Continuing on with this silliness. GMO.

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.

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.

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

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.

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/

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.

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...

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

Wow, thanks for that article, Darius!

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

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!

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!

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.

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!

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Ernie:

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