Continuing on with this silliness. GMO.

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

Or a cork.

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

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.

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

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

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

It Figures, LOL

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

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

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

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!

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

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

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

darius - how true.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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/

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!

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

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

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

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

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!

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

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

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

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?

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.

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

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.