^ Review report for the active substance glyphosate
(working docuum ent)
http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/ph_ps/pro/eva/existing/list1_glyphosate_en.pdf

HoneybeeNC

HoneybeeNC
Charlotte, NC
(Zone 7b)

April 23, 2013
12:03 PM

Post #9494519

I have read this article before, and have probably posted a link somewhere.

Unfortunately, here in the USA GMO's are still allowed to grow until such time as they have been proven, without a doubt, to be dangerous. In the meantime, WE are the lab rats!

HoneybeeNC

HoneybeeNC
Charlotte, NC
(Zone 7b)

April 23, 2013
12:09 PM

Post #9494524

This is a link from the same report

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/USDA_scientist_reveals_all.php

from Don Huber, Emeritus Professor at Purdue University and senior scientist on USDA’s National Plant Disease Recovery System


His talk linked glyphosate to reduced nutrient availability in plants, increasing plant diseases, the emergence of a new pathogen, animal illness and possible effects on human health (see [3, 4] Glyphosate Tolerant Crops Bring Death and Disease, Scientists Reveal Glyphosate Poisons Crops and Soil, SiS 47).


Surely it be better to pull roundup from the market and have it thoroughly tested before it's too late!

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

April 23, 2013
12:17 PM

Post #9494535

So I went to the "Science in Society" link, still scolding myself for being suspicious of the snactimony in that title. Now I'm not scolding myself. Pure axe-grinding screed.

"The amounts of Roundup that were added were (a) the amount often found in tap water, 50ng/L glyphosate, (b) the US maximum residue limit (MRL) for glyphosate in some feeds, 400 mg/kg, and 2.25 g/L, half the minimal agricultural working dilution."

I would have used that as part of an ad to show how NON-toxic it was. They continuously fed almost a half-gram per Kg and 2+ grams per liter, and STILL had to wait for the rats to die and do an autopsy?

I used to think it was much more toxic than THAT. I'm going to stop using gloves.

Now I'll stoop to 1/10th as much exageration as these cites used: it sounds to me as if the MSDS warning should be "if you go swimming in glyphosphate, don't swallow, and do shower afterwards."

Of course, commerciaql Roundup is more toxic than pure glyphoshate. The commercial product has detergent aded to help the glyphopshate get through waxy leaf coatings. No joke. One source speculated that skin irritation from concentrated exposures came from the detrgent. To make it sound scarier, the "stunning" or "SiS" screed innacurately called the detergent "adjuvent" (a word applied to certain cancer treatment follow-ups or immune boosters - in effect another lie).

If it's true that the detergent is more dangerous than the glyphosphate, and if you do go swimming in glyphosphate, and you do sghower afterwards, please be careful about your choice of soap! It might be more harmfull than the glyphosphate.

I have to say that these two sources push me farther away from conceeding that there "may be concerns" with Roundup. Facts can be slippery and complex, but its easy to catch a poor liar.

Solace

Solace
Monte Vista, CO
(Zone 4a)

April 23, 2013
12:20 PM

Post #9494539

Most of the studies done with results in FAVOR of GM are done by the companies that produce them, people in government who are or have been employed by them, or universities who are funded by them, so, "click" I don't take anything they say for stellar truth. And, yes, they should be tested adequately by neutral (if there are any left in this country that aren't bribed) labs before ever being foisted on the public. Look around you. Do people look healthy, for the most part? I don't think so. Corn is in the beef, the chicken, the tortillas, cornbread, dog and cat food, as is soy and other gm products. At the VERY least, label the stuff!

HoneybeeNC

HoneybeeNC
Charlotte, NC
(Zone 7b)

April 23, 2013
12:30 PM

Post #9494556

I predict, that RoundUp will be replaced with something "better" and that 20 years from now, gardeners like us will be taking sides as to whether or not it is "safe".

Why can't they grow GM crops without using pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides? I would be willing to eat GM crops that were grown without these poisons!

darius

darius
So.App.Mtns.
United States
(Zone 5b)

April 23, 2013
12:33 PM

Post #9494559

Rick, it offends me not at all. I always appreciate counter-posts. I've never in my life seen a coin with only one side, and light without darkness would be a bore. How else would we learn?

My overall response to studies (in general) is to see WHO PAID for the studies. Very few are independent of some kind of funding, corporate or governmental (which are usually also corporate funded in the background).

Whether I believe any hype or not, I still choose to eat meats and veggies that are grown without herbicides and pesticides and are not frankenfoods. If I could source them here, all would be biodynamically grown too.

To make just a small point on the overall topic: how does a fresh tomato from your garden in the summer (or a local farmer's market if you don't grow tomatoes) compare to the tomatoes in the grocery stores that are available all year? (and that doesn't even depend on being organic or not.) So far as I know, tomatoes are not GMO's yet, but I wouldn't buy grocery store tomatoes anyway. I'll willingly wait (and salivate in my waiting) for real tomatoes.



Oh, and MSDS sheets are made by the producer, not an independent third party.
Indy
Alexandria, IN
(Zone 6a)

April 23, 2013
1:09 PM

Post #9494600

darius, Yes, those store bought tomatoes are hard and tasteless. The strawberries are hard and only half tasteful. However most of the other store products don't taste all that bad to me...well the year around cantaloupes are large and in good condition and completely predictable to be B grade. If i didn't know what a home grown one from a delicious variety tasted like, I wouldn't know any better.

dreaves

dreaves
Hutto, TX
(Zone 8b)

April 23, 2013
2:43 PM

Post #9494741

Rick, thanks for the information on glycophophate. I thin a lot of the paranoia with herbicides goes back to the hazards of Agent Orange and the side effects suffered by soldiers and Marine in the jungles of southeast Asia. Even so, the Agent Orange was less toxic than the bullet from the sniper hiding in the uncleared jungle.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

April 23, 2013
2:51 PM

Post #9494755

I have thought for many years that the most obvious reason for the poor eating and tasting qualities of commercial fruit and veggies is the demand by the general public for perfect looking fruit, combined with the need for everlasting shelf life for the produce. Apples and tomatoes especially, have been developed that can be handled roughly with machines.

All of those reasons are based in Economics and Appearance, and taste has been relegated to the least of priorities.

I have given up trying to find tenderskinned apples and tomatoes in the high volume markets, but i understand the losses the grower, the shipper and the retailer all suffer from the spoilage of the tender produce.

Rick,
I appreciate you using your expertise to seek out and post the other side of the argument.

Solace, I believe there are more honest people on both sides of the question than you do, simply because as individuals, they are mostly concerned about their own careers, reputations, and future. And being caught in a lie that might kill people will surely damage those things they hold dear.

I also believe most large Companies are honest for the same reason. Just as you could not hold your job or keep your customers if you lied to them or cheated them, large Companies could not succeed if they lied and cheated their customers. I know it is popular to accuse them of that, but that is just class warfare, and the Laws of the Marketplace simply does not allow that kind of behavior to survive for very long. Such behavior would give their competitors an advantage over them, that they could not overcome.

Ernie

Solace

Solace
Monte Vista, CO
(Zone 4a)

April 23, 2013
3:20 PM

Post #9494783

I have no way of proving it, Ernie, but I'll lay you odds that those company executives' families eat organic food at the dinner table.

darius

darius
So.App.Mtns.
United States
(Zone 5b)

April 23, 2013
3:23 PM

Post #9494785

Solace, I'd bet the First Family does too, despite caving in to the pressures of BigAg in congress.

HoneybeeNC

HoneybeeNC
Charlotte, NC
(Zone 7b)

April 23, 2013
3:31 PM

Post #9494792

Ernie: [quote]Appearance, and taste has been relegated to the least of priorities.[/quote]

I totally agree. I've been longing for a home grown tomato.

Solace: you might this article about Mitt Romney and his liking for organic food, while praising GMO's

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/09/report-monsanto-man-mitt-romney-eats-organic

HoneybeeNC

HoneybeeNC
Charlotte, NC
(Zone 7b)

April 23, 2013
3:33 PM

Post #9494795

darius - the link I gave Solace (above) says the Clintons ate organic, while praising GMO's

CountryGardens

CountryGardens
Lewisville, MN
(Zone 4a)

April 23, 2013
4:18 PM

Post #9494851



This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:26 AM

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

April 23, 2013
4:29 PM

Post #9494864

A lot of the people who push those substances do believe that they're safe, though. Long ago the head of the county agricultural department, with a Ph.D. in a relevant area, was convinced that Sevin was perfectly fine and didn't mind getting it all over him. That was before it was discovered that it was seeping into wells on Long Island and causing a lot of problems.

darius

darius
So.App.Mtns.
United States
(Zone 5b)

April 23, 2013
4:36 PM

Post #9494881

We need to remember that the county extension services employ grads from land grant colleges/universities, and those are all supported by BigAg. So, guess what slant their education has?
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

April 23, 2013
4:40 PM

Post #9494891

Solace,

I do not have any way to prove it either, but my observation has been that people are pretty much the same everywhere, and if 10 or 15 ,or whatever the number is, of us ordinary people eat Organic, then i am pretty sure about the same percentages of the corporate employees eat it too.

I could afford to pay the extra Organic food costs, but i ate enough bug crap and insect damaged food as a boy, so i am not attracted to the Organic food i have seen. But like most of the members here, i do prefer the better tasting stuff, organic or not, that we discussed above.

But for sure, i would never campaign against Organic Food, as i do think you have the right to choose for yourself.

Ernie
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

April 23, 2013
4:47 PM

Post #9494899

Greenhouse,
That is a good point you brought up, about people making honest mistakes, not just everyone on the other side intentionally doing evil things.

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

April 23, 2013
5:42 PM

Post #9494961

Solace,
>> Most of the studies done with results in FAVOR of GM are done by the companies that produce them, people in government who are or have been employed by them, or universities who are funded by them, so, "click" I don't take anything they say for stellar truth.

First, I'll make again the distinction betwen the chemical glyphosphate/Roundup or genetically modifed organisms. Second, I curbed my prejudice against papers that rant and use emotionally charged, unquantifiable words and citge the Million Mom March as a source of scientific data ... until I bumped my head against a blatent and obvious lie. Now, I'm not urging propagandists to come up with more subtle and decptive lies, but when they insult my intelligence THAT badly, I resent it.

>> And, yes, they should be tested adequately by neutral (if there are any left in this country that aren't bribed) labs

That's why I listed the cites from Wikipedia. Peer reviewed journals. Reputable journals. Not "Science in Society" propaganda. Sorry to come down on them harshly, but now that I've seen a copy, they've earned my disregard. If they want me to believe ANYthing they say, they have to avoid obvious and gross lies.

I have to make my own judgement, and I'll let SiS prove themselves guilty 10 times on each page, rather than believe that every university in the world has been bribed".

Why disbelieve a global conspiracy of deceit? If one Ag grad student blew the whistle, his career would be guaranteed and all the professors who mad ehis life miserable would be shamed. Motive, means, opportunity!

Honybee,
>> I predict, that RoundUp will be replaced with something "better" and that 20 years from now, gardeners like us will be taking sides as to whether or not it is "safe".

Yeah, especially since weeds are developing resistance already! I just hope the Agrobacter plasmids they use to do the genengineering don't make imported genes more "mobile" from crops to weeds!

>> RoundUp will be replaced with something "better"

Unfortunately, I bet it will be replaced by something more effectiove aginst weeds but more toxic to US. Now that I've seen the numbers, I doubt any other herbicides will be discovered that are THIS benign.

Darious,
Thnak you for not taking it personally.

>> WHO PAID for the studies. Very few are independent of some kind of funding, corporate or governmental (which are usually also corporate funded in the background).

I also like to know the bias, and sometimes it can be deduced from the articles. In the SiS case, the bias was in 72-point font on the title page.

Government agencies - I go back and forth. In the '70s, I thought most were muck-raking activists eager to stick it to the commercial sector (and/or Protect The Common Man And Woman). (Except for Connecticut OSHA, which either had at least one very gullible inspector or one who was willing to have his palm crossed with silver). Since the Bush era, it seems that most inspectors have been laid off or handcuffed, so maybe the "protective" bias has shifted to "protect the companyies that donate to campaign funds". I truly don't know.

Dreaves:
>> a lot of the paranoia with herbicides goes back to the hazards of Agent Orange

Totally yes! And deserved paranoia, since a lot of governmental lying went on then, too. But times change faster than we change our prejudices. I still wash my apples, especially uif the4y come from Mexico, but finding out what the actual toxicity is of glyphosphate makes me feel better about a few PPM in processed food.

P.S. Thanks for reminding me: I kept saying "glycophosphate " out of habit, and that's wrong.

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

April 23, 2013
6:00 PM

Post #9494972


greenhouse_gal,
>> A lot of the people who push those substances do believe that they're safe, though.

I think you're right, and I think that some of that comes from denial and loyalty: "my side, right or wrong!"* That's one reason it's hard to ferret out MEANING from individual scientific papers. Not all bias is conscious. It is much easier to lie well if you yourself BELIEVE the untruth.

I suspect there is also a fairly wide-spread bias BY scientists in favor of things that "sound scientific" and against vague or mystical-sounding attitudes. But every truth was vague and la-la until some one found the way to measure it and make it "Science".

In the Middle Ages, scholars sneered it the ignorant, superstitious louts who foolishly believed that "rocks could fall from the sky". Ooops. You DON'T know until you KNOW.

My own belief is that some of the "subtle pollutants" ARE worth worrying about, and some aren't. But we should remember that all life is risk, and no one lives forever.

I was upset to learn that a lot of New England granite releases RADON gas, so much that it can be detected with a cheap little canister. When you sell a house with a basement, in some states, now you have to pay for the little cansiter, and find out whether you have b een sucking RADON into your lungs all your life. No one, not even people besotted with boosterism and rah-rah tech fever are disdainful of the health effects of RADON.

Gee, if everyone upset about minor hazzards got behind CO2 pollution and pushed, maybe we could avoid a MAJOR envioronmental disaster, not just arguments about whether rats drowned from emersion in Roundup, or from liver damage. That just my opinion, and I'll admit to bias about greenhoue gas cliamte effects. I had a traumatic experience when I was younger: I saw a graph of actual, meausred CO2 concentrations. Call me scarred for life.

* Stephen Decatur's actual toast:

'Our country!
In her intercourse with foreign nations,
may she always be in the right;
but our country, right or wrong.'

Ernie,
>> That is a good point you brought up, about people making honest mistakes, not just everyone on the other side intentionally doing evil things.

I agree with you, agreeing with greenhouse_gal.

Sadly, the well-intentioned people making systematic but honest mistakes are much harder to detect than the blatant propagandists who shoot themsleves in the foot! I think they are also science's "canaries". When evidence appears that IS clear enough to overcome their unconscious bias, the ones who are honest enough to change sides take the whole community with them.

Few people are as sincere as those admitting they were wrong!

Solace

Solace
Monte Vista, CO
(Zone 4a)

April 23, 2013
6:33 PM

Post #9495027

[quote="CountryGardens"]Most people don't have a clue about the where, what or why about the food they eat.
City kids don't even know that milk comes from cows.[/quote]
Sad but very true, CG, some city kids are far removed from the origins of their food, or even real food.


This message was edited Apr 23, 2013 7:43 PM

darius

darius
So.App.Mtns.
United States
(Zone 5b)

April 24, 2013
7:25 AM

Post #9495508

Now here's a thought...

Our Idea of a Label

Slow Food’s concept of a “narrative label” has been around for a few years now, sparked by the observation that too often the labels of products do not contain enough information for consumers who want a more detailed understanding of the products they are buying.

Even when food labels meet legal requirements they often do not answer many of our questions – like whether a food has been produced in a way that respects ecosystems and the environment, or whether social justice and workers' rights have been respected in the process. At present very few labels provide real information and communication is often deliberately misleading, vaguely conjuring up rural worlds full of poetry and supposedly authentic techniques, with vague references to old flavors.

So Slow Food launched the idea of a label that goes beyond the detailing the legally required information, and tells the story behind the product. Slow Food first talked about the narrative label at Cheese 2011, and in 2012 the first 70 labels for Italian and international Presidia were created.

Fortunately the introduction of clearer and more comprehensible labeling to protect consumer interests and health is also being considered at the European level. Slow Food has therefore welcomed Regulation (EU) n. 1169/2011 which will be applied in all EU member states from December 13, 2014, and introduces some important new elements to the previous regulation. For example, there is now an expanded requirement to also indicate product origin for sheep, pig, goat and poultry meat. There is still, however, a lack of more detailed information, which would help us to know the real background to the products we eat.

Reading a product’s narrative label enables us to discover the story behind a product. For example the label on Provola delle Madonie from Sicily not only tells us that this is a raw cow’s milk cheese, but also that producer Grazia Invidiata has around eighty cows raised in a semi-wild state with full respect for their welfare. We find out that these cows feed on pasture during the summer and are given local hay during the winter, and furthermore, the grass and the hay are supplemented with a mixture of cereal flours produced according to organic farming principles. We know that neither corn silage nor GMOs are included their diet. And we will have information on processing methods, aging and proper storage.

Slow Food is not only pursuing fully transparent labeling for Presidia products but is also working with Alce Nero, a brand identifying more than a thousand farmers and beekeepers around Italy who are committed to producing good, healthy and nutritious food. In Alce Nero we have found an important partner in this area and we are working together to also provide a narrative label for their products—rice, tomato puree, honey, etc.

We strongly believe that a narrative label makes a difference, for the consumer, who will see their health safeguarded and their questions answered, and also for the producer, who can tell their story and see it properly recognized.


http://www.slowfood.com/sloweurope/eng/news/170541/our-idea-of-a-label-

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

April 24, 2013
2:20 PM

Post #9495847

I don't know what chance this bill has of becoming law, but it's interesting that they're making an effort:

Boxer, DeFazio Introduce Bill to Require Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods
More than 90 Percent of Americans Support the Right to Know What Is In The Foods We Feed Our Families

http://www.boxer.senate.gov/en/press/releases/042413.cfm

darius

darius
So.App.Mtns.
United States
(Zone 5b)

April 24, 2013
3:13 PM

Post #9495890

I saw that in my email earlier. Thanks for posting it. I give it scant hope of passing.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

April 24, 2013
4:23 PM

Post #9495955

When you think about the ramifications of a GMO labeling bill, you should consider what Country Gardens said, concerning the handling of the Soybean Harvest. The growers truck their harvest into Farmer Co-ops, where both the Non GMO and the GMO soybeans are dumped together as one commodity. Those mixed Soybeans are then sold to Salad Oil producers, Tofu producers and anyone else that uses the soybeans.

So, if you are a manufacturer that uses Soybeans, and realize that you do not really know, and without analyzing every bean, no way to ascertain, whether the soybeans you are using in your products are modified or not, what would you do to protect yourself from the lawyers looking for a reason to sue you for mislabeling?

You would probably do like all the businesses in CA did when a hazardous materials labeling law was passed. Every gas station and other business that used or sold Petroleum products had to post a sign or label stating, "Materials on this site MAY contain chemicals that are Hazardous to your health." And that is the only result from the tens of millions of dollars that were spent to pass and, and the millions more being spent to enforce, the law, and that was passed on to the consumer.

So, while the cost of all of this will also be passed on to the ultimate Soybean consumers, you will have a label saying this product MAY contain GMO soybeans, whether it does or not. And what little bit of actual provable, non modified Soybeans that are sent to market and kept separate and verified, will be so expensive to handle in the limited quantities, that the supply will be very limited and not available to most people.

All of this trouble and expense for a hypothetical danger that may or may not exist and that, so far as all of you have found, has not yet killed a single person simply does not make much sense.

Ernie





RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

April 24, 2013
6:20 PM

Post #9496067

I was thinking about that. I've read that many European countries have laws requriing GM foods to be labeled (or do they forbid them?)

Also, I think that the US probnably does export many foods to Europe.

I wonder whether those production lines already take the trouble and expense to acquire non-GM soybeans and non-GM corn to sell to Europe?

IF they do, and if GM-labelling laws DO pass in the US, the companies with those lines and suppliers already lined up would have an edge in the market, and could make organic-and-non-GM-eaters happy for only the same increased costs that European production has to pay.

And the marketplace would have a chance to "vote" on how many people care enough about GM food to pay 10%, 20% or whatever extra.

P.S. We need a snappy name for "people who want strongly NOT to eat any GM-sourced food produc ts". Something like "Vegans", just a few sylables. "Non-GMs", pronounced "non-jims"?
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

April 24, 2013
7:08 PM

Post #9496122

Rick,
The Laws of the Marketplace generally rules that the Best and Cheapest product wins the Money War.

And there is always a small boutiqe segment of the market that is based on fashion, or choice, where price does not dominate. Whole Foods Markets have found a niche, and they will undoubtedly seek out and carry Non GMO foods as they become available, but I know of only one Whole Foods Market, and one or two of a smaller chain called Sprouts, while i know of twenty or thirty or more Supermarkets that do the cheaper, high volume lines. So, perhaps 5%, {I do not know the percentage} of people will have easy access to the more expensive Non GMO products while most people will not pay the extra cost.

So, we would be paying for 100% of the food supply containing Soy products to be labeled, but only 5%, and it may be much less than that, of the people would be using the labels.

So, a much more practical and easier way to handle this, would simply be for the people that believe GMO is harmful, to seek out and pay the extra price for the guaranteed non GMO products, and not be concerned about the mass market.

Perhaps some of the readers are familiar with online or other sources, that provide Non GMO products. I am willing to pay extra for imported cheeses, and if i desired the Non GMO, that is the way i would procure it. That seems a much better way than waiting and fighting to get all of it labeled when the vast majority of people simply do not think it is necessary.

Ernie

Solace

Solace
Monte Vista, CO
(Zone 4a)

April 24, 2013
7:33 PM

Post #9496164

That brings to mind another situation. If a sheep rancher has 100 sheep, and a steep cliff that drops, say, 75 feet down to a patch of boulders, and they start running toward the cliff at break-neck speed, except 5 of them, would the sheep rancher say, 'good for the five, let them be safe and the 95 perish' or would he be a wise rancher to put up a good sturdy fence along the cliff? Personally, I believe the vast majority of people would prefer to know if there were pesticides and viruses in their food, and more and more are finding out about GM products, so I believe the number to be much higher than 5 percent. I also believe if you want to eat GMO foods, you should certainly be allowed to. However, cheaper is not better, necessarily. Usually when you go cheap, you end up paying more in the long run. But you guys, by all means, chow down on that GMO corn and soybean oil, tofu, beef that's corn-fed- that is your right. In every other thing, except the percentage of hidden ingredients the law has allowed for and GMO, things are labeled. They're used to labels. They're already labeled. What's the cost of one more line on the label? It's made to seem like it's going to cost millions...nah, just one more line or symbol on the label, or a tiny sticker to replace the ones that are already on the apples, etc. that's all. Did you know that they spray apple trees with tetracyclene? And thousands of people are allergic to tetracyclene? There was an article, recently in the news, about what the farmers who are organic are going to do, as they've been allowed to sell their apples as organic after spraying with tetracyclene. There are gaps and loopholes in the laws, brought about by commercial lobbyists, I suppose, that need to be closed. People die from allergic reactions. We just don't know how many are dying or are becoming sterile from GMO. The hog producers in Iowa have already learned about the sterility issue. Funny none of those kinds of stories make the mainstream media news. Is it because of the Pork Council, Beef Council, etc. and the advertising dollars they spend? It's always follow the buck.

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

April 24, 2013
7:49 PM

Post #9496202

>> The Laws of the Marketplace

Maybe in an ideal world, where actual competition is the main driving force, and monopolistic practices were never heard of. When my company gave us training on business ethics, the sheer number and complexity of all the different unethical practices we were supposed NEVER to do convinced me that a great many inventive people had spent a LOT of time thinking them up and refining them.

It was like the joke about missionaries trying to teach native Hawaiians what kinds of naughty sex they were NOT supposed to practice.
- - "What do yhou mean, 'naughty sex'?"
- "Done't do this, or this ... and NEVER do THAT."
- - "YIKES! I mean ... umm ... sure, OK, I won't ever do THAT. But tell me more of these thin gs I shouldn'/t do ..."
- - -
- - - - - - - - "These missionaries are some KINKY dudes! We never thoguht of HALF that stuff!"

I thought it was interesting that even Ayn Rand acknowledged (Atlas Shrugged) that when "real world" forces intervened, the railroad company had its most proftiable year ever when government intervention did something or other that was hiideously unfair .

The academic joke about "real vs. ideal" goes something like:

"A dairy knew that physicists were really smart, so they hired one to tell them how to operate more effciently. He thoguht and thoguht, and covered many blackboards with arcane equations. Then he asked to meet with the dairy's Board of Directors. 'Gentlemen!' he said. 'Consider a spherical cow ...'

I thought I would try to overcome my usual thread drift and get with the title of this thread!

Is contemporary (and historical) America more like Galt's Gulch / Mulligan's Valley, or like Jim Taggert's buddies? I'm thinking 70% Jim Taggert, but I wish it was the other way.

By the way - last off topic joke for today - back when the Wall was still up in Berlin, a woman from East Germany was visiting a friend of mine. She was very annoyed that American politiicians called each other "Socialists".

"NO! This is not socialism!! East Germany ... THAT is socialism!!!"

ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

April 24, 2013
8:22 PM

Post #9496247

Solace,
You have made some good points there, and i will try to debate them.

First, among other things i have also raised a lot of sheep. And as a wise rancher, i would have sent my dog to turn them back from letting a panic run them over a cliff, similar to what i have been trying to do here, is prevent panic from running our country over another cliff.

Second, Personally, i am pretty sure that most of us do know that our foods contain a lot of different poisons, chemicals, preseratives, artificial coloring and sugar, salt, etc, a huge list of things that are bad for us. Some people even smoke. But inspite of all that bad stuff, we are living longer than people did back when all the food and water was pure. So, some of us simply figure our bodies will last longer than our legs and minds will, so why worry about the chemicals.

Third, Cheaper food is very seldom better, but it allows a lot more people to have enough to eat that they do not go to bed hungry.

Fourth, What good would just another line of print on a label do, for goodness sake? If that is not monitored closely, tested, analyzed, confirmed, and recorded CONSTANTLY, by both the producer and an inspector, the line on the label has no value at all. My main career was as a Highway Building Contractor, and in order to guarantee good highways, An Inspector was at the Asphalt Plant constantly, checking to see that each batch of concrete going to the job was exactly as the printed line in the Specs called for. Both the Contractor and the Inspector was focused on making sure it was exactly as stated. So do not believe for a minute that a printed label offers you any protection whatsever. Performance to the standards given on that label is what protects you.

Fifth, I am very allergic to the those hard, tasteless, round red little things they sell for apples now, so unless i can find a good thin skinned apple bred for eating and not shipping, i just do not eat it, so the tetracyclene is not a problem for me.

I am sorry for the loophole you mention about the tetra on the Organic apples, as i said above, Labels should be truthful and believeable.

I expect to keep eating the GMO and other scary stuff or another 13 years or so, and by then, i will have lived 100 years eating all that scary stuff, so it may not really be as dangerous as some people think. I know a lot of the pills the doctors prescribe are poison, too, but a little bit of it seems to be okay.

And Lastly, your final sentence is absolutely right on. It is alway, follow the money. Bu that money path runs both ways. No new wealth is being created, so everyone on all sides are fighting for that one small pot of money.

Ernie

ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

April 24, 2013
8:46 PM

Post #9496282

Rick,

The Ethics training your company gave you, confirms my thinking. Your company knew as well as i do, that companies will not survive very long if dishonest or unethical behavior is allowed to prevail, And yes, the jails are full of people that thought they could get by with cheating and stealing. Madoff for one, and thousands of others.

One of the best things i learned as a young businessman, was simply three old aphorisms.
"A Person that will Lie for You, will Lie To You."
"A Person that will Steal for you, will Steal from You."
"A Person that will Cheat for You, Will also Cheat you."

And there you have it. Your company was trying to protect both its customers and itself by demanding ethical behavior from its employees. I have know companies that tried it both ways, but cannot recall any of the deliberately dishonest ones that lasted very long.

In the Real World, Competition is the main driving force, Except in companies that do have a Monopoly or patent, or are subsidized by the Government, either directly or indirectly.

And that fierce competition is what keeps prices down to within 4 to 10% for most businesses.

Less profit than that, and the companies cannot grow and prosper, and more profit than that makes it too easy and too tempting for additional competition to come in, and if that happens the extra competition will drive prices even lower. A glance at the stock market data will show you that companies do not make very much profit, which is why every penny of costs must be passed on in their prices.

I appreciate your humor, as we all need some of that, too.

I do not think what we have now is Socialism, but it seems very obvious that we are much closer to it than we were 20 or 40 or 60 years ago.

Ernie

Solace

Solace
Monte Vista, CO
(Zone 4a)

April 24, 2013
10:27 PM

Post #9496311

Interesting article on buying trends: http://www.agweek.com/event/article/id/20804/

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

April 25, 2013
4:26 AM

Post #9496395

The nice thing about that trend, Solace, is that it makes organic foods much more readily available and in more types of commodities than before. My ShopRite now offers a much wider range of organic foods and it seems to be increasing regularly. I can now buy organic chicken and beef there, as well as organic baked beans.

CountryGardens

CountryGardens
Lewisville, MN
(Zone 4a)

April 25, 2013
5:41 AM

Post #9496448



This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:29 AM

HoneybeeNC

HoneybeeNC
Charlotte, NC
(Zone 7b)

April 25, 2013
8:53 AM

Post #9496682

Ernie - you will not have not been eating "scary stuff" for 100 years.

When I was a child, pesticides, herbicides and fungicides were not around - or if they were, our family did not use them, and I'm guessing neither did yours.

It could well take two or three generations before the final implications of GMO's will be fully realized - either for better or worse.

In the meantime, I would prefer that they be labeled so that I, and 95% of those polled, can make an informed decision.

HoneybeeNC

HoneybeeNC
Charlotte, NC
(Zone 7b)

April 25, 2013
9:14 AM

Post #9496714

CG - perhaps you never see people putting organic items in their basket at your supermarket because the 20' isle is too short.

I stopped using the supermarket which is 2 miles from my home when Trader Joe's opened 7 miles from my home. TJ's has pledged on their web site:
NO artificial flavors, colors or preservatives
NO MSG
NO genetically modified ingredients
NO added Trans Fats

I regularly purchase organic eggs, milk, butter, yoghurt, fruit, vegetables, chicken, beef, mayo, bread, and rBGH free (imported) cheese. And somehow manage to keep my weekly spending on groceries to $100 for the two of us.

Many of TJ's items are priced lower than similar (organic) items at Walmart.

If you drop in at TJ's try to do so during the week. On weekends their store is so crowded, that we can barely get around. I go on weekends, because I get a ride with my daughter - who, incidentally, makes most of her grocery purchases there for the same reason as myself.

CountryGardens

CountryGardens
Lewisville, MN
(Zone 4a)

April 25, 2013
9:41 AM

Post #9496744



This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:30 AM

HoneybeeNC

HoneybeeNC
Charlotte, NC
(Zone 7b)

April 25, 2013
9:52 AM

Post #9496763

CG - I was born in 1944 in the United Kingdom. It's possible that the pesticides you mentioned were available, but my parents did not use them. I remember my mother sprinkling rye flour on damp leaves in the evenings to kill pests. She said it had to be rye flour to work.

We grew lots of fruits and vegetables in our large backyard. My mother used our home as a "guest house" during the summer months, because we lived in a "tourist" town. I've eaten mostly organic fruits and vegetables my entire life.

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

April 25, 2013
11:35 AM

Post #9496843

>> NO genetically modified ingredients

I'd love to know the nuts-and-bolts behind that claim!
First and formost, I hope thay aren't hinding behind the obvious fact that you CAN'T genetically modify an "ingredient", you can only gentically modify the plant variety it was made from.

Presumably they mean "none of our products have any ingredients made from NO genetically modified ingredients GM plants".

Also, hopefully, they don't mean something like "we take every reasonable precaution to be sure that our suppliers CLAIM something that sounds reassuring".

If it really is possible for Trader Joe's suppliers to buy corn and soy products PROVEABLY not from GM soy or GM corn, then our discussion about the possibilty of a "GM Free" sticker was very wrong.

If TJ has suppliers with "GM free" suppliers, then those supply chains do already exist somewhere. Maybe there are some non-GMO farm coops, as there must be some organic-only coops.

If so, then a GM-labelling law could be passed and the (few) manufacturers that wanted the sticker could buy from those existing, small supply chains and cause them to grow. Assuming that "Big Ag" doesn't find ways like FSMA to deter that kind of competition, the market could play out with truth-in-labelling in place.

We might only find that, yes, 90% of the population can't aford it or is oblivious to the issue (or wisely considers it mostly frivolous ... take you pick).

Or maybe trustable labelling WOULD increase the % of organic food sold, and that might drop its price slightly.

I thought it was hilarious (in a very bad way) that the "Food Safety and Modernization Act" tightens up and requries testing and proofs about the use of manure and composting methods! As far as I know it did not tighten up on herbicide and pesticide use or inspection. It really opened my eyes when Republican administrations didn't ease pollution and food safety LAWS, they just took away a huge number of INSPECTORS.

I really, really, really hope I am excessively cynical! I would really love to be wrong about that. I used to be overly naive and trusting, but exposure to the real world flipped me to the other side.

An NPR broadcast about business ethics described a reporter overhearin g a conversation on a bus to the grad level business school. One student saw someone carrying a textbook titled "Business Ethics".

"What's Business Ethics?" he asked.

"Oh, sometimes ya gotta do bad stuff. But you should think about it."

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

April 25, 2013
11:35 AM

Post #9496844

>> NO genetically modified ingredients

I'd love to know the nuts-and-bolts behind that claim!
First and formost, I hope thay aren't hinding behind the obvious fact that you CAN'T genetically modify an "ingredient", you can only gentically modify the plant variety it was made from.

Presumably they mean "none of our products have ANY ingredients made from genetically modified ingredients GM plants".

Also, hopefully, they don't mean something like "we take every reasonable precaution to be sure that our suppliers CLAIM something that sounds reassuring".

If it really is possible for Trader Joe's suppliers to buy corn and soy products PROVEABLY not from GM soy or GM corn, then our discussion about the possibilty of a "GM Free" sticker was very wrong.

If TJ has suppliers with "GM free" suppliers, then those supply chains do already exist somewhere. Maybe there are some non-GMO farm coops, as there must be some organic-only coops.

If so, then a GM-labelling law could be passed and the (few) manufacturers that wanted the sticker could buy from those existing, small supply chains and cause them to grow. Assuming that "Big Ag" doesn't find ways like FSMA to deter that kind of competition, the market could play out with truth-in-labelling in place.

We might only find that, yes, 90% of the population can't aford it or is oblivious to the issue (or wisely considers it mostly frivolous ... take you pick).

Or maybe the % of organic food sold might increase and drop its price slightly.



This message was edited Apr 25, 2013 11:36 AM

This message was edited Apr 25, 2013 11:36 AM

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

April 25, 2013
11:37 AM

Post #9496845

Ernie,

First, yes, I do work for an amazingly ethical company (Crane). But I think it is informative that all the company statements reminding us to be honest and fair hark back FIFTY YEARS to the founder. We take pride in being ethical the way many companies were FIFTY YEARS AGO.

I don't altogether agree with your statements about unethical behavior in business. I think it's somewhere bedtween widespread and near-universal. It certainly gives short-term benefits, and may or may not hurt them in the long run.

For crime and unethical behavior to have a long-term downside, first, they have to be caught and exposed and convicted. Often it seems that the legal system works out to be like the Senate: the finest justice that money can buy. I don't mean bribery in the legal system, just lawyers who know how to work the system, and laws written to protect campaign contributors. I wish I were less cynical about that.

For consumers to know who is cheating them the most, they would have to pick the truth out of the BS. Sometimes that happens, sometimes not.

I just happened to read an op-ed piece about monopolistic practices in the drug industry. Companies paying competitors NOT to put out generic brands at 1/10th the price. When I read that, I thought "Hey, my ethics training said that was not only unethical but very ILLEGAL."

Yeah, yeah. Read the fine print. There's always fine print, and lawyers, regulators and legislators with distorting magnifying glasses. We have the finest laws money can buy. Maybe this will be resolved in courts as "NO, you shouldn't do BLATENTLY ILLEGAL things". Maybe. And its been going for decades because ...?

"Usually, buying off your competitors is clearly illegal. Pay-for-delay deals run counter to basic antitrust principles."

"The Congressional Budget Office says pay-for-delay tactics cost consumers billions of dollars and the Federal Trade Commission estimates these pay-for-delay deals will cost Americans up to $35 billion over the next 10 years."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/25/opinion/caplan-prescription-drugs/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn

I know that developing new drugs is hugely expensive, and patent laws exist to create enough pay-back to motivate the investments. But if drug patents are like regular patents, after the legal period of protection runs out, you can play games to patent 'variations on a theme' with which to intimidate competitors by threatening court cases. It sounds like these drug company competition-buy-off deals are skating on that ice in order to smell less illegal.

>> or are subsidized by the Government, either directly or indirectly.

I would say, "subsidized, protected from competion, shielded from legal action like the recent Monsanto rider, favored, etc etc etc". And I would dsay that there is a LOT of that going on - corporate welfare verging on corporatre socialism (a "safety net for the wealthy").

The competitive scenario that you describe IS how "it's supposed to work". And for many in dustries it does, especially those with many small players and less government interference / favoritism. (I probably support more government regulation and interferencve than you would, I just don't like blatent b ought-and-paid-for favoritism.) But billions in subsidies tgo the oil industry when they are already making billions in profits? How well is competition working in health care and health insurance?

I agree 75-80% with your philosophy, but either I think there is more cheating and indirect government favortism than you do, or I'm just more indignant about and more focused on the abuses than you are.

Shall we agree to disagree about that?


ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

April 25, 2013
3:36 PM

Post #9497069

Rick,

I am like Darius, in that i welcome Contra opinions. I am not naive, and i am well aware of the truth in the statement that "There is a Bit of Larceny in Everyone'e Heart." even if i have forgotten who first said that.

But in spite of having met plenty of less than honest people in my life, I have met many more that are honest and trustworthy. So, there are enough of the good kind, that if a Company wants to establish a culture of ethics, they can find plenty of qualified employees to support that culture. But, on the other hand, if they want to find people that will bribe or take bribes, or do whatever it takes to make a deal, then they can find people that will be be able to build the culture they want to, also.

Both of the industries i was in, Construction and Wholesale Tree Nursery, have their share of desperate operations that will do almost anything to survive one more season, But both Industries also have plenty of ethical operations and people.

And as the years go by, the shady operators give up and disappear and the honest ones that people respect survive and continue. If a person or business lies to me, or cheats me, i simply do not deal with them anymore, and i think others feel the same way, and that leads to their failure.

But i do believe more people are honest than are dishonest, and i trust nearly everyone until they prove otherwise. Of course, doing that, i do get taken advantage of once in a while, but if i mistrusted everyone from the beginning, i would never be sure how many wonderful opportunities i missed out on.

I am grateful and even honored that you agree even 75/80% with my philosphy.

Ernie

HoneybeeNC

HoneybeeNC
Charlotte, NC
(Zone 7b)

April 25, 2013
3:46 PM

Post #9497082

Rick, much of what Trader Joe's sells come from other countries. This evening we had ground beef from New Zealand and Quinoa from France.

I checked other labels and they are from Ecuador, Canada, Mexico and the USA. I've also seen Bolivia listed as country of origin on labels.

Most developed countries including the 15 nations of the European Union, Japan, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Russia and China have mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods.

http://tilth.org/advocacy/advocacy-spotlights/just-label-it

You are probably aware of Oregon Tilth.

darius

darius
So.App.Mtns.
United States
(Zone 5b)

April 25, 2013
4:14 PM

Post #9497107

Honeybee, I've never been in a Trader Joe's, but there is one in Winston-Salem, where I have several medical appts. in May. I'm going to try to shop at one, or at least check it out.

I'm inclined to trust most people, but 'Caveat Emptor' prevails so now it's only on a one-to-one basis, like some of the folks I know at the local farmer's market, my local library, and even in my small town bank where they know me by name. Neighbors... not so much, although a few I know are good folks (excepting the 19 year old meth head who lives across the street).

My grandfather always did business with a handshake, saying if you couldn't trust a handshake, no amount of paper (contracts) would suffice. He was a County Extension Agent (until the Depression hit), and a product of a Land Grant College (although I now disparage them).

I doubt any 'chemical' Ag people had much influence back then. They didn't get a foothold until after WWII when they were economically forced to divert from making chemical and other weapons (there was no market since the war was over) to making chemical fertilizers and other Ag products, in order to remain prosperous and grow. Basically due to the War, we financed the Behemoths we have today.

HoneybeeNC

HoneybeeNC
Charlotte, NC
(Zone 7b)

April 25, 2013
4:23 PM

Post #9497117

darius - I think you will be pleasantly surprised by what TJ's has to offer. Look for their brand name on packages - they are the ones that have
NO artificial flavors, colors or preservatives
NO MSG
NO genetically modified ingredients
NO added Trans Fats

They also have "Fair Trade" items, which are beyond my budget. You might also want to try some of their rBGH free (imported) cheese.

Let me know what you think.

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

April 25, 2013
4:34 PM

Post #9497132

HoneybeeNC,
Point well taken: non-GM food can come from other countries that DO maintain GM-free supply chains.

Ernie,
I would agree that more people are honest than are dishonest. Perhaps 90-10 or even 97-3.

And I think that probably most small businesses that stay in business for a long time are at least as honest as they can afford to be.

But for some reasons, (I think reasons that go beyond my own cycnicism), I think that some force or principle pushes large organizations or beaurocracies away from integrity and decency, and towards whatever-increases-profit, with the emphasis on WHATEVER. I forget who called them "souless corporations", but maybe that's the reason. Maybe incorporating a company not only provides managers with limited personal financial liabilty, but also makes them feel morally insulated from the results of their policies.

As Rand had Jim Taggart brag, nothing boosts the bottom line like getting the government to rig things in your favor.

I'm not a TOTAL conspiracy theorist, and I even fear that things have worked out in such cynical directions DESPITE most legislators and many business people being decent and well-intentioned. Perhaps it only takes a few rotten-apple sociopath-managers to spoil the whole barrel.

Some prison psyciatrist developed a sociopath-measuring test, in some research project intended to study how the degree of sociopathy varied from crime to crime. Then he was on an airplane sitting next to some high-powere4d, successful busnessman and they got to talking. The shrink realized that Mr. Businessman would have checked most of the "sociopath" boxes on his quiz - he was just high-functioning and knew what would get him arrested, and what would get him promoted.

The shrink followed up later and found that many highly-placed business executives averaged somewhere in the middle of his population of violent and cruel felons, for doing whatever felt good to them, at any cost to other people. They just used memos and CYA blame-shifting instead of guns and knives.

Excuse me, I've ranted negatively more than I really wanted to.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

April 25, 2013
4:56 PM

Post #9497157

I will mention again, in regards to the countries that have banned GMO foods, like France, Greece, New Zealand, and Japan, those countries all have extensive agriculture industries and lobbies.

And that has led to many high tariffs and food bans that are primarily done to protect their small, very inefficient farmers that cannot compete with large American style Ag producers.

New Zealand has larger, efficient farming operations, but are handicapped by distance, so these food bans, on Meat, Apples, GMOs, etc, have as their main reason, protectionism, in a form that will get around the trade agreements.

Ernie

Ernie

Solace

Solace
Monte Vista, CO
(Zone 4a)

April 25, 2013
5:36 PM

Post #9497202

You forgot a few. India, for one. There were many farmer suicides when the GMO crops failed. If I were those companies' executives, I would not be able to sleep at night. But, they go on, business as usual. I'm sorry, but there's something really wrong about that.

Big companies hire people to make them look good on social network sites, but even so, I people should be aware of ALL research, sanctioned by those companies or not, and do the right thing for their family.

If you think that feeding your family GMO foods is the right thing, then who am I to try to change another's way of life. That's your own business. The companies will continue to gain ground politically, media-wise, and socially, but that won't convince everyone. Just have to agree to disagree. I'm not against corporations, nor making money by one's own hard work or initiative. I am against greed and deliberate harm of others. On this issue, I do vote with my pocketbook, when I buy organic food.

CountryGardens

CountryGardens
Lewisville, MN
(Zone 4a)

April 25, 2013
5:39 PM

Post #9497206



This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:31 AM
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

April 25, 2013
6:04 PM

Post #9497240

Solace,

I did not forget about the GMO causing Indian farmers to commit suicide. I just did not know that.

Did all of the farmers that had the crop failure commit suicide, and how do they know that is what caused it?

The one thing that i keep waiting for, that will settle this discussion one way or the other, is simply an autopsy or toxicology report showing the cause of death or harm was caused by GMO or Roundup. Until that happens neither side can be sure whether it is deadly or desirable.

But this causes me to think about DDT sometimes., That was suspected of causing the CA pelicans eggshells to be soft, and it was banned. Then, after thousands or millions of African children had died from malaria, deaths that would have been prevented if DDT had been used to control malaria spreading Mosquitoes, they have finally started using it again in Africa and children's malarial deaths are way down.

So, did that hysteria about DDT trade thousands of baby children for hundreds of baby pelicans? If so, maybe GMOs should not be banned until we are sure it does more harm than good.



Ernie

darius

darius
So.App.Mtns.
United States
(Zone 5b)

April 25, 2013
6:14 PM

Post #9497250

The thing about opinions is that we stick to them, no matter what.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

April 25, 2013
6:26 PM

Post #9497264

Darius,
You may be right, but i hope not. Right now, i do not have any facts either way as to the effects of GMOs on Humans. I got into this discussion simply in opposition to demands for more government regulations, labels, which i think are harming our Country, and talk about boycotts and stopping progressive research, which i think we need.

If it is proven harmful, I will change my opinion, but in my case i use such small amounts of soy products it will probably not make any difference either way.

Ernie

darius

darius
So.App.Mtns.
United States
(Zone 5b)

April 25, 2013
6:35 PM

Post #9497279

Ernie, that was meant to be a general statement about opinions/beliefs, whether GMO's, politics or religion.

Most people cannot get out of their emotional beliefs, and I think it takes a lot of intestinal fortitude to read/see/know what's really going on and change our opinions. Not to say that I have any intestinal fortitude, but I've had to eat crow more than once in my 72 years...
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

April 25, 2013
6:55 PM

Post #9497299

Darius,

I think we all have had to eat Crow a few times, for sure.

On the Watermelon Refracting, I am going to cut a plug before picking with a 3/8" hollow core screw extractor, squeeze juice from the plug for testing and then stick a short piece of wood dowel in the hole, if it needs more time to ripen. So, your comment on that subject gave me an idea with some chance of working.

Ernie

Solace

Solace
Monte Vista, CO
(Zone 4a)

April 25, 2013
7:35 PM

Post #9497342

Or a cork.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

April 25, 2013
8:09 PM

Post #9497377

A cork may be a good idea.

Do you think letting the air in temporarily might let the inside ferment? This is all an experiment but i do not want to make watermelon moonshine.

Ernie

darius

darius
So.App.Mtns.
United States
(Zone 5b)

April 26, 2013
5:17 AM

Post #9497650

Ernie, you might want to look for a cheese trier. Then you'd have a melon plug to put back in the hole. I wonder if melons ripen from the outside in like cheese wheels?
http://www.thekitchn.com/hows-the-pros-taste-plugging-c-155737

Your 3/8" hole sounds like a good experiment to try.

CountryGardens

CountryGardens
Lewisville, MN
(Zone 4a)

April 26, 2013
5:29 AM

Post #9497663



This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:31 AM

Thumbnail by CountryGardens   Thumbnail by CountryGardens         
Click an image for an enlarged view.

ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

April 26, 2013
7:17 AM

Post #9497796

Country,

I am not surprised about the Mexican Salmonella. When you posted about what your brother saw in the vegetable fields in Mexico, i almost posted that one thing he probably did not see was Portable toilets.

On the watermelons, you are right about experience, but i do not want to waste any more melons while i am gaining experience. Last year was my first try, and i picked some too green, and then became gunshy, and let some other melons get too ripe, I found out i could not rely on the "withered stems", completely. One tip i saw posted was to watch for withered tendrils, which i intend to do.

Ernie

HoneybeeNC

HoneybeeNC
Charlotte, NC
(Zone 7b)

April 26, 2013
7:58 AM

Post #9497836

Today's headline around the world is:

Is world's most popular weed killer causing Parkinson's? New study shows Roundup herbicide also could be linked to cancer and infertility

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2315057/Is-worlds-popular-weed-killer-causing-Parkinsons-New-study-shows-Roundup-herbicide-linked-cancer-infertility.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

And then there is this headline:

Monsanto to see $56 million in incentives for expansion

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/blog/BizNext/2013/04/monsanto-to-see-53-million-in.html

Seems our government is paying Monsanto to poison us!


This message was edited Apr 26, 2013 9:58 AM

darius

darius
So.App.Mtns.
United States
(Zone 5b)

April 26, 2013
8:00 AM

Post #9497838

It Figures, LOL

CountryGardens

CountryGardens
Lewisville, MN
(Zone 4a)

April 26, 2013
8:19 AM

Post #9497846



This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:32 AM
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

April 26, 2013
8:25 AM

Post #9497852

Honeybee,

When you frame it like the headline did, it sounds like the Government is going to GIVE Monsanto 56 Million.

But when i read the article, it says Monsanto is going to Spend 400 million of their own money to create 1000 good paying jobs for Missouri, which needs them, and the Good Old Generous Government is going to ALLOW Monsanto to PAY 56 Million less in Taxes that they would not have owed IF THEY HAD NOT TAKEN THE RISK TO INVEST THE 400 MILLION.

So, the Government is not GIVING Monsanto anything. They are simply letting Monsanto KEEP some of their own money.


And on the Parkinson's Post, some fellow posted that his Mother and Grandfather had both died of Parkinson's and neither one had ever been near Roundup. The researcher did not find a provable connection, just in her opinion it "should be investigated".

Ernie
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

April 26, 2013
8:33 AM

Post #9497863

Country,
I always chose melons to buy from the stem being dry, with good luck, but last year i had some completely over ripe before the stem dried. I am aware of that subtle change in texture, but just learning about that. Another puzzle last year was some of the melon bottoms turned a nice pale yellow, but some did not change.

I did not expect the melons to do well here, too cool, heavy soil, etc, but they were one of my better crops, so i am expanding the melon patch considerably this year. Hope to have Melons to give away, but do not want to give bad ones to anyone.

Thanks for the advice.

Ernie

HoneybeeNC

HoneybeeNC
Charlotte, NC
(Zone 7b)

April 26, 2013
8:39 AM

Post #9497868

Ernie: The government never let me keep any of my tax money when I was working. If they had done so, I would have considered it to be INCOME. I can purchase food with income not spent on taxes!

The article said: Monsanto, had revenue of $13.5 billion last year.

In my opinion, Monsanto could have afforded to pay for the entire expansion, leaving the 56 million in incentives to be given to more charitable organizations!
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

April 26, 2013
9:08 AM

Post #9497889

Honeybee,

Just a couple of points here. The creation of 1000 jobs will generate at least 30 million in taxable payroll that the government will benefit from. The local economy will also benefit from the employees spending the 30 million. The economic benefits will start when the people are hired, but the tax credits will only be realized as the taxes become due.

So, the situation between the taxes we individuals pay, and tax credits for expansion or new developments are not comparable.

The government should eliminate all taxes on Corporations, and just tax the people that own the Corporation stock. That would free up the Corporations to create more jobs and get our economy back up to speed. And class warfare between the two should not be fomented, as we the people need Corporations just as much as Corporations need people. That mutual need and cooperation is what makes our society and civilization work.

Ernie





HoneybeeNC

HoneybeeNC
Charlotte, NC
(Zone 7b)

April 26, 2013
9:20 AM

Post #9497902

Ernie: if Monsanto had spent their own money from their past profits, wouldn't they have still created the same number of jobs, which, in turn, would have generated the same millions in taxable payroll?

I agree with you that Corporations should not be taxed - but then I support the "Fair Tax" that proposes the elimination of ALL TAXES in favor of a national sales tax.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax

darius

darius
So.App.Mtns.
United States
(Zone 5b)

April 26, 2013
10:05 AM

Post #9497956

If Monsanto had to use past corporate profits, they'd have cut back on salary and benefits for their CEO...

HoneybeeNC

HoneybeeNC
Charlotte, NC
(Zone 7b)

April 26, 2013
10:11 AM

Post #9497965

darius - how true.

CountryGardens

CountryGardens
Lewisville, MN
(Zone 4a)

April 26, 2013
10:17 AM

Post #9497973



This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:33 AM

HoneybeeNC

HoneybeeNC
Charlotte, NC
(Zone 7b)

April 26, 2013
10:21 AM

Post #9497978

Ooops - sorry, I didn't know I had crossed a boundary.

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

April 26, 2013
10:29 AM

Post #9497984

I don't think any line has been crossed! As long as we remain courteous to each other I think we're fine. The old rules have relaxed a bit.

darius

darius
So.App.Mtns.
United States
(Zone 5b)

April 26, 2013
10:45 AM

Post #9498000

While Monsanto has many political connections, mentioning their CEO pay does not violate the DG TOS about discussing politics.

CountryGardens

CountryGardens
Lewisville, MN
(Zone 4a)

April 26, 2013
10:48 AM

Post #9498004



This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:34 AM

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

April 26, 2013
12:26 PM

Post #9498098

I think we can continue on without fear. We're all grownups and can discuss without arguing.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

April 26, 2013
12:54 PM

Post #9498128

Honey, I have been outside working on a bird bath so i am several posts behind, but to go back to where you said Monsanto could have used their profits to build the expansion. So, i looked up the stock information. The stockholders that own that stock are entitled to a return on their investment, So here is what they get for owning the company. Monsanto made last year, 4.6% net profit. They retained 3.1% for expansion and other Capital costs, and the people that own that company received 1.5% dividends. The people that loan you money to buy a new car charge 7 or 8%, so 1.5% return for the owners is just not very much.

That just does not seem like a lot of greed to me. Those results indicate to me that they have a lot of tough competition. As i said in the post yesterday, competition keeps most company profits between 4 and 10%, so it looks like Monsanto is near the bottom of that range.

I am very pleased to see that you agree on the changes the Country needs in the Tax Code;

Ernie

ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

April 26, 2013
12:56 PM

Post #9498129

Country,
Until we have some ripe tomatoes to brag about, we need this or something else to talk about.

Since you rolled it over to a new thread last time, how about doing that again. This one is getting pretty long, too.

Ernie

HoneybeeNC

HoneybeeNC
Charlotte, NC
(Zone 7b)

April 26, 2013
2:17 PM

Post #9498207

Ernie: I paid 4% on my car loan. It was 18months old when I purchased it, so perhaps that made a difference.

I'm not good at math. Although 4.6% net profit doesn't sound like very much. 4.6% of 13.3 billion is $XXXXXXX - you fill in the number, as I said I'm not good at math.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

April 26, 2013
2:44 PM

Post #9498232

Honey,
The only reasonable way to figue it is as a percentage of what it costs to buy a share of Monsanto, and right now it costs about $100.00 or so.
So if someone like you or me want to invest in stock because the Banks are not paying much interest on our savings, we have to pay $10,000 for 100 shares of it,

We will then receive $150 dollars a year in dividends, which compares to the $400.00 a year you paid if your car loan was 10,000.

Then Monsanto presumably reinvests the other 3% profit they made back into the company jfor you, which should, but does not always work out like that, increase your 10,000.00 dollar investment to $10,300.00.

These are huge companies, and in order to make each 4.5 million in profit, they would have to invest 100 million dollars in the company. So, you can calculate just how much money stockholders have invested in that company in order to make the large numbers that you refer to, and believe are too much.

But whether they are killing people or feeding more people, they certainly are not making too much money for what they have invested and earned from what they are doing.

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

April 26, 2013
4:56 PM

Post #9498324

For those interested, here is a compendium of scientists who support Séralini's research on rats fed GMO products. Quite an impressive group:

http://gmoseralini.org/category/scientists-support-seralini/

HoneybeeNC

HoneybeeNC
Charlotte, NC
(Zone 7b)

April 26, 2013
5:45 PM

Post #9498365

GG - I suspect that if GM corn was poisonous to rats/mice they would be dying in great numbers in the fields. I have not read such reports.

Lab rats are usually fed large quantities of test material, which in my opinion, makes such tests invalid.

Right now, those of us consuming Roundup in corn, canola, soybeans, sugar beets, alfalfa, some papaya, and some squash are the lab rats!

CountryGardens

CountryGardens
Lewisville, MN
(Zone 4a)

April 26, 2013
7:17 PM

Post #9498477



This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:34 AM

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

April 27, 2013
4:55 AM

Post #9498730

CG, we know that if it's not organic it's been sprayed to a fare-thee-well. We don't need to see the specific substances on labels because that's a universal practice with conventional foods. But we don't know whether the corn syrup or the soy protein used in prepared foods is GMO-based and we'd have no way of knowing which products were unaffected without labeling.

Honeybee, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the validity of lab tests. Since humans can't normally be used as guinea pigs, at least not in a research setting, scientists have to use large quantities of the material under evaluation to see if there is any negative impact on lab animals. That's how all of our medications are vetted before being released for sale to the public.

And here's an example of the research and findings that are out there on the subject of Roundup alone, not GMOs - and GMOs permit much higher levels of Roundup to be applied on crops that we eat:

There are many scientific studies showing that glyphosate and the additives in Roundup are toxic to
human cells. Below is a list of those most pertinent to this discussion.

In 2004, Marc et al. reported that glyphosate-based pesticides cause cell-cycle dysfunction that leads to development of cancer.

In 2009 Gasnier et al. published an article in the journal Toxicology citing evidence that glyphosate based (G-based) herbicides are endocrine disruptors in human cells. They reported toxic effects to livercells “at 5 ppm [parts per million], and the first endocrine disrupting actions at 0.5 ppm, which is 800 times lower than the level authorized in some food or feed (400 ppm, USEPA, 1998). ... In conclusion, according to these data and the literature, G-based herbicides present DNA damages ... on human cells.”

In 2012 Koller et al. reported that glyphosate and its formulation (Roundup) is toxic to cells,
particularly organ cells, and exhibits DNA-damaging properties “after short exposure to concentrations
that correspond to a 450-fold dilution of spraying used in agriculture.” What is often overlooked is the role of “inert” ingredients in glyphosate formulations like Roundup, which have been found to amplify glyphosate toxicity.

In 2005, Richard et al. reported that “glyphosate is toxic to human placental JEG3 cells within 18 hr
with concentrations lower than those found with agricultural use, and this effect increases with
concentration and time or in the presence of Roundup adjuvants. Surprisingly, Roundup is always more toxic than its active ingredient. ... We conclude that endocrine and toxic effects of Roundup, not just glyphosate, can be observed in mammals.”

In 2012, Mesnage et al. reported, “This study demonstrates that all the glyphosate-based herbicides
tested are more toxic than glyphosate alone ... The formulated herbicides (including Roundup) can
affect all living cells, especially human cells. Among them, POE-15 clearly appears to be the most
toxic principle against human cells, ... We demonstrate in addition that POE-15 induces necrosis when
its first micellization process occurs, by contrast to glyphosate which is known to promote endocrine
disrupting effects after entering cells.”

Data Sources:
Diabetes incidence data: CDC
Diabetes prevalence data: CDC
ESRD data: U.S. Renal Data System
Blood pressure data: CDC
Obesity data: CDC
Acute Kidney Injury: National Kidney and Urologic Diseases Information Clearinghouse (NKUDIC) a
service of NIH (public domain).
Cancer data: National Cancer Institute-Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)
SEER 9 areas (San Francisco, Connecticut, Detroit, Hawaii, Iowa, New Mexico, Seattle, Utah, and
Atlanta).
Rates are per 100,000 and are age-adjusted to the 2000 US Std Population (19 age groups - Census
P25-1130).
Glyphosate: USDA:NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)
Percent GE corn & soy data:
1996-1999 data: USDA Agricultural Economic Report No. (AER-810) 67 pp, May 2002
2000-2012 data: USDA:NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service

This message was edited Apr 27, 2013 8:11 AM

CountryGardens

CountryGardens
Lewisville, MN
(Zone 4a)

April 27, 2013
5:47 AM

Post #9498760



This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:35 AM

darius

darius
So.App.Mtns.
United States
(Zone 5b)

April 27, 2013
5:52 AM

Post #9498773

LOL, Bernie... that wouldn't take many labels!

HoneybeeNC

HoneybeeNC
Charlotte, NC
(Zone 7b)

April 27, 2013
6:45 AM

Post #9498818

Here's the reason companies can't label their products stating: NO GMO's

http://www.naturalnews.com/035628_Monsanto_Vermont_GMO_labeling.html

Monsanto threatened Vermont with a lawsuit if they did so!

darius

darius
So.App.Mtns.
United States
(Zone 5b)

April 27, 2013
7:19 AM

Post #9498849

Honeybee, I remember reading about that fracus... such a wimpy governor.

CountryGardens

CountryGardens
Lewisville, MN
(Zone 4a)

April 27, 2013
7:51 AM

Post #9498875



This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:36 AM
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

April 27, 2013
8:03 AM

Post #9498895

Greenhouse,

That is an impressive list of negative or doubtful opinions you have there, and must have taken a lot of time to assemble.

But I am still waiting for one Autopsy report or one big lawsuit that proves someone was killed by Roundup.

Ernie

HoneybeeNC

HoneybeeNC
Charlotte, NC
(Zone 7b)

April 27, 2013
8:07 AM

Post #9498898

CG - yes, they couldn't sue every State.

I wonder how many millions are lost to exporters because foreign countries will not buy our GM crops, and how many countries are making millions exporting their organically raised produce to us?

HoneybeeNC

HoneybeeNC
Charlotte, NC
(Zone 7b)

April 27, 2013
8:15 AM

Post #9498900

The movement against GMO's is getting larger by the day.

http://foodbabe.com/2013/03/08/kraft-yellow-petition-update-175000-signatures-and-growing/


[quote]Everyone from General Mills to Kellogg’s to Pepsi, McDonalds and of course Kraft, have formulated safer, better versions of their products for other countries[/quote]

I don't know why these companies don't offer these same re-formulated recipes here in the USA.
rjogden
Gainesville, FL
(Zone 8b)

April 27, 2013
8:51 AM

Post #9498922

[quote="HoneybeeNC"]Here's the reason companies can't label their products stating: NO GMO's

http://www.naturalnews.com/035628_Monsanto_Vermont_GMO_labeling.html

Monsanto threatened Vermont with a lawsuit if they did so![/quote]
Actually I believe countrygardens was suggesting almost the opposite: that Non-GMO's label their products. That way people wanting non-GMO products would have access and would pay for it through costs passed on to them. I can't speak for the rest of the country, but here in Florida there are already hundreds of grocery store food labels that identify the contents as "Non-GMO". The Vermont legislation you linked to was intended to force companies producing foods that contained GMO's to label them, not to prevent non-GMO labels. It's entirely different, you see, because it would place the burden of any additional costs on the producers of the GMO product. What countrygardens suggested was that the Non-GMO foods carry the label and incur the cost of labeling their products...and presumably the expense of somehow proving their products contain NO GMO's.

Most attempts at legislation that arbitrarily singles out companies selling a product that has not been proven to be dangerous, and that incurs additional costs to the producer, almost automatically trigger lawsuits to challenge the fairness of the laws. It's really easy to see why this is so. Historically legislators have often attempted to promote legislation that shifts the competitive advantage to companies that benefit them, whether that benefit is in the form of political contributions, promises of comfortable post-retirement "consulting jobs", or even direct payment in cash, products or favors. If companies were not permitted to (and did not frequently) challenge regulatory legislation through the courts, there would be nothing to stop government officials from simply putting competing firms out of business. Actually, influence peddling still occurs all the time, and it is only the judicial system that stands in the way of 100% corrupt state and federal governments.

There is also the "slippery slope" issue associated with this type of legislation. If our elected government officials and unelected bureaucrats can arbitrarily increase the cost of doing business for one company or group of companies without any provable reason, it's not too many steps away from simply forcing them to shut down. That may sound fine to you as long as it involves GMO's, but when our dear elected idiots start deciding what is good or bad for all of us without regard to our personal freedoms to choose, we end up stupid and poorly-worded regulations on things like the maximum size of ready-mix soft drinks at convenience stores (but not larger bottles of the same product at grocery stores). It doesn't take much imagination to see where that can go, if every new administration invariably takes away a little bit of our freedom to decide for ourselves how we live our lives. Remember, it was a court that threw out that regulation (the court's description of the regulation was "arbitrary and capricious").

In this case, the State of Vermont was in all likelihood following the advice of the state Attorney General's office that they didn't believe it would stand up in court. It is almost impossible to LEGALLY prove GMO's are harmful, first because AFAIK the term "GMO" itself has no LEGAL definition and second because the term is far too vague and broad for a true legal definition. Without concrete (as opposed to theoretical) proof of harm, the government would no doubt lose the lawsuit.


This message was edited Apr 27, 2013 12:05 PM
rjogden
Gainesville, FL
(Zone 8b)

April 27, 2013
8:59 AM

Post #9498925

[quote="HoneybeeNC"]The movement against GMO's is getting larger by the day.

http://foodbabe.com/2013/03/08/kraft-yellow-petition-update-175000-signatures-and-growing/

I don't know why these companies don't offer these same re-formulated recipes here in the USA.[/quote]
It's very simple really. The additional cost of producing GMO's (and somehow satisfying all the EPA regulations on all the additional pesticides that would be required) is not yet justified by the perceived demand. Businesses exist to make money. If you offer them a chance to make more money (all other things being equal), they will usually take it.

The one thing that is generally missed by people who insist that business cave in to demands of a small percentage of their potential customer base for major changes in their products is that they don't have to be in business at all. It's not a perfect system, just the best one.

CountryGardens

CountryGardens
Lewisville, MN
(Zone 4a)

April 27, 2013
10:06 AM

Post #9499004

.

This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:37 AM

w_r_ranch

w_r_ranch
Colorado County, TX
(Zone 8b)

April 28, 2013
7:07 PM

Post #9500473



This message was edited May 2, 2013 6:58 AM

CountryGardens

CountryGardens
Lewisville, MN
(Zone 4a)

April 28, 2013
7:48 PM

Post #9500512



This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:39 AM

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

April 29, 2013
4:37 AM

Post #9500747

The research on the impacts of Roundup and GMOs on longterm health seems to be burgeoning these days. Here's another recent study:

http://nobull.mikecallicrate.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/GlyModern-diseaseSamsel-Seneff-13.pdf

w_r_ranch

w_r_ranch
Colorado County, TX
(Zone 8b)

April 29, 2013
6:07 AM

Post #9500865



This message was edited May 2, 2013 6:59 AM

HoneybeeNC

HoneybeeNC
Charlotte, NC
(Zone 7b)

April 29, 2013
6:45 AM

Post #9500921

WR - I agree with you on this:

[quote]If you don't like a particular company, don't buy their stock or their products... that is your choice & your loss.[/quote]

But when every bite of food I put in my mouth comes from the same source, and is laced with poisons - where do I go?

And if the information on the label does not state that the food has been genetically engineered, and I choose not to eat GE food - how can I choose?

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

April 29, 2013
6:51 AM

Post #9500936

Mike Callicrate may have reposted the article but he didn't write it. The research was conducted by scientists who published it in what I assume is a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Just because I quote you and you don't agree with my philosophy or credits doesn't mean you're wrong.

HoneybeeNC

HoneybeeNC
Charlotte, NC
(Zone 7b)

April 29, 2013
6:57 AM

Post #9500950

This makes a good read about the myths and truths of GMO's

http://www.nongmoproject.org/learn-more/gmo-myths-and-truths/

w_r_ranch

w_r_ranch
Colorado County, TX
(Zone 8b)

April 29, 2013
7:16 AM

Post #9500990



This message was edited May 2, 2013 7:02 AM

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

April 29, 2013
7:30 AM

Post #9501014

Honeybee, that's a great article. Thanks! I posted it on Facebook.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

April 29, 2013
7:32 AM

Post #9501022

Honey,

I opened the link you posted and just from perusing the introductory, it is certainly not the place to look for Truth.

They openly state that Earth Open Source, and John Fagan, are very much against GMOs, and the biggest print of the title page is DONATIONS, so with that foundation, no one should expect to find any un biased truth.

Ernie

w_r_ranch

w_r_ranch
Colorado County, TX
(Zone 8b)

April 29, 2013
7:40 AM

Post #9501038



This message was edited May 2, 2013 7:01 AM

CountryGardens

CountryGardens
Lewisville, MN
(Zone 4a)

April 29, 2013
8:27 AM

Post #9501107



This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:39 AM

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

April 29, 2013
10:48 AM

Post #9501281

[quote="greenhouse_gal"]
...
And here's an example of the research and findings that are out there on the subject of Roundup alone, not GMOs - and GMOs permit much higher levels of Roundup to be applied on crops that we eat:

There are many scientific studies showing that glyphosate and the additives in Roundup are toxic to
human cells. Below is a list of those most pertinent to this discussion.

In 2004, Marc et al. reported that glyphosate-based pesticides cause cell-cycle dysfunction that leads to development of cancer.

In 2009 Gasnier et al. published an article in the journal Toxicology citing evidence that glyphosate based (G-based) herbicides are endocrine disruptors in human cells. They reported toxic effects to livercells “at 5 ppm [parts per million], and the first endocrine disrupting actions at 0.5 ppm, which is 800 times lower than the level authorized in some food or feed (400 ppm, USEPA, 1998). ... In conclusion, according to these data and the literature, G-based herbicides present DNA damages ... on human cells.”

In 2012 Koller et al. reported that glyphosate and its formulation (Roundup) is toxic to cells,
particularly organ cells, and exhibits DNA-damaging properties “after short exposure to concentrations
that correspond to a 450-fold dilution of spraying used in agriculture.” What is often overlooked is the role of “inert” ingredients in glyphosate formulations like Roundup, which have been found to amplify glyphosate toxicity.

In 2005, Richard et al. reported that “glyphosate is toxic to human placental JEG3 cells within 18 hr
with concentrations lower than those found with agricultural use, and this effect increases with
concentration and time or in the presence of Roundup adjuvants. Surprisingly, Roundup is always more toxic than its active ingredient. ... We conclude that endocrine and toxic effects of Roundup, not just glyphosate, can be observed in mammals.”

In 2012, Mesnage et al. reported, “This study demonstrates that all the glyphosate-based herbicides
tested are more toxic than glyphosate alone ... The formulated herbicides (including Roundup) can
affect all living cells, especially human cells. Among them, POE-15 clearly appears to be the most
toxic principle against human cells, ... We demonstrate in addition that POE-15 induces necrosis when
its first micellization process occurs, by contrast to glyphosate which is known to promote endocrine
disrupting effects after entering cells.”

Data Sources:
Diabetes incidence data: CDC
Diabetes prevalence data: CDC
ESRD data: U.S. Renal Data System
Blood pressure data: CDC
Obesity data: CDC
Acute Kidney Injury: National Kidney and Urologic Diseases Information Clearinghouse (NKUDIC) a
service of NIH (public domain).
Cancer data: National Cancer Institute-Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)
SEER 9 areas (San Francisco, Connecticut, Detroit, Hawaii, Iowa, New Mexico, Seattle, Utah, and
Atlanta).
Rates are per 100,000 and are age-adjusted to the 2000 US Std Population (19 age groups - Census
P25-1130).
Glyphosate: USDA:NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)
Percent GE corn & soy data:
1996-1999 data: USDA Agricultural Economic Report No. (AER-810) 67 pp, May 2002
2000-2012 data: USDA:NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service

This message was edited Apr 27, 2013 8:11 AM[/quote]

Can you add which journals these came from , or some other way I can find the source text? The claim about "5 ppm" would be very interesting if borne out.

I'm finding some sources that say "Glyphosphate is even less toxic than the detergents ("adjuvents") included in the Roundup formulation to get it through waxy coatings on leaves", and other sources that imply POE-15 (polyethoxylated tallowamine) is significantly toxic in the real world. But the methodology may well be tissue culture, as far as I can tell so far, which is 80-90% a strawman argument.

If there is any substance to this , and not just: "LOOK, I know how to kill or transform cells in plastic!", it would make sense to use detergents that are not toxic to humans and livestock after entering the plant.

I'm curious to know whether these stidies are just tissue culture studies where chemicals are added to naked cells in plastic, or address issues like the detergent being metabolised in the plant and gut. My limited and out-of-date exoeirence with tissue culture is that, yes, almost AN YTHING will kill or damage cells in tissue culture.

Getting glasware clean enough that it doesn't kill them is REALLY HARD, and the cytotoxic effect of soap and detergent is huge. We washed and rinsed things, then had a process where we re-rinsed something like seven more times using de-ionized water, then steam-distilled water, then glass-distilled water.

I'm not throwing away every tissue-culture study in the world. Those are what you use when you can't measure the cytotoxicity any other way, but you're looki9ng for clues to HOW they might affec t cells in ways too subtle to see in whole organisms. But they call it CYTOtoxicity when it only harms naked cells, not whole organisms.

P.S. I on ly read a few pages of the first article you gave a link to. He started invoking unknowable interactions with "other" environmental pollutants even BEFORE he got around to his methods and results, let alone conclusions. Thast's the kiind of unprovable thing you say when you didn't get any real results but need some buzzwords to sound alarming. Science is about observation, not smokescreens.

His entitlement to a presumed lack of bias went away after the 4th or 5th invocation of "Western diet" in what purported to be a scientific paper about Cytochorme P-450. Science is about observation, not preaching. For me to continue to assume someone is unbiased, they have to pretend better than he did. Geeze! At least do your propagandizing in a different journal than you publish your results in ! Then only people who are paying CLOSE attention know your bias. If you preach where you publish, every reader knows your partisan bias. It's exactly like publishin g in the Monsanto-Pangloss Journal of Optimimistic Results (just on the other side).

It is so easy to 'conclude' BS or 'prove' BS with any one study, that the first and most important precondition is an impartial observer. That's hard to do even when you're trying, but when your motive is to bash "Western diet" and scare people, not learn something, I have to wonder if he's even trying.

Farmerdill
Augusta, GA
(Zone 8a)


April 29, 2013
1:00 PM

Post #9501419

Just to lighten up this thread. http://news.yahoo.com/comics/the-sunshine-club-slideshow/

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

April 29, 2013
1:15 PM

Post #9501464

Nice, Farmerdill.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

April 29, 2013
2:54 PM

Post #9501602

Farmer,

Good Comic Strip, But i miss the Common sense that Pogo had so much of.

Ernie
Farmerdill
Augusta, GA
(Zone 8a)


April 29, 2013
4:10 PM

Post #9501702

Agreed, I still use Pogo's expression "we have met the enemy and he is us" expression to describe the condition of this country.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

April 29, 2013
4:14 PM

Post #9501705

Farmer,

That is a coincidence. I frequently use that same expression, giving credit to Pogo, when people start blaming "They" or "Them" for the mess our Country finds itself in now.

Ernie

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

April 29, 2013
4:14 PM

Post #9501707

The most depressing thing I can think of to say about government is that democracy assures we seldom get leaders who are MUCH better than we deserve.

But I prefer to blame campaign financing laws!

darius

darius
So.App.Mtns.
United States
(Zone 5b)

April 29, 2013
4:19 PM

Post #9501713

Farmerdill, that's one of my 2 favorite quotes from Pogo.

The other is:
"Adults. Who do they think they is, anyway?"

"Us"
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

April 29, 2013
5:35 PM

Post #9501780

Rick,

It is not the campaign finance laws, it is not Them, or They, it is US, WE elect those people.

The best bullshooter usually gets the girl, and the best bullshooter wins the elections. And it is WE, THE PEOPLE that believe them, and vote for them.

Ernie

Farmerdill
Augusta, GA
(Zone 8a)


April 29, 2013
5:50 PM

Post #9501793

Actually we tend to elect representatives who promise to give us what we want. It is OUR wants that are killing us. We all have our hands out shouting gimme gimmie. gimmie.

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

April 29, 2013
5:57 PM

Post #9501801

All of the above, including Pogo.

I saw it in hardware stores: Grossmans went out of business because people want to buy cheaper ... now we have junky hardware stores.

Wal-Mart dmeands lower prices from its suppliers, so they make 'special editions' to sell to Wal-Mart. They ain't HIGHER quality.

I suppoe its the same thing with politicians. If we don't recognize or value quality (integrity), we get what we ask for. There seems to be no shortage of people and companies able and willing to pander to our lowest natures.
Indy
Alexandria, IN
(Zone 6a)

April 30, 2013
9:52 AM

Post #9502751

If what we got is what we want, we are too much bottom feeders then.
Farmerdill
Augusta, GA
(Zone 8a)


April 30, 2013
10:53 AM

Post #9502815

No matter what we get Indy, we always want more.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

April 30, 2013
10:58 AM

Post #9502818

Farmer,l

To finish your sentence...we always want more",;;;;;;"for less money and effort".
Indy
Alexandria, IN
(Zone 6a)

April 30, 2013
11:33 AM

Post #9502843

What I was referring to was the politicians 'we want'.

darius

darius
So.App.Mtns.
United States
(Zone 5b)

April 30, 2013
11:50 AM

Post #9502852

Our Reps in the House, and our Senators are supposed to represent us. When is the last time one of them called you to ask how they should vote on your behalf?
Farmerdill
Augusta, GA
(Zone 8a)


April 30, 2013
12:15 PM

Post #9502876

Mine are famous for calls and emails. The rep was particularly obnoxious for making robo calls at suppertime. They are not usually interested in my opinion, but really want to gauge which way the band is marching so they can get in front and lead it. In essence they are conducting a poll and fishing for votes. Lobbying groups are worse. Just got a big thick letter for AARP wanting me to send petitions to my congressmen supporting their position on social security and medicare. I get mail and calls from veterans groups, environmental groups etc. Even locally some group is always lobbying for thier position on something. Congressmen do respond to the loudest hue and cry or as we use to say the squeeky wheel gets the grease. Years ago I was guilty of trying to change the world to my perspective, but I out grew it during the Lyndon Johnson era.
Indy
Alexandria, IN
(Zone 6a)

April 30, 2013
2:12 PM

Post #9503052

farmerdill,

That reminds me of what Senator Douglas from Illinois said many years ago, "When I was young, I wanted to save the world. Later I wanted to save my country. Later yet, I wanted to save Illinois. Now that I am old, I just want to save the dunes [Indiana Dunes Lakeshore.]!

HoneybeeNC

HoneybeeNC
Charlotte, NC
(Zone 7b)

May 1, 2013
6:56 AM

Post #9503919

Farmerdill - I had my land-line phone disconnected because I got tired of all the robo dialed calls. I have a Jitterbug phone - $18.48 (including tax, etc.) per month and no unwanted calls.

darius

darius
So.App.Mtns.
United States
(Zone 5b)

May 1, 2013
7:09 AM

Post #9503928

Honeybee, I got rid of my land line too, as did my sis who lives in the other side of this house, partly for the same reasons. I also wish I could figure how to stop the spam emails!

We each bought a MagicJack with a year of service (unlimited US calls) for $39.95 (each). Saved $900 between us vs. Comcast telephone bills for the year. The MagicJack works well for her PC, but they don't support the Mac platform very much. She bought an additional 5 years' service (unlimited US calls) for around $100, and thankfully I declined for mine. Since I have many problems with the MJ because they don't support Macs very well, I may opt out and look for something else.
back40bean
Decatur, GA
(Zone 7b)

May 1, 2013
9:40 AM

Post #9504134

I got rid of my AT&T landline and now have have that same number for an internet phone with Ooma. The initial cost was $180 but monthly bills are less than $4. I could add there premium service for an additional $10/month.

darius

darius
So.App.Mtns.
United States
(Zone 5b)

May 1, 2013
9:51 AM

Post #9504152

back40bean, I bought an Ooma unit in Dec., but returned it. They said it would accommodate 2 lines, but the cost to add an additional, separate line (only found out after we got it) was ridiculous, and even included buying a special phone. (Their "2 lines" are like land lines with call waiting, NOT 2 separate numbers, which is what we needed.)

Later today I'm getting a CapTel phone from the Virginia Dept. for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (it has a screen showing the text much like close-captioning on TV). I don't know if the CapTel phone will work with my MJ, so I may need to change service regardless of price.
back40bean
Decatur, GA
(Zone 7b)

May 1, 2013
10:03 AM

Post #9504159

And you must have an internet connection for the phone to work, but it's been great for me. I only need the one line and calls are free within the usa.

darius

darius
So.App.Mtns.
United States
(Zone 5b)

May 1, 2013
10:13 AM

Post #9504165

back40bean, there are LOTS of VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) services now, and pricing varies. I had Vonnage for a while, no initial investment but higher monthly costs. The cost to use the internet for calls is about the cost of emails, yet many of the VOIP services want an arm/leg for it.

Magic Jack is the cheapest at $40/year, but they just don't support my Mac platform much. I don't know if the Ooma would have been any better because I sent it back when we discovered their "2 lines" didn't really mean 2 different telephone numbers.

I know we've hijacked this thread... but that happens when folks talk!

CountryGardens

CountryGardens
Lewisville, MN
(Zone 4a)

May 1, 2013
10:21 AM

Post #9504176



This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:40 AM

darius

darius
So.App.Mtns.
United States
(Zone 5b)

May 1, 2013
10:32 AM

Post #9504193

Bernie, the thing about GMO talk is that neither side will willingly reduce our stance.

You could say the same for ex-smokers vs current smokers. Or Republicans and Democrats, Catholics and Protestants, yada, yada...

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

May 1, 2013
12:27 PM

Post #9504305

Mac vs. PC .
Ford vs. Chevy
Organic vs. fertilizer
Farmerdill
Augusta, GA
(Zone 8a)


May 1, 2013
12:58 PM

Post #9504342

Ok just to get you guys back on track. http://news.yahoo.com/lightbox/grand-avenue-slideshow/20130430-gr130430-gif-photo-050436957.html

Ray_Der_Phan

Ray_Der_Phan
Oceanside, CA
(Zone 10a)

May 1, 2013
4:09 PM

Post #9504552

[quote="RickCorey_WA"]Mac vs. PC .
Ford vs. Chevy
Organic vs. fertilizer
[/quote]

LOL, perfect. Don't forget, Android vs. iOS.

and on it goes...

w_r_ranch

w_r_ranch
Colorado County, TX
(Zone 8b)

May 1, 2013
4:35 PM

Post #9504570



This message was edited May 2, 2013 7:03 AM

darius

darius
So.App.Mtns.
United States
(Zone 5b)

May 1, 2013
4:49 PM

Post #9504577

w_r_ranch, you are very new here, compared to many of us who have been here 10 years or more. Here we have learned to roll with the punches, and there are NO written rules that say a thread must stay focused on the original statement. And actually, that's very freeing, and opens up avenues for thoughts previously undiscovered.

Plus, this thread was needlessly getting bogged down with "he said, she said" and frankly I think gardeners should be friends, like the farmers and the cowboys in the musical "Oklahoma"...


This message was edited May 2, 2013 9:24 AM

w_r_ranch

w_r_ranch
Colorado County, TX
(Zone 8b)

May 1, 2013
6:49 PM

Post #9504738



This message was edited May 2, 2013 7:03 AM
rjogden
Gainesville, FL
(Zone 8b)

May 1, 2013
10:41 PM

Post #9504944

[quote="darius"]Our Reps in the House, and our Senators are supposed to represent us. When is the last time one of them called you to ask how they should vote on your behalf?[/quote]
I think the idea is you call them.

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

May 2, 2013
4:14 AM

Post #9505035

Darius, I got a very thoughtful letter from one of my representatives responding to an online letter I sent to him about GMOs. I'm sure he has a standard statement that he sends to everyone who contacts him about this issue, but this one acknowledged the concerns and mentioned other pending legislation intended to addressed similar food-related issues. It was a huge improvement over the impersonal "Thank you for your letter. I will keep your concerns in mind." that I'm more accustomed to receiving.

darius

darius
So.App.Mtns.
United States
(Zone 5b)

May 2, 2013
8:20 AM

Post #9505281

Yes, I get those same blanket form letters occasionally too, in response to my calls to their offices in my state.

"Pending Legislation"
Boxer-DeFazio Bill to label GE Food

Senator Barbara Boxer and Representative Peter DeFazio have introduced the "Boxer-DeFazio Bill to label GE Food" in both houses of Congress.

Supported by 30 other Senators and Representatives, this is a bi-partisan bill that finally gives us the right to know what's in our food. In the U.S. there is overwhelming public demand, consistently near 95%, for the labeling of GE foods.

The U.S. remains a stark outlier among developed and developing nations with sixty-four countries already having mandatory labeling policies for GE foods including South Korea, Japan, the United Kingdom, Brazil, China, South Africa, Australia, the entire European Union, and many others.

52 bills have already been introduced this year in 26 states, including Hawaii, Washington, Indiana, Missouri, and Vermont, with many more expected by year's end.

There's already a list of over 3,000 ingredients, additives, and processes that are already required to be labeled by the FDA.


white rose ranch, I wasn't trying to scare you away, or even to be offensive. Sorry.

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

May 2, 2013
10:42 AM

Post #9505429

I thought I already posted a link to that legislation. And I don't know that anyone scared white rose ranch away; maybe he or she just decided that the conversation in general wasn't to his liking. I was happy that you explained a little more about how DG works.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

May 2, 2013
12:27 PM

Post #9505548

Well, it looks like Senator Boxer wants to do to the entire country what her and her friends have done to California.

But i guess the only way to change this downhill path we are on, is to continue until all this Overspending bankrupts the Country and then it will force a change, whether people want it to or not.

But there is no Free Lunch. Labels are worthless without strict and continuous inspection, supervision, enforcement, and forced accountability, all of which will require millions of dollars in indirect expense added to the cost of food, along with millions of dollars of additional Government bureaucracy added to either our accumulated debt or our tax bills.

So, perhaps the best thing is too just let it happen, and let our descendents clean up our mess.

Ernie

HoneybeeNC

HoneybeeNC
Charlotte, NC
(Zone 7b)

May 3, 2013
7:21 AM

Post #9506553

I read that Del Monte has genetically engineered a tangerine with a pineapple. Personally, I find this scary because I'm allergic to all citrus fruit. If companies keep combining this with that and don't label the changes, people who have life-threatening allergies will be dropping dead.
eweed
Everson, WA
(Zone 8a)

May 3, 2013
7:33 AM

Post #9506566

Go Del Monte They pay my retirement.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

May 3, 2013
7:37 AM

Post #9506577

Honey,

I would certainly not want you to drop dead, just to save the country several million dollars, but very, very seldom do people die from what ever they worry about or expect. An example is that there are more people that have smoked, that die of causes other than smoking, like car wrecks, heart attacks, etc.

I would also not want you to drop dead from eating something that had a label that was not absolutely true and correct. And to be accurate, every pineapple from all over the world and every tangerine would have to be tracked and traced from the time it was planted as tree to the time it was canned and labeled.

Ernie

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

May 3, 2013
8:01 AM

Post #9506612

Honeybee, nothing you say is going to convince Ernie or Country Gardens, even if you're typing it from your deathbed due to an allergic reaction to an unlabeled pineapple/citrus cross. LIkewise, nothing they say is going to convince us that this isn't a real threat to biodiversity, health, and conventional agriculture. I think we should just give up, although I definitely appreciate reading your input.

This message was edited May 3, 2013 11:02 AM

HoneybeeNC

HoneybeeNC
Charlotte, NC
(Zone 7b)

May 3, 2013
8:15 AM

Post #9506630

Ernie, only the cross-bred tangerine/pineapple would need to be labeled. All the other tangerines and pineapples would grow as Mother Nature intended.

I'm glad you would not like me to drop dead. ^_^

If you had experienced the agony of accidentally consuming something to which you have been allergic since birth, you might think differently about labeling. I nearly died many years ago because I drank something without first reading the label. Put yourself in someone else's moccasins for a while!
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

May 3, 2013
8:17 AM

Post #9506636

Greenhouse,

I agree 100% that life is full of both known and unknown risks, including poisoned peanut butter,so i do not need convincing that. Life is dangerous right up until the day we all die.

The thing you will never be able to convince me of, is that a paper label, or anything else, is going to remove risk from our lives, and enable us to live safely and happily ever after. I am pretty sure the poisoned peanut butter that did kill people had a label stating what was in it. So, think about that.

I agree we should give this up, so i will be glad to stop if you nice ladies cease campaigning for worthless, and expensive, labels.

Ernie





HoneybeeNC

HoneybeeNC
Charlotte, NC
(Zone 7b)

May 3, 2013
8:26 AM

Post #9506651

GG - Although I feel as though I'm tilting at windmills:

[quote]...this is a righteous war and the removal of so foul a brood from off the face of the earth is a service God will bless.[/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilting_at_windmills

ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

May 3, 2013
8:30 AM

Post #9506659

Honey,

While i did not feel the physical agony you may have suffered, i did share the mental agony, believing i would either be blind or dead when my mouth, nose and eyes were shot full of very strong Roundup under 70 pounds of pressure from a large spray gun 2 feet from my face.

That fear lasted until i could reach the house and flush my face and mouth out, and found out no harm was done. So I do sympathize with your allergy problems, but to make the tangerine labels safe, if they looked alike, they would need to be tested, to be sure they did not contain the cross.

To be sure a product is exactly as the label says, someone must know what is not in it, as well as knowing what is in it.

I find it odd that many people that to not trust corporations, will put their faith in labels the corporation places on a product.

Ernie

HoneybeeNC

HoneybeeNC
Charlotte, NC
(Zone 7b)

May 3, 2013
8:34 AM

Post #9506664

Suppose years from now the only food available has been genetically engineered, and all the conventional seeds are no longer viable.

More intelligent individuals than I are saying these GE food plants have not been proven to be safe.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

May 3, 2013
8:39 AM

Post #9506670

Honey,

Your anology is apt, even if it is a bit self deprecating, since as i recall, the Don was fighting imaginary or illusionary dangers.

Since you have described the object of your efforts so well, i do think this is the perfect place to stop.

Ernie

HoneybeeNC

HoneybeeNC
Charlotte, NC
(Zone 7b)

May 3, 2013
8:41 AM

Post #9506672

Ernie - the cross-bred tangerines/pineapples are a separate breed of fruit. They will be called "Rosa" (I think that's the correct name - if not, it's something similar). You will be able to purchase a pineapple that looks like a pineapple, but it has been cross-bred with a tangerine.

No need to label individual tangerines and pineapples - only the ones called "Rosa". A simple label saying that "Rosa" has been produced by crossing a tangerine with a pineapple is all that is needed. Then individuals like myself would know to avoid it because it contained citric acid.

Incidentally, my brother has the same allergy.

CountryGardens

CountryGardens
Lewisville, MN
(Zone 4a)

May 3, 2013
8:43 AM

Post #9506674



This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:41 AM

HoneybeeNC

HoneybeeNC
Charlotte, NC
(Zone 7b)

May 3, 2013
9:00 AM

Post #9506682

CG - This is why there are no labels that say "GMO free"

[quote]Monsanto has repeatedly stated that it will sue any state that dares to label. This threat of a lawsuit was enough to convince lawmakers in Vermont and Connecticut in 2012 to back off from labeling, even though there were sufficient votes, and overwhelming public sentiment, to pass these bills.[/quote]

http://www.alternet.org/food/monsantos-next-target-democracy

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

May 3, 2013
10:01 AM

Post #9506737

Honeybee, actually there are labels that say that. For instance I have before me a box of Hodgson Mill's bran muffin mix with a small label in the lower righthand corner that says "Non GMO Project Verified," with the logo of the NonGMO Project imprinted. I do look for that label; it's on a number of foods. The other day I wanted to buy corn chips and they no longer had the organic type; the ones they carried said "Organic Corn," but the oil wasn't organic, so it was probably GMO since it was canola. I didn't buy them. I'll have to ask the manager what happened to the totally organic line.

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

May 3, 2013
2:43 PM

Post #9507030

If we're winding down, I'll gather my op0inions into a summary and try to keep it under two pages.

>> real threat to biodiversity,

I agree that Monsanto's near-monoply is a huge threat to crop diversity.
The way they use lawyers and legislators as intimidators and leg-breakers should be criminal.
If they are deliberately making it harder for Third World and small-scale fasrmers to save their own seed or have c ommerical access to fairly priced OP seed, that should be criminal.

I think the intrinsic commercial value of hybrid seed causes a pretty big risk to sustainabiltiy and divertsity of commercially-available OP seeds. Independently of any semi-legal monopolistic shenanuigans! And yet, hybrid seed IS commercially valuable, often more proftable, can reduce pesticide usage, and probably sometimes mitigates famines when it is cheaper than OP crops would have been.

All of those issues probably apply to GE crops. They support monopolistic practices and encourage loss of affordable crop genetic diversity, deter seed saving, but also have large commercial value, feed the poor, and reduce use of persistant and REALLY toxic pesticieds and herbicides by enabling the use of less toxic herbicides or no opesticide (bt gene).

Many people differ in how far they go to keep untraditional foods and chemicals out of their diet.

There are also many different opinions about long-term and subtle effects of herbicide residue and GE plants in diet. I guess even differen t opinions about nearly-chemically pure ingredients like corn oil, soy oil, canola oil and corn syrup or cane sugar made from GE plants.

There are also some different opinions (I think) about possible short-term toxic effects about fodder or food "drenched in" RoundUp residue.

Probably most people agree that agricultural cheemicals should not be abused in gross and unecessary excess, or applied closer to harvest than necessary.

Many people disagree about how toxic Roundup formulations are to humans and farm animals in concentrations found in typical fodder and supermarkets, when applied "according to directions" and within llegal limits. .For example, is there some little-known long term subtle damage from chronic consumption at 5 ppm, or is it completely harmless when force-fed at 70 PSI?

Most people strongly distrust and disbelieve scientists and journals that report results or conclusions they don't want to hear.

Some people try to reserve their distrust for scientists and journals that display obvious bias.
Maybe a few of us even succeed a little bity bit, now and then.
I try, but I distrust my own impartiality.
Fortunately for me, I'm biased differtent ways on different days.

There are many strong feelings about the rightness, effectiveness, and costs of government regulations applying to labelling and food safety public policy.
rjogden
Gainesville, FL
(Zone 8b)

May 3, 2013
10:40 PM

Post #9507434

[quote="HoneybeeNC"]... Then individuals like myself would know to avoid it because it contained citric acid.

Incidentally, my brother has the same allergy.[/quote]
Citric Acid? Are you sure?

Quoting from Wiki (only for simplicity - the chemistry is widely known): "Citrate, the conjugate base of citric acid is one of a series of compounds involved in the physiological oxidation of fats, proteins, and carbohydrates to carbon dioxide and water.

This series of chemical reactions is central to nearly all metabolic reactions, and is the source of two-thirds of the food-derived energy in higher organisms."

It's called the Krebs Cycle. Everyone who has taken freshman biology at least remembers the name.

And: "Citrate is a critical component of bone, helping to regulate the size of calcium crystals."

You can't live without citric acid. Your own cells make it. If you were allergic to it you would already be dead.

Solace

Solace
Monte Vista, CO
(Zone 4a)

May 4, 2013
12:01 AM

Post #9507464

Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=w437uQf_A7c

These are the voices that truly care about life. They are not asking for a cadaver and autopsy results before they see a threat in GMOs, nor are they peddling GMO products in grocery stores or corn to unsuspecting young families at farmers markets. They're looking at it with unbrainwashed eyes and a love of life, not only of human beings, but of soil, natural organisms, insects, wildlife/birds - the whole earth and its ecosystem that we all rely upon. If you watch this, you'll recognize where these people are coming from. That is, unless your soul is so far gone down the path of no return, having believed the mega-corporate years of indoctrination to several generations, now, despite what death and destruction we've already seen in the bio and pharmaceutical industries (agent orange and the thousands of Vietnam veterans whose lives were ruined by it, Vioxx, and the 60,000+ people who died because they were too trusting in the big corporations). How many families did these (only two of countless harmful constituents sold by corporations who had incredible political influence to enable them market these deadly things) destroy? How much misery was inflicted? Those who promote the use of GMO and trumpet the large corporate interests over safety, do not care about life. They care about their own opinions, to their own detriment. They are certainly free to have those opinions, but no corporation should be allowed to force products/organisms into the marketplace without them being labeled and before that, being tested for long-term implications.

Thousands of people voted for labeling in California. Had it not been for corporate campaigning, that state's citizens would be safer today. At least there are positive things happening. There is now a movement to force the removal of GMO soy from Similac baby formula. Babies shouldn't be drinking soy, anyway - nobody should - due to the health issues, but this is a good start.

CountryGardens

CountryGardens
Lewisville, MN
(Zone 4a)

May 4, 2013
3:58 AM

Post #9507527



This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:42 AM

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

May 4, 2013
4:20 AM

Post #9507532

Solace, there's no "like" button here but I like your post. Can't watch the youtube video because I have a data cap, but I get the point...

HoneybeeNC

HoneybeeNC
Charlotte, NC
(Zone 7b)

May 4, 2013
7:56 AM

Post #9507752

rjogden - no, I'm not sure. I always assumed citric acid was the culprit. Must be something else in citrus that's problematic.

HoneybeeNC

HoneybeeNC
Charlotte, NC
(Zone 7b)

May 4, 2013
8:49 AM

Post #9507834

Solace - I like your post, too.

I watched the video, and thank you for the link.

I suspect that in another 50 to 100 years this planet will have an entirely different ecosystem.

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

May 6, 2013
5:47 PM

Post #9511062

If I recall, Agent Orange is a cocktail containing both an hebricide and a defoliant. I may remember in correctly!
evelyn_inthegarden
Sierra Foothills, CA
(Zone 8a)

May 6, 2013
7:40 PM

Post #9511228

I sure hope that our grandchildren will have a nice planet left. There are so many things wrong with our society it is hard to say which needs fixing first.

CountryGardens

CountryGardens
Lewisville, MN
(Zone 4a)

May 6, 2013
8:30 PM

Post #9511279

"

This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:44 AM

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

May 7, 2013
10:24 AM

Post #9511882

Here's what a spokesperson for the chemical industry is saying about GMOs now that he's retired. Interesting.

http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2013/may/6/former_pro_gmo_scientist_talks_dangers_of_GMOs/

CountryGardens

CountryGardens
Lewisville, MN
(Zone 4a)

May 7, 2013
10:41 AM

Post #9511901



This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:45 AM

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

May 8, 2013
5:47 PM

Post #9513790

CountryGardens, I agree.

Wikipedia:
"Agent Orange is the combination of the code names for Herbicide Orange (HO) and Agent LNX,
"A 50:50 mixture of 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D,"
"The 2,4,5-T used to produce Agent Orange was later discovered to be contaminated with 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD), an extremely toxic dioxin compound."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange

>> At least all the reports you find are one sided.

LOL! That does reduce the need to think, especially if you decide ahead of time which half to trust.

I apologize, but that link made me cranky. He m ay be sincere, but he sure isn't scientific in this little bit of preaching to the choir.

"I retired 10 years ago after a long career as a research scientist for Agriculture Canada. When I was on the payroll, I was the designated scientist of my institute to address public groups and reassure them that genetically engineered crops and foods were safe."

Did he DO research, or was he a PR flack, as suggested by the rest of his bald-assertions-sermon?


"There is, however, a growing body of scientific research "

He doesn't name anything so it could be checked. That's really sleazy.

"I am turning you towards a recent compilation (June 2012) of over 500 government reports and scientific articles published in peer reviewed Journals, some of them with the highest recognition in the world."

Where's the list? Joseph McCarthy used the wave blank pieces of paper during screeds and bellow
"these documents RIGHT HERE in my hands PROVE that ..."
... "this is a LIST of proven COMMUNISTS ..."

Also, he capitalizes "Journals"? ? Oh, well.

"All we have are scientific studies out of Europe and Russia, showing that rats fed engineered food die prematurely."

He doesn't name any so they can be checked. At least he didn't call them Scientific Studies, right here in my hands.

"Individuals should be encouraged to make their decisions on food safety based on scientific evidence and personal choice, not on emotion or the personal opinions of others.

OK, that's hypocrisy. All he offers is personal opinion and scary assertions. He CLAIMS things about "scientific studies" and imploies that he knows of evidence, but doesn't cite them.

Calls them "prestigious" but doesn't think it's relevant to tell anyone else what they are.

BZZZT.

He used up all MY presumptions of innocence and sincerity. Or, he never really did have a scientific inclination, and his PR job taught him that "science" was saying anything you can get away with saying, if it makes people emote the way you want them to,

And I shouldn't fault his sincerity if he thinks that the way he FEELS is the correct basis for judging something's truth or falsity.

He FELT one way 10 years ago when one group paid his salary - and he thought that a "research scientist" was someone who did public speaking to push a pre-determined point of view.

Now he feels a different way, and thinks that science is being like Joe McCarthy. That could possibly still be "sincere", it just isn't science and doesn't make me think anything new about the facts of the matter.

Nothing worng with emoting and feeling strongly - with or without evidence - but EXPECTING to convince other people on that basis?? Then sanctimoniously drawing the mantle of "scientific evidence" around himself? We used to call that what is now called being a ho.

"I refute the claims of the biotechnology companies ..."

Again, no facts. This isn't "refuting" anything, this is just reverse propaganda. "Refute" means "disprove". He's just emoting and trying to make other people emote the same way without evidence e, and in ways that draw his own understanding of science and logic into question.

Even if he were correct, and specific enough that you say he WAS c orrect, he weakens the case to anyone who does make decisions based on facts offered b y someone who trusts them enoguh to let you find the alleged FACTS so you can evaluate them for yourself.

Of course, when Agriculture Canada paid him to ENDORSE the claims, he endorsed them. Maybe it's a case of "PR flacks will say anything". The way he blathers and alludes unspecified "studies" that "question" things does not suggest scientific integrity to me.

To be fair, his rant should not weaken the anti-GMO case. That argument ad hominem : just because yet one more guy makes an emotional rant and calls it science, doesn't prove or disprove X. For me, it always weakens the c ase a little, because if he WAS well-informed and DID want to present facts for his side, he kind of suggests that his best facts are so weak, he doesn't want to expose them to scrutiny.

But maybe he just thinks the best way to convince people is to tell them what to feel and not confuse them with facts. It just alienates me and at best reminds me that people on the other side might be as unscrupulous or unscientific as he is, but just better at hiding it.
1lisac
Liberty Hill, TX
(Zone 8a)

May 8, 2013
6:52 PM

Post #9513857

Most rats only live 2 years, at the most. The ones that live long enough will get cancer.

CountryGardens

CountryGardens
Lewisville, MN
(Zone 4a)

May 12, 2013
4:26 PM

Post #9518235



This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:46 AM

HoneybeeNC

HoneybeeNC
Charlotte, NC
(Zone 7b)

May 13, 2013
6:12 AM

Post #9518780

Not me! I smoked one cigarette 50 years ago, and never did it again! My husband, who will be 81 in August, has never smoked, and my two adult children have never smoked. My mother has never smoked - she will be 95 in August. My brother and his wife have never smoked - they are vegetarians and grow their own organic vegetables.

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

May 13, 2013
7:58 AM

Post #9518886

I agree that it's a true contradiction in terms for someone to be so concerned about his health and the sources of his food and then smoke. I have a friend who is an environmental activist and also smokes, and I can never understand that.

Solace

Solace
Monte Vista, CO
(Zone 4a)

May 13, 2013
8:04 AM

Post #9518896

I did a search for the word "smoke" to find out what the gossip is about. That's the extent of my listening to gossip. People who gossip have a problem with self esteem, and should work on becoming a happier and more loving person. GMO's, fatty foods, and laziness (letting others do all the physical work) will kill you before things like tobacco, car wrecks, etc. will. The wrong kind of food and lifestyle is just a slower death, but heart disease, diabetes, and many others are caused by food (if you want to call it food). Though I might not agree with someone's choices, I am not their judge. We're supposed to love each other, not make enemies of each other. We must look in the mirror before we blast others for their choices.

CountryGardens

CountryGardens
Lewisville, MN
(Zone 4a)

May 13, 2013
10:10 AM

Post #9519055



This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:46 AM
eweed
Everson, WA
(Zone 8a)

May 16, 2013
7:05 PM

Post #9523296

hi I am the king I rule this thread to stay open lol


This message was edited May 16, 2013 7:06 PM

Solace

Solace
Monte Vista, CO
(Zone 4a)

May 16, 2013
8:34 PM

Post #9523394

I thought it was nancynurse who started the GMO discussion. http://davesgarden.com/community/forums/t/1299045/
eweed
Everson, WA
(Zone 8a)

May 16, 2013
9:19 PM

Post #9523436

Solace Nancynurse can't hold a candle to Bernie.

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

May 17, 2013
4:39 AM

Post #9523570

Nancynurse started the original thread, but it got so lengthy that people asked that a new one be started so Bernie did so. Doesn't make it his thread, though. I just think people got tired of repeating their positions when the other side wasn't really listening. Some good stuff came out of it, though.

CountryGardens

CountryGardens
Lewisville, MN
(Zone 4a)

May 17, 2013
5:16 AM

Post #9523596



This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:47 AM

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

May 17, 2013
7:22 AM

Post #9523740

Bernie, just unwatch the thread if our chatting bothers you!
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

May 17, 2013
7:37 AM

Post #9523760

Nancy's first thread expressed concern about roundup residuals, which i did not agree with, no mention of GMO, other than "roundup tolerant" and then the Don Quixote people that imagine GMO is a threat took it over as a platform for their cause.

I agree with Greenhouse that some good came out of it, we all expressed our opinions, no minds were changed, and the only thing we seemed to agree on was that it was time to let it die a natural death.

But those people that still have something to say, should be allowed to say it until they reach the point they are only talking to themselves.

Ernie
eweed
Everson, WA
(Zone 8a)

May 17, 2013
8:21 AM

Post #9523794

Bernie is right GH you have no right to tell him to unwatch anything. Do you think you are the thread police? I don't remember voting for you.

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

May 17, 2013
9:18 AM

Post #9523838

Bernie is attempting to tell people that because he started this thread, which is just a continuation of Nancy's, he can decide when it's closed. That doesn't bother you but my suggesting that he can unwatch the thread if he doesn't want to see any more entries does? Oh well.

CountryGardens

CountryGardens
Lewisville, MN
(Zone 4a)

May 17, 2013
9:42 AM

Post #9523865



This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:48 AM
evelyn_inthegarden
Sierra Foothills, CA
(Zone 8a)

May 17, 2013
10:37 AM

Post #9523905

^_^ You all are hilarious! I have enjoyed our lengthy discussions and it is good to have a forum where we can all express ourselves on whatever topic that we chose. this has been quite lively at times, and will always give a nice balanced approach...eventually...

As far as smoking is concerned, lung cancer isn't the only damage that it can do. My mother died of emphysema and my father of heart disease which smoking made its contribution. Each one had died too soon as well as my grandfather. My sister-in-law finally quit when she had to go through chemo and radiation...what an awful thing to have to endure.

My sister and I had no interest in cigarettes whatsover. I used to close my bedroom door and open my window at times as I was smoked out of any common living areas...how can you tell your parents what to do? Still, it was the social norm at that time as most people smoked.

These days there is a lot more information about the subject, and the tobacco companies do not rule quite as much. Still, so many youth are lured into it...I really wonder what is the motivation??? Anyone here hold stocks in their portfolio on tobacco companies?
1lisac
Liberty Hill, TX
(Zone 8a)

May 17, 2013
11:12 AM

Post #9523937

My understanding is that the person who starts the thread CAN close it. It has happened before. He said it's closed so I don't understand why that's such a big deal. There is nothing stopping anybody from starting another one. If you don't believe me ask Admin. Nancy hasn't been on this thread in a long time BUT since Bernie started it HE can close it. Just bc you don't know the DG rules, Bernie does, don't blame him. Just start another thread...

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

May 17, 2013
12:05 PM

Post #9523993

Zeesh, what an unfriendly bunch all of sudden! Bye!
evelyn_inthegarden
Sierra Foothills, CA
(Zone 8a)

May 17, 2013
12:08 PM

Post #9523996

OK, Lisa, why don't we know when to quit...?? You are right. Whoever wants to start a new thread, or not...

Solace

Solace
Monte Vista, CO
(Zone 4a)

May 17, 2013
3:34 PM

Post #9524176

I think Bernie is a she, or maybe I'm mistaken.

CountryGardens

CountryGardens
Lewisville, MN
(Zone 4a)

May 17, 2013
8:01 PM

Post #9524411



This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:49 AM

Solace

Solace
Monte Vista, CO
(Zone 4a)

May 17, 2013
8:38 PM

Post #9524446

Sorry for the gender mistake, Bernie. I saw a photo once, you had posted, and thought it was you. Might have been your wife.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

May 17, 2013
8:48 PM

Post #9524453

Solace, i am glad he cleared that up for you. Country sounded to me like he would be a good neighbor, but he sure never sounded like he would be a good wife.

Ernie
eweed
Everson, WA
(Zone 8a)

May 17, 2013
9:02 PM

Post #9524470

My name is Ernie and I live with my one and only Bride Linda. We have been married 46 and a half years but whose counting. We have lived in this house 41 years and I don1't plan on moving.

We are retired and have a two acre yard that is inhabited by three Golden retrievers, three cats ,five pheasants, a green house bunny, And nine working girls that give us and our friends fresh eggs lol. Oh
poo I almost forgot the eight parakeets and the 3 cockatiels.

Bernie I have a fully insulated shop with heat. I gave most of my big tools that I had duplicates of to my son. I have lots of toys left. I am a wood worker, metal fabricator, welder, and machinist. Favorite project I built a 32 foot boat and a trailer to carry it, I commercially crab fished for five years with it.

That's enough about me how now about you?



nancynursez637
Madras, OR

May 19, 2013
4:07 AM

Post #9525516

Follow the plight of Indian farmers using GMO methods, seeds,

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1082559/The-GM-genocide-Thousands-Indian-farmers-committing-suicide-using-genetically-modified-crops.html

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

May 19, 2013
4:48 AM

Post #9525544

Nice to see you weighing in again, Nancy. I was puzzled by Ernie's statement that "Nancy's first thread expressed concern about roundup residuals, which i did not agree with, no mention of GMO, other than 'roundup tolerant' and then the Don Quixote people that imagine GMO is a threat took it over as a platform for their cause." The title of your thread was actually "GMO'd Vegetable Seeds?"

I had heard about what's happening in India and wondered what the story was. Thanks for posting it.

w_r_ranch

w_r_ranch
Colorado County, TX
(Zone 8b)

May 19, 2013
6:07 AM

Post #9525584

And these deaths are to be blamed on GMO. Give us a break. People have been committing suicide for years to 'escape' the results of their poor decisions in financial matters...

Google 'suicide stock market'

BTW, Prince Charles (like King George III) is mentally incompetent, although some prefer to say that he is just "misunderstood".


CountryGardens

CountryGardens
Lewisville, MN
(Zone 4a)

May 19, 2013
6:10 AM

Post #9525589

I was going to comment but felt better of it. I will now leave this thread forever.

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

May 19, 2013
8:23 AM

Post #9525729

Also this Brazilian study regarding a link between GMOs and leukemia:

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/350126

and here's the complete article in the Journal of Hematology and Thromboembolic Diseases:

http://esciencecentral.org/journals/JHTD/JHTD-1-104.php?aid=11822%3Faid%3D11822

This message was edited May 19, 2013 11:25 AM

w_r_ranch

w_r_ranch
Colorado County, TX
(Zone 8b)

May 19, 2013
9:31 AM

Post #9525801

And yet there are still no actual facts to backup their research... Tell me GG, how EXACTLY Bt kills a targeted insect vs a non-targeted lab rat...

BTW, an you also explain to me the difference between “sugar” from a GM sugar beet and non-GM sugar beet (or any other source of sugar). Go ahead, give it a shot...

As you know, I personally have no concerns about the safety of GMOs or Round Up. I also support the right of people to make choices about what they eat and think we should provide them with the information they need to do so as long as they pay for it.



This message was edited May 19, 2013 11:39 AM
gardadore
Saylorsburg, PA
(Zone 6a)

May 19, 2013
11:57 AM

Post #9525982

I am a little confused since I am not a scientist at all. Where are these GMO toxins produced? in the corm kernel itself that we eat? Are they feeding these toxins to the mice after extracting them from the corn? Or does the plant produce toxins in the soil? or in itself but not the fruit or vegetable? Thanks for any clarification on this!

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

May 19, 2013
2:54 PM

Post #9526143

Gardadore, I'm not a scientist either. I was just impressed that this was a carefully conducted study published in a peer-reviewed journal indicating some problems with GMO foods. Several people on this thread have insisted that there's no science to back up the concerns expressed here, so I thought they might find the study of interest.
1lisac
Liberty Hill, TX
(Zone 8a)

May 19, 2013
6:51 PM

Post #9526442

I have a scientific background but none of you has taken my posts seriously I thought you were all scientists considering you all appear to be experts on GMOs. I am not for GMOs in food I don't need to wait years for somebody to tell me it's bad for me. I believe that we tried that with Asbestos.

I don't appreciate being called unfriendly bc I told you what the rules are on DG, talk about shooting the messenger. No, Bernie is not a woman the pic was another DGer, not his wife. If you had read the post you would know this...I won't be back on this thread and ive seen many members true colors...me, me, me

Like Evelyn said "why don't we know when to quit? "
eweed
Everson, WA
(Zone 8a)

May 19, 2013
6:55 PM

Post #9526449

I am out of here,

down with the Nurse Gang

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

May 20, 2013
8:15 PM

Post #9527898

The "Indian suicide" article, while very sad, was not about foods from GM crops being toxic, or potentially toxic, or having unproven, possible, hypothetical effects after decades of use.

It was about desperate, starving people committing suicide. Full of potent emotion, hardly mentioning the underlying facts. No relevance to "GMO dangers", Roundup toxicity or reasons for food labeling. It was very heavy on emotional tear-jerking, but EXTREMELY MISLEADING about the way it seemed to blame GMOs for the suicides.

I was surprised that the article didn't go into whether it was lies by Monsanto, governmental greed, government stupidity, or the farmers' not knowing that Bt corn has no boll weevil resistance.

The article spoke about cotton weevils devastating a crop ... AS IF it were the fault of GMOs ... as if the GM cotton had betrayed the farmers. That is like blaming an electric car for not curing your hair-loss. (I am assuming it was Bt-enhanced cotton.)

Bt does NOT control boll weevils. Never did (as far as a little research showed me.) I know nothing about farming and I found that out in about 3 minutes.

As they found in Mississippi before 2001, if you stop spraying with the things that DO control boll weevils, and don't use pheromone traps, you get a lot of boll weevils. Monsanto knows that, the Indian Ag department knows it.

If Monsanto or the Indian government claimed otherwise, they lied. That wouldn't surprise me, but then the tear-jerking articles should be about lying corporations and governments, not "the hazards of GMOs".

I'm not saying that every poverty-stricken Indian farmer needs to go to schools he can't afford, but the Indian government should have said something like "these seeds PLUS xyz controls will let you use fewer sprays".

And maybe Monsanto executives SHOULD be nailed to fences while we throw stones at them - I don't know enough to say, but they sure have made a lot of enemies. The POTENTIAL of their innovations is great, in reducing toxin usage and imprioving food production with less overt environmental impact, but the way they market reminds me of the Mafia.

None of the above has one iota of relevance to GMOs, other than the fact that Bt-crops REDUCED use of chemical insecticides so much that caterpillar-control sprays that USED TO control boll weevils are no longer used enough to control boll weevils as a side benefit, and you have to use pheromone traps or something else instead.

I seem to see a pattern (in cited articles, not what people are posting here) of using emotion and avoiding facts to enflame passions and create beliefs contrary to facts. If that's intentional by those authors and organizations, I don't respect that.

On the other hand, it may partly be the difference between psychological types. Some people are feeling-oriented and some are thinking-oriented. That's just an observation, not a value judgment EXCEPT for the fact that people of either type can seldom truly understand the other way. Not understanding it, they can 't appreciate it, and often look down on it or dismiss it as a valid point of views. Maybe some of these emotional articles that I think are deliberate, unprincipled, manipulative propaganda that hides facts in order to deceive people, are actually just emotion-focused people prin ting up what they feel is important and significant, and leaving out what I think are THE relevant facts because they just aren't that interested in technical details.

- - -



Wikipedia:
Genetically engineered Bt cotton is not protected from the boll weevil.[10]

This guy makes it sound like "everyone knows" that Bt doesn't control boll weevils at all.
The SUNY link below would agree, but it sounds more partisan, or at least more politicized.

"Boll weevil eradication effort"
May 18, 2001
Blake Layton Mississippi Extension entomologist | Delta Farm Press

http://deltafarmpress.com/boll-weevil-eradication-effort
"Historically, when growers applied caterpillar treatments to non-Bt fields they often used insecticides that also were active against boll weevils. This coincidental boll weevil control was a great supplement to boll weevil eradication programs that were conducted before the introduction of Bt cotton. However, Bt fields require fewer treatments for caterpillar pests and this means less coincidental control of boll weevils by grower applied sprays. "


http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/ee/geeta/Bt-Cotton.html



This message was edited May 20, 2013 8:16 PM

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

May 20, 2013
9:30 PM

Post #9527969


Sorry it got so late and this is scattered. My one-paragraph summary of the "linked to leukemia and anemia" articvle is that it looks like a deliberate misrepresentation of a good scientific paper.

>> A new study shows that Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) toxins are linked to leukemia and anemia. Research shows toxic effects at the lowest dose tested.

My impression is that is wealse-worded deceit. Sorry, guy. The peer-reviewed article you cited did NOT say that or anything remotely like it. leukemia and anemia.are diseases, and the blood cell irregularites in mice dosed with near-lethal amounts of experimental microbial spores are so far removed from GM crops that it made me red in the face when I saw how big the misrepresentation was.

At first I typed "liar, liar, pants on fire", but I wnated to sound more adult than that. However, deliberatly misleading, in flamtory misleading sleaze probably merits getting down in mud with the auhtioor an d qanswering on his or her own level.


Who is E. Hector Corsi? Hmm, "a digital journalist". His or her list of articles seems focused on sensationalism. Going by this one article and how badlty it m isrepresented its source, unprincipled sensationalism .
http://www.digitaljournal.com/user/737203/news


we evaluated, in Swiss albino mice, the hematotoxicity and genotoxicity of four Bt spore-crystals genetically modified to express individually Cry1Aa, Cry1Ab, Cry1Ac or Cry2A, administered alone by gavage with a single dose of 27 mg/Kg, 136 mg/Kg or 270 mg/Kg,

The BACILLUS was genetically modified to produce one or another Cry protein, then the spores were forced into the mice's stomachs, NOT GM corn or cotton, rather concentrated Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) spores that have themselves been GMed to produce all one kind of toxin (not the "standard, traditional" Bt toxin, but rather something new, fourkinds of "Cry" toxins). .

Now, how realistic are the doses studied, if someone is going to misrepresent this paper and say "GM crops cause leukemia"? NOT realistic, and the real-science authors say that in the full text. The doses used and effects observed make a case for more studies on mechanisms and real-world toxicity. That's science.

The misquote tried to create the impression "GMOs cause leukemia". BZZZT, That's propaganda.

If the low dose of 27 mg/Kg was of the pure protein, and not 27 mg/Kg of the spore crystals, that might have been a HUGE amount of bacterial spores - but I don't know. I also don't know how much of the Cry toxins would actually be in the food products we eat IF they were added to the standard Bt toxins: probably zero in sugar or corn oil, but in an ear of corn? I don't know.

If they are using 1,000 times a reasonable concentration, that would be understandable because these guys are looking for POSSIBLE effects, which would make a cause for more research to clarify the mechanisms involved and to establish the toxicological risks ... i.e., study whether the hematotoxicity they were able to cause has an y real-world correlate,

But if they were using 100,000 times any reasonable real-world concentration, I would be skeptical and consider pretty contrived. After all, when you go to TOO high a concentration of something, you sometimes create unrealistic effects, like "water will kill you if you drink so much that your stomach explodes".

Hmm, they say:
The profile of observed cytotoxic effects of these Cry toxins can be related to their high concentrations and the exposure time. Such exposures at these high concentrations are not commonly found in the environment.

That's fair, and they admit in the full text that they are testing up to close to doses that will kill mice rather promptly. They are TRYING to create cell dmage so they give the mice as much as they can take and still live long enough to study. The authors of the online paper (open-access but allegedly peer-reviewed, and they certainly SOUND like reasonable scientists) aren't pushing an anti-GMO agenda, they're trying to get more studies funded to analyze the underlying mechanisms and EVENTUALLY determine what is safe in the real world.

(I hope they eventually determine how much of the toxicity comes from the spores themselves and how much from the Cry toxins! GM corn & cotton won't make spore crystals, on ly the toxins themselves.)


for genotoxicity analyses, micronucleus test was carried out in mice bone marrow cells

If I'm right, that's a tissue culture test ... maybe not, the full-text makes it sound more like "we looked at the cells under microscopes".

A significant reduction in bone marrow cell proliferation demonstrated cytotoxic but not genotoxic effects.

Now that's odd. They did the bone marrow test to detect genotoxicity and observed no genotoxic effects. But they DID find cytotoxic effects during the genotoxicity test.
>> For hematotoxicity evaluations, blood samples were drawn by cardiac puncture and processed in a multiple automated hematology analyzer;

. I don't know what hematology analyzers can detect today.

>> Spore-crystal administrations provoked selective hematotoxicity for the 3 exposure times, particularly for erythroid lineage

I'm going to have to go to the full-text article to address that, but I noticed these right off:

1.
>> Among the viable alternatives for the replacement of these synthetic pesticides, entomopathogenic biological agents show potential for use in biological control programs and integrated production, because they leave few human side effects and have low impact on natural enemies and the environment [3,5,6].

They know the difference between "bad" insecticides and "probably less-bad" insecticides.

2.
>> The primary threat to the effectiveness of long-term use of Bt toxins is the evolution of resistance by pests [21], and one of the strategies to delay the emergence of resistant pests is the combined use of Cry toxins that are effective for the same target species. The simultaneous expression of binary combinations of Cry toxins minimizes the chance of insect resistance to Bt-plants [22]. In addition to the binary combinations, advances in genetic engineering promise the expression of multiple Cry toxins in Bt-plants, known as gene pyramiding [23].

Oh, good! At least someone is thinking about the fact that all these issues will be irrelevant on ce bugs develop immunity. Well, the issues of food prices, starvation, and need for classic, "bad" insecticides would remain.

So this is not even about the traditional Bt toxin (gamma endotoxin, maybe?) , it is about a cluster of DIFFERENT toxins they are pyramiding in to the plant genome - a toxic cocktail. I'm very sympathetic to studying the effects of those new ones, and how much evolutionary experience we have with these Cry proteins!

This is where I lean towards the more alarmist side: now that we have "power tools" like GE, we do have to be careful to keep reins on our hubris and enthusiasm for "look what I can do now!" "Can", yes, but "should" takes more thought. An d there do need to be better control methods than the profit motive by itself.

I'll try to analyze the " selective hematotoxicity particularly for erythroid lineage" tomorrow if I have time.

3.
>> In our previous experiments, exposures greater than 270 mg/Kg had caused signs of toxicity and death, so this concentration was considered the maximum tolerated.

Oh, they tested from 1/10th up to the promptly-lethal dosage? Well, sure they're going to see major cytotoxicity, DUHH!

4.
>> The profile of observed cytotoxic effects of these Cry toxins can be related to their high concentrations and the exposure time. Such exposures at these high concentrations are not commonly found in the environment.

gardadore
Saylorsburg, PA
(Zone 6a)

May 21, 2013
6:30 AM

Post #9528159

Thanks Rick. You cleared up a few things for me. That's why I asked my question. I wanted to know where the scientists were getting these "toxins" from that they were injecting into the mice. They obviously didn't feed them the corn or product that had been genetically modified! While I, too, am trying to make heads and tails of this GMO debate, I sometimes have a problem seeing the relationship of a particular test to the results of our eating the stuff. I've never had the time to look for tests that try to determine how the specific foods are affecting us. I'm sure they exist.

For the moment I try to eat as much as I can that is not genetically modified but that seems rather difficult in light of all the products made using grains that have been! Always food for thought! Sometimes I think that this topic is right up there with abortion and politics as one that should be avoided in debate unless one is willing to keep an open mind, a level head, and a civilized demeanor!! You are correct, Rick, that we need to separate emotion from true objective scientific research.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

May 21, 2013
9:39 AM

Post #9528375

I think all of us that have been interested in this subject owe Rick a big Thank You.

He is the only one in the group that has enough of a scientific background to research, understand, and explain many of the studies and claims, while keeping an open mind. Some of what he has explained are in contrast with his own personal beliefs, but he has shared those in an honest and forthright manner.

Proof of whether GMO is dangerous or not can only be ascertained over time. Perhaps it will be proven like I learned that Oleander leaves are deadly poisonous, when i fed my pet guinea pigs some as a small boy. Just as our ancestors learned not to eat Potato leaves, Rhubarb Leaves nor Castor bean plants, we will eventually learn the truth about GMO Soy beans. Until then, I hope Rick's analysis relieves some of the anxiety and fear that some people have.

Ernie

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

May 21, 2013
11:33 AM

Post #9528528

>> Always food for thought!

Good one! That should be the thread title.

>> I sometimes have a problem seeing the relationship of a particular test to the results of our eating the stuff.

Yes! Most of science seems very remov ed from practicality, partly becuase the real world is very complicated and scie4nc e HAS to simplify before they get something repeatable that they can measure and analyze., LATER, with luck, someone can put it all together and form conc lusions.

>> I've never had the time to look for tests that try to determine how the specific foods are affecting us

In part because the effects (if any) ARE subtle and long term (if any). You don't make qa research reputation by feeding rats something for three generations and reporting "nothing much happened". And when something happens 0.01% of the time, what can you say? Unrleated flukes prob ably happen 0.1% of the time, so it's "lost in the noise".

If someone's philosophy is "we don't know, so we should fear anything new", , thaqt's what they do.
If someone's philosophy is "we don't know, so we should try anything that reduces use of NASTY 'cides", , thaqt's what they do.
If someone's philosophy is "we don't know, so we should use some caution while we incorporate it gradually", , thaqt's what they do.

>> For the moment I try to eat as much as I can that is not genetically modified but that seems rather difficult in light of all the products made using grains that have been!

My current plan is:
When the ingredients are oil or sugar - I don't care a bit.
Bt Grain? This year I don't worry a bit, but if we go crazy, adding every new toxin we can get our hands on to stay ahead of the bugs, then I will think twice or three times.
Roundup Ready? Thank God and Monsanto there are alternatives to 2,4,5-T and its organo-phosphate neuro-poisons! THERE's some TOXicity!
Gross excess of Roundup and other 'cides used, and unintended toxic by-products created during manufacturing? I wish we had a governement that beleived in fun ding inspectors and enforcing regulations instead of lobying, bugeling "Companies are People" and buying elections.

Where I indulge my superstitious fe4ar of thee new is eating gentically-modified whole-plants. I THINK the only one is sweet corn, like whole-ears. I think, if I happen to buy any ears of corn, I will ask whether it is or isn't GM, and then decide whether I want to worry or not. Odds are, not.

I worry more about double-washing apples from Mexico, which might use unregulated insecticdes that I AM afraid of, becuase they ARE toxic to humans.




RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

May 21, 2013
11:47 AM

Post #9528549

>> You are correct, Rick, that we need to separate emotion from true objective scientific research.

Thank you, but someitmes I'm som ehwat of two minds about that. I agree that we need to make the disticn tion, and know when someone is trying report fact6s accurately, and when they are venting feelings, or acitvely lying an d misrepresenting because they feel they have to convince others of soemthing where the don't have facts, or don't understand all the distinctions, or disbelieve anything thast doesn't suppor ttheir feelingds.

BUT

It's possible to be TOO reductionist. Science is so limited and narrow, that what it CAN measure is much less than the real world. You can't say "there IS no risk until science PROVES there is a risk". It's more like you have to weigh all the narrow studies and guess at what they would mean in the real world, if it were possible to measure and know everything.

I don't think we should make leaps of faith either way ("there is NO risk", or "GM gonna kill mommas and babies").. But we do live in the REAL world even if it is confusing and complex and unknowable in its full, detailed glory. We have to live and act on partial knowledge, reasonably ... either cautiously or adventurously or boldly according to our natures.

My own "concern" or interest in genetic engineering is more like "what hath agrobacterium mediated transformation wrought?" Will these crown gall plasmids promote ongoing transformation in plants as analogous things do in bacterium-to-bacterium DNA transfers? Seemingly not, and palnts ARE pretty different from bacteria.

BUT, speaking wildly and purely speculatively, MAYBE we've unleashed jumpin' genes left and right. Over the next few centuries, will that promote accelerated genetic drift among crop plants or weeds? If it does, will that be barely observable, measurable, neutral, beneficial, harmful or disasterous? My guess is "barely observable b ut very interesting".

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

May 21, 2013
2:26 PM

Post #9528679

Thanks, Ernie. I learned a lot while researching exactly how to state my opinions, and getting the facts as straight as I could. I appreciate your support, and the tim e of anyone who read more than 10% of those long, boring, complicated dissertations).

I personally think the risks of GE are more ecological than toxicological, but that's my speculative opinion.

And the bio-diversity harm that Monsanto does might be worse even than ther ecological damage and human health harm done in the past by the 'cides they are reducing uasge of. Again, opinion.

The fact that I blame that harm on lawyers and executives more than on genengineers is another feeling-based opinion. I like and trust engineers, but distrust lawyers and PR flacks.


>> Until then, I hope Rick's analysis relieves some of the anxiety and fear that some people have.

I think there is a defensible point of view or feeling that is cautious (or feaful) about new technologies, until they are PROVED safe. If indeed it is possible to DIS-prove a theory like "maybe in the long run something subtle will be found". Thalidomide babies could have been prevented by that feeling. But too much of that feeling might have prevented the polio vaccine, or all technological progress ever.

Studies that fail to show any immediate risk or very plausible near-term risk can't, and should not, reduce concerns or fears based on feelings and beliefs or intuitions. Those are not primarily ABOUT facts. (And they are bound to turn out to be right in some cases.)

More opinion:
Differtent psychological types are just different: not better or worse. Neither one can prove to the other type that the other is "wrong".
"Feeling" vs. "thinking" or "fear of new things" vs. "attacted to new things" are just poles of psychological spectra.
You can't rally say "we must be onjective about this", becuase others wsould say "we must be SUBjec tive about this!"
Who's right about that? I think I'm just as right as they think they are.
The shift has been away from faith and feeling for maybe 1200-1500 years, but that's just fashion and cultural bias.

Devil's Advocate Opinion:
Science and technology have a good track record for inventing some kinds of things and explaining some kinds of things, but that isn't the same thing as "wisdom". If you focus carefully on the negative, and cite over-population, pollution, climate change, loss of bio-diversity, plauges, wars and nuclear weapons, you could argue that technology, starting with agriculture, has had some major downsides!

People guided more by their feelings and beliefs than by analyzing a million alleged details will remain true to their natures ... and for many things, intuition works better than the AVAILABLE facts. Sometimes "who do you trust?" works better than reductionist analysis For example, try to play poker using only statistics, without pyschology! Whe you can't know it all, or PROVE much, you kind of have to rely on methods other than Newrtonmian logic.

Nerds like me are quick to be enchanted by anything new and science-fiction-y ... hopefully we read the fine print when Monsanto waves a press rfelease that claims "I have here in my hand 'scienitfic studies thaqt PROVE blahblahblah..." Fortunately there are scientific gorups of card-carrying hand-wringers that WILL read that fine print, and fund studies to debunk BS . Thier attempts to trumpet 'anti-estaqbvlishment' views work really well when there are any facts to debunk the blahblahblah.

I passionately want to stomp on lies and misrepresentation about science - that's my "feeling" motivation. I get hot when I see deliberate propaganda - at least, propaganda that lies about science. It is so easy to take a nerdy paper and make a sleazy, sensationlist claim from it, that it burns me up.

I'm almost as burned up by Monsanto saying "this is proveably 100% safe" when all they can really prove is that there are no detectable short-term effects with 3X, 15X or 50X any plausible dosage. Or that it's 500 times safer and ecological less damagingb than what we used to use! But I EXPECT a for-profit corporation to lie, but I expected ecologists and pro-health people to have more integrity. What can I say, I'm stupid that way.

>> Proof of whether GMO is dangerous or not can only be ascertained over time.

I would have agreed 100% if you had capitalized PROOF. But things you've said in the past are also tgrue, and very important. We not only have a totally obvious lack of body count or overt health damage so far. We also have a lot of reputable science pointing out "no immediate harm" and "less toxicity than most things" And also a LACK of any science showing plausible concerns by the usual standards of toxicology.

So you';re right that for long-term and subtle effects, "Proof ... can only be ascertained over time.", but you were also right dozens of pages ago to say that there is NOT YET proof that there IS any objective reasons to worry about short-term OR long term human toxiicity from Bt, glyphosphate or GM crops in general. .

So your position is MUCH stronger than "we have to wait for an un-arguable body count before we should worry". We COULD have fact-based worries as soon as there were plausible hints or preliminary or even mixed results. But (It seems to me) we don;'t have those either, for traditional Bt or RoundUp, or GM crops. *

Are there any fact-based hints, such as toxicologists use to screen for POTENTIAL real-world threats? I thought it was hugely revealing that when a biased sleaze-meister WANTED to bash GM Bt crops, he had to stoop to citing a study about something DIFFERENT. Three strikes against him even before you get to the muck-raking language:
- 1. - Cry toxins being considered for ADDITION TO Bt spore slurries.
- 2 - GM bacteria, not GM crop plants.
- 3 - Cry toxins, not Bt gamma endotoxin.

When someone who is partisan and willing to distort facts can't find any PLAUSIBLY RELEVANT facts to distort, I take that as pretty impressive evidence that he did not HAVE any plausible facts to distort. Once I thought about it, his puff-piece was the most re-assuring review of toxcicological literature I could imagine.


* (I'm not adressing the liklihood that someone with specific allergies could be more allergic to one thing than another. Of course there can be allergies. But an allergy that .1% of the population might have is NOT the same thing as convulsing on the ground from an organo-phosphate nerve poison,, or spraying that same thing from a crop-duster, which was a prime alternative to GM strategies for bio-control of insect-based crop damage!)
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

May 21, 2013
3:55 PM

Post #9528778

Rick,
You brought up several good points of discussion, and some we agree on, and on some we come with totally different viewpoints. I could spend hours debating some of them with you, but I will only touch on the two most important ones. Fear and Truthfulness.

I do believe the old aphorism that "The Boy is the Father of the Man he Becomes." So, if a boy fibs and lies, he is most likely to continue that for the rest of his life, whether he becomes an Engineer, a Lawyer, a Scientist, a Farmer or something else. Just going to work for a Corporation or P R firm does not change the person he is. But, regardless of the field he works in, to achieve any worthwhile success he must earn the respect of others, either his clients, customers, or employers, so that is enough pressure to help keep the majority of people honest. So, i do not agree that some segments are more or less honest than others.

The other most important part of this discussion, in my opinion, is Fear, simply because it is fueling a movement that interferes with taking the RISK necessary to make progress.

We all suffer from fear. But to make progress, we must control it. As a young man, in 1942, I started operating heavy equipment in the mountains during the summers and roughnecking in the California Oil Fields in the Winters. This was long before OSHA, no safety rules were practiced, both were very dangerous jobs, and i spent many a day with a tight ass and a short breath, but taking that risk was necessary for me to move ahead and learn. And if our earliest ancestors had avoided all risk by cowering in their caves or staying up in the trees, we would not have progressed as far as we have. So, the Freedom to Take Risk, even if we are not sure it is totally safe, is the most important stone in the foundation of Progress.

So, of course, the Freedom that allows some people to take risks also provides others to choose not to use GMO products, and i have no objection or comment on that subject. But they should not use that freedom to stop Monsanto or anyone else from taking risks during the search and research necessary for progress.

Or so it seems to me,
Ernie

w_r_ranch

w_r_ranch
Colorado County, TX
(Zone 8b)

May 21, 2013
6:10 PM

Post #9528968

[quote="ERNIECOPP"]The other most important part of this discussion, in my opinion, is Fear, simply because it is fueling a movement that interferes with taking the RISK necessary to make progress.[/quote]

Bingo!!! That there is the crux of this whole debate (irrational fear).


This message was edited May 21, 2013 8:28 PM

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

May 21, 2013
6:56 PM

Post #9529021

>> on some we come with totally different viewpoints

Well, very different. Almost everything you say I have a lot of agreement with, and evertything you say, I u dneraqtnd and have some sympathy for.

>> But, regardless of the field he works in, to achieve any worthwhile success he must earn the respect of others,

I used to agree with that, but I think the world has changed enough that BS is expected and rewarded in many fields. But I sure WISH I could agree that were still true, and I wouldn't say that I could prove you were wrong. In my opinion, you probably are 70-80% right, and I think you ARE 95% right in many fields (local businesses and n on -sales non-legal non-political fields).

>> And if our earliest ancestors had avoided all risk by cowering in their caves or staying up in the trees, we would not have progressed as far as we have.
>> So, the Freedom to Take Risk, even if we are not sure it is totally safe, is the most important stone in the foundation of Progress.

Maybe that is another "emotional" or philosophical difference between the two "sides" of this debate. The value of progress. When people forget to include agriculture, medicine, shelter, language, printing and so on, and only consider the progress made since their childhood, (and memories of childhood will always seem brighter than images of fear-mongers), "progress" sounds more like "Vietnam and pollution".

Or perhaps many people have had it up to here with the recent RATE of change in society. During a recent election , a 70-year old lady complained in a "town hall" meeitng that "it wasn't the same country as it was when SHE was a child." Well, yeah, there HAS been change since the 1940s, and not all for the good. If you interpet it not as "prevent all chnage becuase I'm afraid of these specific thbin gs", but instead m"Whoah, slow down, it feels like jumping off a cliff", I have some sympathy. How much chnage is tolerable for any one person's comfort, or for society to be able to absorb without fragmenting into segments that can't even communicate with each other?

>> But they should not use that freedom to stop Monsanto or anyone else from taking risks during the search and research necessary for progress.

We do differ there, because I have little faith in the profit motive protecting us from global disaster. What form it might take I have no idea, but the example I use is the recent mortgage fiasco. The way mortgages were written was the fiscal equivalent of disposing of plutonium waste by dropping it into a lake that drinking water is drawn from. Did they fail in the marketplace as they should have? No, they were bailed out so that they continue to give each other million-dollar bonuses for seriously damaging the entire world economy, and throwing many into homelessness.

>> to achieve any worthwhile success he must earn the respect of others,

I think the mortgage compqanies proved themsleves to be lying, cheating sleaze, selling people securtities thqat they themselves knew were worse than worthless, and were aloready betting on to fail ... integrity, NOT. And yet they are still riding our backs, "too b ig to fail", protected b y their lobyists from even the regulation that was intended to make it harder for them to profit hugely from doing the exact same thing again tomorrow.

Capitalism and the profit motive might work very well - if we ever changed over to USING it, instead of "Governement of the people, by the lawyers , for the rich."

OK, now I see how we DO diufer a lot in our opinions! I know that mine are only opinions, not provable! Maybe mine are more like faith than opinion. I know that when I was disillusioned from beliefs much closer top yourts, I went very stringly into DIStrust of thsoe principles actually are played out in the real world. Your milage my vary, you may be ruighter than I am, and I wish you were!


>> But they should not use that freedom to stop Monsanto or anyone else from taking risks during the search and research necessary for progress

My speculations about biodiversity and genetic drift caused by multiplied Agriobacter plasmids are more like science fiction than science, so I mostly agree with you there.

But the GE tools cvertainly have the _potential_ to cause vast damage if unregulated, or left to the marketplace. If you can imagine a failed experiment in nitrogen-fixing giving the Earth an atmosphere with 30% nitrous oxide * , I can imagine Monsanto telling the court it is "too big to fail" and getting government grants to keep it afloat while the rest of us cough our lungs inside out and die in droves. Oooopps.

* I think it was Hal Clement who worte an SF novel with that premise... yeah, "The Nitrogen Fix", "a future where all oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere has combined with nitrogen ... and the seas are very dilute nitric acid." But apparently Hal did not speculate it was done by stimulating nitrogen-fixing bacteria as I thought.

Terry

Terry
Murfreesboro, TN
(Zone 7a)


May 22, 2013
9:05 AM

Post #9529712

Ahem. This thread is getting very long and lanky...which makes it hard for our friends on dial-up. The thread starter has pulled out of the conversation, so I'm going to go ahead and close this one to new posts. If there is a need to continue the discussion, someone can start a new thread.

Going forward, please keep in mind that we have relaxed the old "no political discussion whatsoever" rule, but we do insist that all conversations in the garden remain respectful and civil, whether they veer into politics or religion, or any other "hot topic" area.

You cannot post until you register, login and subscribe.


Other Vegetable Gardening Threads you might be interested in:

SubjectThread StarterRepliesLast Post
very important question farmgirl21 31 Jan 8, 2008 12:31 AM
Need Source For Chinese Vegetable Seed berrygirl 18 Jun 15, 2008 7:21 PM
An accidental lesson Farmerdill 26 Feb 24, 2013 12:10 PM
Planting the "Three sisters" HilltopDaisy 94 Jul 6, 2011 3:38 AM
Rhubarb emilyrasmus 19 Apr 25, 2013 4:55 PM


We recommend Firefox
Overwhelmed? There's a lot to see here. Try starting at our homepage.

[ Home | About | Advertise | Media Kit | Mission | Featured Companies | Submit an Article | Terms of Use | Tour | Rules | Privacy Policy | Contact Us ]

Back to the top

Copyright © 2000-2014 Dave's Garden, an Internet Brands company. All Rights Reserved.
 

Hope for America