I think he could have gotten away with 'hey, I don't know what you're giving me to drink there'. It's not as if he had a known, sealed quantity of Round Up for him to consume. Instead, he got all out of whack and made it sound like he was running for dear life from the 'safe substance' he's pushing.
Umm, when you're farming 100s of acres of land, it's not quite that simple. That's where Monsanto and GMO comes in. The food crop (corn, soy, whatever) is modified so that it can withstand and thrive in the presence of their weed killers. So the farmers can plant their crops and cover the field in weed killer (weeds would significantly impact yield) to prevent weeds from ever appearing.
And yes, farmers would love a more localized treatment since spraying weed killer everywhere increases costs. That's why precision ag is a rapidly growing field (especially if the FAA ever approves UAV use...)
RE: A lot of the science is thought to have been paid for by Monsanto
who has huge influence in the FDA and other areas of government. This recent book deals with what they claim is Monsanto's effort to deceive the public. The full title is "Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public". Link - ( New Window )
And also pretty much fed the world while maintaining the environment (unless the good old days of the dust bowl are more your cup of tea.)
who has huge influence in the FDA and other areas of government. This recent book deals with what they claim is Monsanto's effort to deceive the public. The full title is "Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public". Link - ( New Window )
And also pretty much fed the world while maintaining the environment (unless the good old days of the dust bowl are more your cup of tea.)
See, without Monsanto millions (bilions?) would've starved to death. Then we'd have less people emitting CO2 and driving around gas-guzzling SUVs. So without Monsanto, Global Warming wouldn't be a problem.
but Potash doesn't get demonized the way Monsanto does, nor does Syngenta, or DuPont (GMO seeds). Its become the preferred boogeyman of the looney left (a small minority of progressives, of course), now that Halliburton has become less topical.
consensus is that GMO food contains no greater risk than non GMO food.
I'd be comfortable with continued testing though, since from what I read even though the phrase and concept behind GMO has been around since the stone age, the first of the current incarnation of GMO crops (herbicide resistant, pesticide resistant, drought resistant, etc.) has only been around since the late 90's.
RE: Fertilizer run-off is a bigger environmental issue
but Potash doesn't get demonized the way Monsanto does, nor does Syngenta, or DuPont (GMO seeds). Its become the preferred boogeyman of the looney left (a small minority of progressives, of course), now that Halliburton has become less topical.
This.
That doesn't mean that roundup in drinking water is ok, either.
You want to get rid of both as much as possible.
Unfortunately the roundup thing seems to be the best boogeyman.
Side note: start manufacturing something, anything and label it 'organic' and charge a premium for it. Maybe "Organic, gluten free, GMO free, pet rocks!" (or would that be too obvious?)
They certainly have some questionable business practices.
But you need to separate 'GMO' from 'Monsanto'.
One is extremely good for us. The other is just a company that has some questionable business practices.
Also- there are many more modifications to crops other than the 'round-up resistant' that are incredibly beneficial.
This is very true. Lumping all genetically modified food plants together does not make sense. Pretty much all food plants have been genetically altered in some way. Plant breeding dates back 11,000 years in history. When humans choose to cross-breed two plant types to create a more robust hybrid, that is altering the genetic line but for a positive outcome.
You don't have to a hippy to believe that concentrating food production for people all over the world into the hands of a very few very large and powerful entities might lead to unpleasant consequences.
Of trying to feed the planet using small family owned farms?
If corn and soybean yields, for starters, were what they were 40 years ago, the world would be a very different place, and not for the better.
Water stress is becoming a fact of life in a number of places around the world - wouldn't it be nice if there was an industry working toward making creating seeds that grow with minimal water?
Oh come on Rob. We all know that small family farms in
the breadbasket of America, the Central Valley of California, have more than enough clout to deal with the rising cost per acre foot of water.
Agriculture is an incredibly scalable industry; it makes sense that large agglomerations become the norm, rather than the exception. Especially given the potential for a mega-drought in CA.
is funding a company that is getting closer to commercializing the process of turning fecal waste into drinking water.
Someone (danmetroman?) posted a link about it and since then I've seen a couple more articles about it and it's kind of fascinating. Kind of gross and nauseating, but fascinating and a game changer.
Between this and GMO's being able to help feed massive amounts of previously starving people we can then turn our attention to the serious overpopulation problem we'll have.
The Bill Gates foundation water proposal is really only useful
in developing countries. To tie it into developed countries, there would have to be massive infrastructure investments to alter the sewage system, as well as filter out more basic particles (and shit we flush down the toilet).
I've heard that the costs of this can rival desalinization as a feasibility in the short- and medium-terms. But I don't think it will be adding to our water stocks in any large amounts for quite some time (if ever).
countries is the Gates foundation priority, but it seems like conceptually if that works why not use similar technology adapted to US waste treatment plants.
I don't know if that's feasible, but it seems like if this problem in the US exacerbates solving it will become more of a priority.
Right now it just seems apocalyptic to most people (waterworld, the book of eli, and mad max like fiction), when it becomes real, it will get attention IMO.
I wouldn't put too much faith in it becoming a viable solution
anytime soon. I live in THE megadrought in CA right now. We have water restrictions most people can't fathom.
Water prices are approaching $2,500 per acre foot for farmers, and the current solutions involve more tunneling and a shift of where the water goes.
The water control managers in the Central Valley simply don't think it's viable, based on costs and infrastructure, for decades. They think the application will be for smaller towns with handymen.
The energy costs to push the water through the membrane can be quite large.
What they are doing is working on a different problem; using the 8 gallons of water used while fracking, and turning it to agricultural grade water. They are pretty close on that one, but even that has consumed billions.
but Potash doesn't get demonized the way Monsanto does, nor does Syngenta, or DuPont (GMO seeds). Its become the preferred boogeyman of the looney left (a small minority of progressives, of course), now that Halliburton has become less topical.
I agree they have become a target, but much of that is their own doing. They came into to where we live and sued 2 farms for using their patented seeds. The only reason why these 2 farms had any Monsanto crops was due to a nearby farm that was running a test bed of Monsanto corn seeds.
Monsanto's take is that their seeds are patented and therefore you need to pay them if they happen to pollinate on your field. It is an absurd illogical legal theory that the Supreme Court handed one of the most powerful Co's in the world. They don't have to make sure their seed stays off of your farm, the farmer does. If it doesn't stay off of your farm you get sued
That is almost entirely myth - I know more about this then I care to admit. Monsanto's legal proceedings are a matter of public record - if I told you the company filed an average of 10-15 cases per year in defense of its patents would that seem excessive to you?
By organic farmers who were seeking protection (without being sued) and the judge found that no such protection was needed because Monsanto had no history of suing farmers for accidental pollination. Monsanto and organic farmers - ( New Window )
me included. I get pissed when my town restricts watering my lawn to every other day or only before and after 7 am/7pm
2 days a week, with fines (3 figures) if water escapes your yard and trickles onto pavement.
Towels will not be washed in hotels unless you request it, and no water at restaurants unless asked for.
Sounds like it's just like it was 40 years ago to the year. It was dry from LA to frisco on the drive up. Stayed at a friends house in Walnut Creek. Flush the toilets once a day unless you were taking a crap.
That is almost entirely myth - I know more about this then I care to admit. Monsanto's legal proceedings are a matter of public record - if I told you the company filed an average of 10-15 cases per year in defense of its patents would that seem excessive to you?
Rob, we had two farms sued over that in my area...It is not a myth at all.
Give me a day and i will try to get the details for you on it
From what i remembered when this all came about, they had sued something like 120 farms across the USA along these lines. The one farm they claimed the farmer saved seeds from one season to the next, then switched to a violation of their trademark when that started to fall apart.
and the unknown is that this stuff was never tested long-term on the affects to the human biology.
I don't push one side or the other but I do know this..
I'm in my mid-40's. GMO and Roundup wasn't used in the foods I ate as a kid.
I don't remember any kids with Autism
I don't remember any kids with food-allergies
I don't remember any kids with gluten-intolerance or Celiac's
I don't remember any kids with Aspberger's/ADD/ADHD
Look at the statistics now. Something in our environment has changed.
and the unknown is that this stuff was never tested long-term on the affects to the human biology.
I don't push one side or the other but I do know this..
I'm in my mid-40's. GMO and Roundup wasn't used in the foods I ate as a kid.
I don't remember any kids with Autism
I don't remember any kids with food-allergies
I don't remember any kids with gluten-intolerance or Celiac's
I don't remember any kids with Aspberger's/ADD/ADHD
Look at the statistics now. Something in our environment has changed.
- RoundUp has been in use since 1973.
- Kids/adults have always had autism.
- Kids/adults have always had food allergies.
- Celiac disease (CD) was first described in the second century, but the cause wasn't identified until the 20th century. Terminology has changed as research confirmed that celiac disease diagnosed in children was the same disease as non-tropical sprue diagnosed in adults. The term "celiac disease" is now most commonly used. Another term for the same condition includes "gluten sensitive enteropathy."
- Asperger's/ADD/ADHD are essentially different conditions and have been occurring pretty much forever.
Whether or not you remember these items is hardly germane. It looks like you're trying to say one thing and are actually saying the opposite. Out with it; do you think that RoundUp is an enabler of these conditions?
Why must it be something in the environment has changed?
do you mean good as in a communal concept because more people are able to get food or do you mean it is better healthwise for an individual than non-GMO food?
do you mean good as in a communal concept because more people are able to get food or do you mean it is better healthwise for an individual than non-GMO food?
Why should a GMO be any different than any hybridized plant?
Side note: start manufacturing something, anything and label it 'organic' and charge a premium for it. Maybe "Organic, gluten free, GMO free, pet rocks!" (or would that be too obvious?)
You forgot to mention "fair trade, ethical, green". People hate to realize that marketing occurs on the GMO and "other" side. Buzz words rule the day, no definitions are needed. Just make the product sound healthy, conscientious, and ethical and the masses will love it. GMOs only have science on their side, they should have courted more marketing buzz words and good feelings, science hasn't seemed to do them any good with the public.
do you mean good as in a communal concept because more people are able to get food or do you mean it is better healthwise for an individual than non-GMO food?
Round-up tolerant/insect tolerant unintended consequences aside (which absolutely should not be dismissed- but certainly should not be as overblown as they've been made out to be)- I'm speaking in terms of communal. Which is a gigantic thing: It isn't just about feeding people- it's about using less land to do so- meaning less impact on the ecosystem- which means less unforeseen and unintended (think dust bowl) negative consequences.
I don't know health wise, but considering life expectancy and the most sedentary lifestyle the world has seen outside of Wal-E, I'd lay my money on any long term health consequences of consuming GMO's as being minimal.
I'm not aware of any studies that show anything conclusively one way or another, but am more than willing to look at any evidence.
RE: RE: RE: Fertilizer run-off is a bigger environmental issue
Side note: start manufacturing something, anything and label it 'organic' and charge a premium for it. Maybe "Organic, gluten free, GMO free, pet rocks!" (or would that be too obvious?)
You forgot to mention "fair trade, ethical, green". People hate to realize that marketing occurs on the GMO and "other" side. Buzz words rule the day, no definitions are needed. Just make the product sound healthy, conscientious, and ethical and the masses will love it. GMOs only have science on their side, they should have courted more marketing buzz words and good feelings, science hasn't seemed to do them any good with the public.
Meh- yeah, people don't like to be fooled.
I don't think there are any "sides" though. Sure, there's a social status aspect to organic/green/whatever you want to call it- but I think for the most part (even when the main reason is status) people like to feel like they're doing good and making a difference- I would never fault anyone for that.
I also try not to fault anyone for being misinformed (although it's something I need to work on)- we are all misinformed by marketing/media/news every single day.
I do so very much hate to see folks unable or unwilling to question or investigate their beliefs, though. That if anything is what leads us down the road to the idiocracy we're evidently headed for.
Rob, did some checking into those 2 cases i was talking about
Looks like you were correct. The one case was about Monsato beginning a lawsuit regarding carry over seeds from the year before (which i actually see Monsato's side with regards to that), Both sides handled it before going to court.
The other from what i have gathered was the farm itself arguing that they wanted Monsanto to pay if their seeds crossed into their field from a neighboring one. I do see the Farms side in that but i don't see how that can be stopped from happening to a degree.
So i came back on to let you know you were indeed correct
I'm not pouring agent orange all over my lawn.
When it comes to large scale farming, there are only so many Mexicans to go around, ya know? Hence, weed killer.
I'm not pouring agent orange all over my lawn.
Umm, when you're farming 100s of acres of land, it's not quite that simple. That's where Monsanto and GMO comes in. The food crop (corn, soy, whatever) is modified so that it can withstand and thrive in the presence of their weed killers. So the farmers can plant their crops and cover the field in weed killer (weeds would significantly impact yield) to prevent weeds from ever appearing.
And yes, farmers would love a more localized treatment since spraying weed killer everywhere increases costs. That's why precision ag is a rapidly growing field (especially if the FAA ever approves UAV use...)
And also pretty much fed the world while maintaining the environment (unless the good old days of the dust bowl are more your cup of tea.)
But you need to separate 'GMO' from 'Monsanto'.
One is extremely good for us. The other is just a company that has some questionable business practices.
Also- there are many more modifications to crops other than the 'round-up resistant' that are incredibly beneficial.
We're talking parts per billion when toxicity registers at about 4000 parts per million
Yes, you may be drinking some, but it's nowhere near (by an order of magnitude or more) enough to be causing any long term harm at this point.
Quote:
who has huge influence in the FDA and other areas of government. This recent book deals with what they claim is Monsanto's effort to deceive the public. The full title is "Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public". Link - ( New Window )
And also pretty much fed the world while maintaining the environment (unless the good old days of the dust bowl are more your cup of tea.)
See, without Monsanto millions (bilions?) would've starved to death. Then we'd have less people emitting CO2 and driving around gas-guzzling SUVs. So without Monsanto, Global Warming wouldn't be a problem.
[/sarcasm]
You do realize that your drinking water is monitored, right? Unless you have a private well in which case you should be testing it yourself.
There's also this whole reporting and fixing thing they've got set up for your drinking water.
Pretty cool, huh?
Glyphosate (round up) - ( New Window )
I'd be comfortable with continued testing though, since from what I read even though the phrase and concept behind GMO has been around since the stone age, the first of the current incarnation of GMO crops (herbicide resistant, pesticide resistant, drought resistant, etc.) has only been around since the late 90's.
This.
That doesn't mean that roundup in drinking water is ok, either.
You want to get rid of both as much as possible.
Unfortunately the roundup thing seems to be the best boogeyman.
Side note: start manufacturing something, anything and label it 'organic' and charge a premium for it. Maybe "Organic, gluten free, GMO free, pet rocks!" (or would that be too obvious?)
But you need to separate 'GMO' from 'Monsanto'.
One is extremely good for us. The other is just a company that has some questionable business practices.
Also- there are many more modifications to crops other than the 'round-up resistant' that are incredibly beneficial.
This is very true. Lumping all genetically modified food plants together does not make sense. Pretty much all food plants have been genetically altered in some way. Plant breeding dates back 11,000 years in history. When humans choose to cross-breed two plant types to create a more robust hybrid, that is altering the genetic line but for a positive outcome.
If corn and soybean yields, for starters, were what they were 40 years ago, the world would be a very different place, and not for the better.
Water stress is becoming a fact of life in a number of places around the world - wouldn't it be nice if there was an industry working toward making creating seeds that grow with minimal water?
Agriculture is an incredibly scalable industry; it makes sense that large agglomerations become the norm, rather than the exception. Especially given the potential for a mega-drought in CA.
Someone (danmetroman?) posted a link about it and since then I've seen a couple more articles about it and it's kind of fascinating. Kind of gross and nauseating, but fascinating and a game changer.
Between this and GMO's being able to help feed massive amounts of previously starving people we can then turn our attention to the serious overpopulation problem we'll have.
I've heard that the costs of this can rival desalinization as a feasibility in the short- and medium-terms. But I don't think it will be adding to our water stocks in any large amounts for quite some time (if ever).
I don't know if that's feasible, but it seems like if this problem in the US exacerbates solving it will become more of a priority.
Right now it just seems apocalyptic to most people (waterworld, the book of eli, and mad max like fiction), when it becomes real, it will get attention IMO.
Water prices are approaching $2,500 per acre foot for farmers, and the current solutions involve more tunneling and a shift of where the water goes.
The water control managers in the Central Valley simply don't think it's viable, based on costs and infrastructure, for decades. They think the application will be for smaller towns with handymen.
What they are doing is working on a different problem; using the 8 gallons of water used while fracking, and turning it to agricultural grade water. They are pretty close on that one, but even that has consumed billions.
2 days a week, with fines (3 figures) if water escapes your yard and trickles onto pavement.
Towels will not be washed in hotels unless you request it, and no water at restaurants unless asked for.
Link - ( New Window )
I agree they have become a target, but much of that is their own doing. They came into to where we live and sued 2 farms for using their patented seeds. The only reason why these 2 farms had any Monsanto crops was due to a nearby farm that was running a test bed of Monsanto corn seeds.
Monsanto's take is that their seeds are patented and therefore you need to pay them if they happen to pollinate on your field. It is an absurd illogical legal theory that the Supreme Court handed one of the most powerful Co's in the world. They don't have to make sure their seed stays off of your farm, the farmer does. If it doesn't stay off of your farm you get sued
Monsanto and organic farmers - ( New Window )
Quote:
me included. I get pissed when my town restricts watering my lawn to every other day or only before and after 7 am/7pm
2 days a week, with fines (3 figures) if water escapes your yard and trickles onto pavement.
Towels will not be washed in hotels unless you request it, and no water at restaurants unless asked for.
Sounds like it's just like it was 40 years ago to the year. It was dry from LA to frisco on the drive up. Stayed at a friends house in Walnut Creek. Flush the toilets once a day unless you were taking a crap.
Rob, we had two farms sued over that in my area...It is not a myth at all.
I don't push one side or the other but I do know this..
I'm in my mid-40's. GMO and Roundup wasn't used in the foods I ate as a kid.
I don't remember any kids with Autism
I don't remember any kids with food-allergies
I don't remember any kids with gluten-intolerance or Celiac's
I don't remember any kids with Aspberger's/ADD/ADHD
Look at the statistics now. Something in our environment has changed.
We've just gotten better at diagnosing and started to include a wider breadth of previously undiagnosed people into the spectrum.
I don't push one side or the other but I do know this..
I'm in my mid-40's. GMO and Roundup wasn't used in the foods I ate as a kid.
I don't remember any kids with Autism
I don't remember any kids with food-allergies
I don't remember any kids with gluten-intolerance or Celiac's
I don't remember any kids with Aspberger's/ADD/ADHD
Look at the statistics now. Something in our environment has changed.
- RoundUp has been in use since 1973.
- Kids/adults have always had autism.
- Kids/adults have always had food allergies.
- Celiac disease (CD) was first described in the second century, but the cause wasn't identified until the 20th century. Terminology has changed as research confirmed that celiac disease diagnosed in children was the same disease as non-tropical sprue diagnosed in adults. The term "celiac disease" is now most commonly used. Another term for the same condition includes "gluten sensitive enteropathy."
- Asperger's/ADD/ADHD are essentially different conditions and have been occurring pretty much forever.
Whether or not you remember these items is hardly germane. It looks like you're trying to say one thing and are actually saying the opposite. Out with it; do you think that RoundUp is an enabler of these conditions?
Why should a GMO be any different than any hybridized plant?
All evidence shows no discernible difference in nutritional value between GM and non GM crops.
Though there could come a time when GM crops will yield more nutrition by yield.
You forgot to mention "fair trade, ethical, green". People hate to realize that marketing occurs on the GMO and "other" side. Buzz words rule the day, no definitions are needed. Just make the product sound healthy, conscientious, and ethical and the masses will love it. GMOs only have science on their side, they should have courted more marketing buzz words and good feelings, science hasn't seemed to do them any good with the public.
I had misread your earlier question. Sorry about that.
Round-up tolerant/insect tolerant unintended consequences aside (which absolutely should not be dismissed- but certainly should not be as overblown as they've been made out to be)- I'm speaking in terms of communal. Which is a gigantic thing: It isn't just about feeding people- it's about using less land to do so- meaning less impact on the ecosystem- which means less unforeseen and unintended (think dust bowl) negative consequences.
I don't know health wise, but considering life expectancy and the most sedentary lifestyle the world has seen outside of Wal-E, I'd lay my money on any long term health consequences of consuming GMO's as being minimal.
I'm not aware of any studies that show anything conclusively one way or another, but am more than willing to look at any evidence.
Quote:
Side note: start manufacturing something, anything and label it 'organic' and charge a premium for it. Maybe "Organic, gluten free, GMO free, pet rocks!" (or would that be too obvious?)
You forgot to mention "fair trade, ethical, green". People hate to realize that marketing occurs on the GMO and "other" side. Buzz words rule the day, no definitions are needed. Just make the product sound healthy, conscientious, and ethical and the masses will love it. GMOs only have science on their side, they should have courted more marketing buzz words and good feelings, science hasn't seemed to do them any good with the public.
Meh- yeah, people don't like to be fooled.
I don't think there are any "sides" though. Sure, there's a social status aspect to organic/green/whatever you want to call it- but I think for the most part (even when the main reason is status) people like to feel like they're doing good and making a difference- I would never fault anyone for that.
I also try not to fault anyone for being misinformed (although it's something I need to work on)- we are all misinformed by marketing/media/news every single day.
I do so very much hate to see folks unable or unwilling to question or investigate their beliefs, though. That if anything is what leads us down the road to the idiocracy we're evidently headed for.
The other from what i have gathered was the farm itself arguing that they wanted Monsanto to pay if their seeds crossed into their field from a neighboring one. I do see the Farms side in that but i don't see how that can be stopped from happening to a degree.
So i came back on to let you know you were indeed correct