Monsanto Roundup Glyphosate - New MIT Research

32 posts / 0 new
Last post
KugsCheese's picture
KugsCheese
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 2 2010
Posts: 1447
Monsanto Roundup Glyphosate - New MIT Research

Shocking and worth your time:

RichardCassie's picture
RichardCassie
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 21 2009
Posts: 17
Thank you for posting this

Thank you for posting this interview.  We just watched it last week.  Absolutely shocking. Of course, now Dr. Seneff is being vilified by the Monsanto minions.  The more self reliant we become food-wise, the better our health.  And if you've got your health, you've got just about everything.

Cassie

cmartenson's picture
cmartenson
Status: Diamond Member (Online)
Joined: Jun 7 2007
Posts: 5733
Summary please?

For those without an hour to watch the presentation, would anybody be willing to summarize the main points?

We've known for several years that the promise of GMOs to deliver us a greener, more robust future has actually required the use of vastly more pesticides....gee, what a shock.

Pesticide use ramping up as GMO crop technology backfires

Oct 1, 2012

Reuters) - U.S. farmers are using more hazardous pesticides to fight weeds and insects due largely to heavy adoption of genetically modified crop technologies that are sparking a rise of "superweeds" and hard-to-kill insects, according to a newly released study.

Genetically engineered crops have led to an increase in overall pesticide use, by 404 million pounds from the time they were introduced in 1996 through 2011, according to the report by Charles Benbrook, a research professor at the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources at Washington State University.

404 million additional pounds of pesticides required.  And please note that bee and butterfly populations have crashed over the same time frame.  Coincidence?  You'd have to be fairly dense to ignore the possibility that there's a connection there, and even denser to hold the view that insect population declines are of no real consequence to humans....

We are organisms enmeshed in a beautiful, glorious web of life.  We sever the strands of that web at our own peril, both physical and metaphysical...on that last point, by way of analogy, it's like those who sever their social strands by abrasive and abusive behavior suffer a depleted and less wonderful life.

Humans do not know as much as they think they do...the idea that the natural world is simply a side-show that one can safely ignore will go down in the history books as the equivalent of flat-earth thinking.  That is, if we last long enough to gather that wisdom...

KugsCheese's picture
KugsCheese
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 2 2010
Posts: 1447
Video Summary: It was

Video Summary:

It was "supposed" to be harmless to humans and animals—the perfect weed killer. Now a groundbreaking article just published in the journal Entropy points to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, and more specifically its active ingredient glyphosate, as devastating—possibly "the most important factor in the development of multiple chronic diseases and conditions that have become prevalent in Westernized societies."

That's right. The herbicide sprayed on most of the world's genetically engineered crops—and which gets soaked into the food portion—is now linked to "autism ... gastrointestinal issues such as inflammatory bowel disease, chronic diarrhea, colitis and Crohn's disease, obesity, cardiovascular disease, depression, cancer, cachexia, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, and ALS, among others."

Enjoy this videotaped guided tour of Jeffrey Smith interviewing co-author Stephanie Seneff, PhD, a Senior Research Scientist at MIT.

Thetallestmanonearth's picture
Thetallestmanonearth
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 28 2013
Posts: 323
podcast

I would love to see a PP podcast with either or both of these people! 

saxplayer00o1's picture
saxplayer00o1
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 30 2009
Posts: 4149
Thanks, KugsCheese

I've been eating something very close to a "paleo diet" for about 1 1/2 years. Yes, cutting this and the other junk from my diet made a huge difference. Best thing I ever did.

Jim H's picture
Jim H
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 8 2009
Posts: 2385
Glyphosate mechanism...

The punchline is highlighted below .. from the abstract;

Abstract: Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup®, is the most popular herbicide used worldwide. The industry asserts it is minimally toxic to humans, but here we argue otherwise. Residues are found in the main foods of the Western diet, comprised primarily of sugar, corn, soy and wheat. Glyphosate's inhibition of cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes is an overlooked component of its toxicity to mammals. CYP enzymes play crucial roles in biology, one of which is to detoxify xenobiotics. Thus, glyphosate enhances the damaging effects of other food borne chemical residues and environmental toxins. Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body. Here, we show how interference with CYP enzymes acts synergistically with disruption of the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids by gut bacteria, as well as impairment in serum sulfate transport. Consequences are most of the diseases and conditions associated with a Western diet, which include gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. We explain the documented effects of glyphosate and its ability to induce disease, and we show that glyphosate is the “textbook example” of exogenous semiotic entropy: the disruption of homeostasis by environmental toxins.

link:  http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416

So, the Glyphosate does not hurt you directly.. but it does a job on your gut bacteria. 

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Online)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3159
24 hr break down

It was my understanding that roundup breaks down into neutral substances 24 hr after application. Is that not true? If you use it on non-food weeds are there harmful effects?

Rector's picture
Rector
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 8 2010
Posts: 505
Biosystems and their glorious complexity. . .

Well said Chris.  I am astounded daily at the beauty and complexity of the interwoven systems in the natural world.  The interactions are so delicate, so complex, and so perfect that it really makes me wonder how it all came into being by a long series of random mutations.  Chris is right, humans do not know as much as they think they do.  It's not that we are ignorant, it's just that so much of what we "know" isn't so.

Rector

Arthur Robey's picture
Arthur Robey
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2010
Posts: 3936
The One- Staw Revolution.

Masanobu Fukuoka's book is still a classic.

He was a twenty generation farmer with a science degree. He asked the question-

"What do I not need to do and still get the same productivity from my land?"

Quite a lot actually. Not only did he meet his targets but he exceeded them.

Remember, he asked "What do I not need to do?" Among the things he ditched were plowing, fertilizers and pesticides. While his neighbours were up to their knees in mud planting rice, he was sipping tea.

Underlying his philosophy was a belief in the robustness of Chaos. He never knew what was going to happen to his crop. Sometimes it was spiders, sometimes something else- but it always came through.

This anally retentive control over the forces of Chaos separates many a good farmer from his profits.

Buy the book- It is one of my favorites.

Nate's picture
Nate
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: May 6 2009
Posts: 590
Jim nailed it
Jim H wrote:

So, the Glyphosate does not hurt you directly.. but it does a job on your gut bacteria. 

For those more chemically inclined, here is the environmental fate of glyphosate.

http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/fatememo/glyphos.pdf

I understand this is an apples to oranges comparison, but it is interesting to compare the

LD50’s  of glyphosate to nicotine.

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

 

.

cmartenson's picture
cmartenson
Status: Diamond Member (Online)
Joined: Jun 7 2007
Posts: 5733
great idea on podcast guests
Thetallestmanonearth wrote:

I would love to see a PP podcast with either or both of these people! 

Noted!

And agreed. Thanks.

exomatosis's picture
exomatosis
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 2 2014
Posts: 37
Boom! and then beauty
Rector wrote:

The interactions are so delicate, so complex, and so perfect that it really makes me wonder how it all came into being by a long series of random mutations. 

Doesn't perfectly designed and interrelated complexity always arise randomly, in violation of the laws of thermodynamics?  I've tossed hand grenades into rooms of marble chunks and created statues more awesome than the Pieta.  Happens every day for me.

Arthur Robey's picture
Arthur Robey
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2010
Posts: 3936
Excellent Find Kugs.

This is bigger than Ben Hur. Recommend that you take the time to watch it, because as we all know there is nothing wrong with asbestos.

Rolling the Merchants of Doubt in 3.  .  2.  .  . 1.

All the more reason to eat real live unpasteurised sauerkraut. (And Yellow Soup)

robie robinson's picture
robie robinson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 25 2009
Posts: 1182
Long but

Very Good Kugs, thanks for the link, robie

Nervous Nelly's picture
Nervous Nelly
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 23 2011
Posts: 209
Glyphosates go hand in hand with GMO's

I've seen that interview before. Thanks for bringing the GMO subject back KugsCheese. I'm outraged that these Companies have so much political clout and are allowed to create so much damage to the  environment, communities, food supply and food security of the planet. 

At home we've  reduced our corn, canola and soy intake a lot, because these plants are genetically modified to resist the glyphosate (herbacide:  the native weeds are also becoming resistant to the glyphosates like the bacteria have become resisant to antibiotics) and are also genetically modified to produce a pesticide called (BT). It's the BT in the corn that causes most of the digestive damages. Jeff also made a documentary called the Genetic Roulette which was posted once or twice. That's a must see doc to really get a good global understanding of what's really going on with our food supply and environment.

http://vimeo.com/68422959    "Genetic Roulette"

http://farmindustrynews.com/ag-technology-solution-center/glyphosate-res...

NN

lunableu22's picture
lunableu22
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 19 2011
Posts: 41
Any microbiologists among us who can....?

This is my favorite kind of science:  down at the level of cellular microbiology and how the products and byproducts of metabolism are used, stored and excreted by the cells.

So...my question:   What are the best dietary sources of the various substances that are depleted by Roundup exposure?

Things like:

Is watermelon a good source of glutathione?

Are eggs a good source of sulfates?

Etc...

KugsCheese's picture
KugsCheese
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 2 2010
Posts: 1447
Doug wrote:It was my
Doug wrote:

It was my understanding that roundup breaks down into neutral substances 24 hr after application. Is that not true? If you use it on non-food weeds are there harmful effects?

Before GMO plants it was sprayed sparingly on the weeds since you didn't want to kill the plants.  When a farmer has GMO (Roundup Ready plants) he blanket sprays the Roundup.  The food plants ingest the glyphosate.   It gets in the soil then water then lakes.  Almost all animals feed on GMO.  Municipal water supplies have glyphosate in them.  Europe banned it 2004.

Mots's picture
Mots
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 18 2012
Posts: 196
Summary Please?

I took a look at the research paper that concluded glyphosate treated GMO grain was harmful in rat feeding experiments, and which paper was retracted by the journal after  industry pressure.......

Much can be said, and I dont have much time and also dont want to bore, but here is my ten cents.

The glyphosate feeding experiment used Sprague D, rats in a simple, classic study format.  I have conducted feeding studies on the same rats and published papers when I was a scientist.  I discovered the selenium transport protein and also some cadmium toxicity related kidney proteins in part doing similar feeding experiments coupled with biochemistry.  I only needed 3-5 rats per group to get results and the results applied to humans as well (many times they dont) So I dont have a problem with the basic techniques of  using 10 of those  rats per group if the measured effect is big enough (the main argument for retracting:  very spurious)

My observations:
The retracted  paper used  groups of  10 rats each. That is certainly  enough to study and discover major  effects and by itself is not a demerit. The journal argued that the reviewer complained that not enough  rats were  studied to establish a conclusion  about feeding glyphosate treated etc plants, but the reviewer agreed  that the study should be published and NO FRAUD was found. Clearly politics caused this controversial  paper to be retracted.  This  is kind of like the global warming "science" where industry profit driven acts overwhelm the science.

I remember the first major "scientist" who "proved" that global warming was a myth  was  a PhD mathematician who was way out to lunch  on the chemistry and really full of nonsense.

I also have much experience working on feeding studies and working in biochemistry-nutrition, where all sorts of very controversial and unusual data are occasionally published with wild conclusions.  The whole point of science is that everything is tested by opponents who do their best to find out the real truth.  You cannot conclude squat based on one paper.  Others need to check. Especially those who are trained  in the field and know from personal experience how hard it is to do a well controlled  experiment.

In this context, I note three things  
1. (read two paragraphs above again:) the "MIT Scientist" who proclaims research that GMO corn etc causes cancer, diabetes, allergies, what have you is an electrical engineer. Despite the "NEW MIT" headlines, I would not  believe a biochemical idea just because someone is a PhD engineer or from MIT or Harvard or whatever, I prefer to see two biochemists who dont like  each other as rivals  at competing ag schools finally come to an agreement on their  disparate data.  Technology is very complicated and really requires much study of the same problem from different angles by opponents to get at the truth.  I think that the retracted article should not have been retracted and the experiment repeated by others, who can for example, try feeding many animals, and particularly where the researcher does not KNOW which group is which during the experiment. (double blind) etc. etc.

2. Most scientists including biochemists and ag people hate Monsanto and would be absolutely delighted and motivated  to prove or show  that Monsanto is creating food that causes all these diseases.  I would not follow what one person says or finds, who is not an expert in the  field but prefer to get at least two studies from two opponents who are experts and hate each other (a common and healthy situation in science). What Monsanto has done by drenching our  environment in their weird chemicals and changing the biota is enough to alarm every reasonable scientist to the extreme danger of Monsanto, not to mention how Monsanto has taken over our government and foreign  policy and using that to jam their crap down the throats of trade partners and destroy local heritage seed stocks.  There is already enough unambiguous damage from  Monsanto without going over the top over a single report that has not been verified yet.  And  yes, I am convinced from reading the paper (GMO feeding studies) that this paper was a valid peer  reviewed paper  and should NOT have been retracted.  

3. From a biochemical view, everything affects everything else and a  story can be spun on almost every topic. We are surrounded  by poisons.  But to conclude  significant effects requires a great deal more insight and understanding and study/data. The  role of science is not to tiltillate with exciting sound media bites.   Instead progress occurs through patient self effacing and careful review and multiple challenges from disparate angles to get at reality.  Poisons abound and the story  is not all simple.  CM's excellent summary of nuclear radiation provides  good examples of this concept.  My biggest fear is that we are missing the bigger and unambiguius story of destruction of the soil, our plant genetic heritage, etc by paying too much attention to red button issues that by their very nature can lead to endless  years and years of debate. We dont have to believe that we get cancer diabetes obesity mental disease etc from GMO food before shifting all of our food  to Locavore.or local production of real food via sustainable practices.  We  have enough reasons already.  

Mots

cmartenson wrote:

For those without an hour to watch the presentation, would anybody be willing to summarize the main points?

We've known for several years that the promise of GMOs to deliver us a greener, more robust future has actually required the use of vastly more pesticides....gee, what a shock.

Pesticide use ramping up as GMO crop technology backfires

Oct 1, 2012

Reuters) - U.S. farmers are using more hazardous pesticides to fight weeds and insects due largely to heavy adoption of genetically modified crop technologies that are sparking a rise of "superweeds" and hard-to-kill insects, according to a newly released study.

Genetically engineered crops have led to an increase in overall pesticide use, by 404 million pounds from the time they were introduced in 1996 through 2011, according to the report by Charles Benbrook, a research professor at the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources at Washington State University.

404 million additional pounds of pesticides required.  And please note that bee and butterfly populations have crashed over the same time frame.  Coincidence?  You'd have to be fairly dense to ignore the possibility that there's a connection there, and even denser to hold the view that insect population declines are of no real consequence to humans....

We are organisms enmeshed in a beautiful, glorious web of life.  We sever the strands of that web at our own peril, both physical and metaphysical...on that last point, by way of analogy, it's like those who sever their social strands by abrasive and abusive behavior suffer a depleted and less wonderful life.

Humans do not know as much as they think they do...the idea that the natural world is simply a side-show that one can safely ignore will go down in the history books as the equivalent of flat-earth thinking.  That is, if we last long enough to gather that wisdom...

Hotrod's picture
Hotrod
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 20 2009
Posts: 183
Roundup

Of course Roundup was sold as being less toxic and used less pounds per acre to sell its safety.  Now, with the development of Roundup ready wheat and alfalfa, many farmers could theoretically use Roundup on every acre, every year.  So much for reducing chemical use.

I would very much welcome more information on this subject.

Thetallestmanonearth's picture
Thetallestmanonearth
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 28 2013
Posts: 323
The Anti GMO project

Here is the link to a website run by the organization the interviewer in this video heads up.  They provide good information on which products are voluntarily committing to using non-GMO ingredients.  A labeling initiative recently failed in my state as it was outspent 5:1 by the Grocery Manufactures Association (Nestle, Kraft et al.) Montsanto and others and I heard recently that they are introducing legislation nationally that would make labeling requirements illegal even if passed by individual states.  We fought them hard, but the deliberate misinformation campaigns were fierce and in the end we lost.

http://www.nongmoproject.org/find-non-gmo/search-participating-products/

RichardCassie's picture
RichardCassie
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 21 2009
Posts: 17
Yes we lost the battle but are going to win the war!

I think you are from WA state as I am.  Even tho' we lost our mandatory labeling of GMOs initiative recently, more awareness among the people was raised.  Our vote was 49 percent in favor of labeling!  That's close to a tipping point!

As you note, Monsanto, Syngenta et.al. are lobbying like crazy at the national level to make state initiatives illegal in this regard so we need all our voices to be heard.  The fight is getting desperate in the USA since the number of countries worldwide who are banning GMOs is growing so market share is shrinking for these evil doers.  Remember:  "I don't fight fascists because I expect to win;  I fight fascists because it is the right thing to do."  (quoting Chris Hedges quoting ? recently from truthdig.org.)

Thetallestmanonearth's picture
Thetallestmanonearth
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 28 2013
Posts: 323
Yep, I am from WA and you're

Yep, I am from WA and you're right...we have to keep fighting because it's the right thing to do.  I recently saw a interview with Wendell Berry. The interviewer asked him if he thought he would win his fight with the state of KY on mountain top removal.  He replied with something to the effect of: we don't have the right to ask that question, what we should ask is 'what's the right thing to do' and then set about doing it. 

The thing that amazed me about the labeling initiative was the disinterest I received from otherwise very intelligent people when I tried discuss it with them. Some said it doesn't effect them because they only eat organic, others didn't know what GMO's were. It's not just us and our food that needs protection, the land needs it too and labeling is the first step in building awareness.

 

robie robinson's picture
robie robinson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 25 2009
Posts: 1182
The good Dr's

resume   http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/

RichardCassie's picture
RichardCassie
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 21 2009
Posts: 17
List of concerned scientist is growing

Last fall, the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility invited scientists worldwide to sign a statement which informs the public that the claimed consensus among scientists that genetically modified foods are safe does not exist.  The number of signatories has risen to over 230 as of today. "This was in part a response to the ritual shamings that scientists are subjected to when their controversial findings challenge official GM doctrine."

https://newmatilda.com/2013/11/21/scientists-speak-out-against-modified-...

(You will have to cut and paste the URL into your browser-- I can't get it to link here)

 

Here is Dr. Don Huber of Purdue University speaking about the findings of ranchers battling infertility and stillborn animals after eating genetically modified grains (19 minutes):

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-nHCw36wlhs

I used to believe I could simply eat organic and avoid GMOs and their attendant pesticide contamination, but that isn't enough.  There is widespread pollen contamination of organic fields.  When it was learned that a farmer in Oregon had discovered GMO wheat planted in his field, Japan refused to accept the shipment until they were satisfied the shipments weren't contaminated.  So this is also an economical concern.  (But I won't get started here on my delight if global trade falls apart :)

 

 

 

Mots's picture
Mots
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 18 2012
Posts: 196
"claimed consensus...."

"scientists" dont have any consensus on whether anything is safe or dangerous, or good for you, or evil, or is fun, or not fun, or wholesome or whatever...........  Any such statements pro or con are pure politics and is MEDIA DRIVEN.

Any serious concern or discussion about "science" to address any problem or thing must begin with a review of the experimental procedures and the data pertaining to the subject.  I dont see anyone debating such things.  Instead of polling people, it might be easier to do a well constructed experiment and to discuss the factors studied, the procedures used, data obtained etc.  Anything else is politics at best.

As I said before, most every scientist in the biological area as far as I know, appreciates that Monsanto is doing very evil things.  Also, as far is science is concerned, most scientists only truly understand a small sliver of reality.  Yet, there are probably 100s of thousands of scientists who are able to study or read studies of food quality and I dont see the point to do a gallup poll or whatever of "scientists around the world" generally without focusing on facts and methods.  Science is not a popularity contest.  I dont think that any reasonable bio scientist could possibly state for the record that some kind of altered food is safe or good  for you.  Just media or company driven propaganda.   This is just another example of how we are all being circle jerked by the media. We lose when we give the media our faith, belief in it and our attention.

We need a way to search for truth going forward in the new paradigm.  Internet chit chat crap and media surfing is not the answer.

 

RichardCassie wrote:

Last fall, the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility invited scientists worldwide to sign a statement which informs the public that the claimed consensus among scientists that genetically modified foods are safe does not exist.  The number of signatories has risen to over 230 as of today. "This was in part a response to the ritual shamings that scientists are subjected to when their controversial findings challenge official GM doctrine."

https://newmatilda.com/2013/11/21/scientists-speak-out-against-modified-...

(You will have to cut and paste the URL into your browser-- I can't get it to link here)

 

Here is Dr. Don Huber of Purdue University speaking about the findings of ranchers battling infertility and stillborn animals after eating genetically modified grains (19 minutes):

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-nHCw36wlhs

I used to believe I could simply eat organic and avoid GMOs and their attendant pesticide contamination, but that isn't enough.  There is widespread pollen contamination of organic fields.  When it was learned that a farmer in Oregon had discovered GMO wheat planted in his field, Japan refused to accept the shipment until they were satisfied the shipments weren't contaminated.  So this is also an economical concern.  (But I won't get started here on my delight if global trade falls apart :)

 

 

 

JkBisch's picture
JkBisch
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 13 2014
Posts: 1
Monsanto

there is consensus......see the movie "Food, Inc"....and DO something, anything....I grow organic veggies, I buy organic whenever I can. And I ALWAYS buy organic dairy! Always!
And I buy Food,Inc DVDs and give them to people as gifts. And I read books like "The Myth of Progress" and do everything I can to pass the word. My sister and I and 2 friends started a Farmers Market in town...we are opening a country store to promote local farmers and sustainable business practices......go ask an Indiana farmer if any of the "food" he is growing ends up on his kitchen table. No, it doesnt. It's not edible.

Go to www.centerforfoodsafety.org and donate....unless you think Michael Pollan is a book marketer, and Al Gore's movie belongs in the fiction genre.....there's no reasoning with that person....he or she probably also think cows love grain and are too stupid to mind putting their 4 feet in 2 feet of feces, in an effort to find the concrete "pasture". We are polluting our earth, our rivers, our drinking water.....GMO seeds allow for powerful pesticides to be delivered by crop dusters....if you feel that GM seeds, and the pesticide clouds are safe, I would ask you to read "10 reasons To avoid GMOs" published by IRT....the plundering of the bread basket by factory farming needs to be talked about, in front of the country, town hall style, by the President. Why won't he do it? The corn and beans lobbies won't let him. That's sad

skills2grow's picture
skills2grow
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 12 2014
Posts: 2
GM/GMO

I’m new to the PP community and would like to offer some information about GM/GMO from a horticulturist perceptive.

Genetic modified is when genes of a plant or animal are modified by scientist to grow that plant or animal to perform a certain way, such as Monsanto Round Up Ready Seeds. The problem is not necessarily that plants withstand the spraying of chemicals but that the modified seed is altering many other plants in nature such as super weeds.  I would professionally assume it will also alter insects, animals and probably birds too.  It is a web of life. The genie is out of the bottle now and the seeds are contaminating other fields with their super seeds.

Genetic modified organisms are a whole different subject. In a nut shell it is were a plant/animal has genes injected into their RNA that come from a whole other plant/animal.  That should be a big concern for people with food allergies; as an example they will take a gene from a fish and put that gene into a wheat plant. It is my understanding many people develop allergies because they are eating things that they do NOT know what is in that product. Many having been lobbying to get labeling on products but it has been fiercely shot down by Monsanto.

USDA and/or FDA do NOT test many products approved for marketplace until after there is vast amounts of complaints against that product. Monsanto is quite good at getting policies changed and will not hesitate to sue or shut down any farmer who challenges them or cuts their profits.  It was not that long ago it was passed into law that Monsanto is now protected and cannot be sued because of their seed. So if you are raising organic food and/or heirloom plants your fields can easily be contaminated by their seeds.  As always I try to make it a practice to “follow the money” to understand a topic.

Here are a few good books to read in reference to what we eat, how it affects our health, how to make informed choices about this country’s food industry and how the food industry and government are one and the same. There seems to be a revolving door but it is NOT considered a “conflict of interest” by the courts.

http://www.amazon.com/What-Eat-Marion-Nestle/dp/0865477388 (What to Eat by Marion Nestle)

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1932100660/?tag=googhydr-20&hvadid=31697403636&hvpos=1t1&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=16534883991987098928&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_3la7mjf8yj_b#reader_1932100660 (The China Study: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted And the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss, And Long-term Health by T. Colin Campbell and Thomas M. Campbell II)

Having read one after another of the two books really woke me up to our foods. I still eat some of the industry foods but not so much anymore…actually reducing the amount every year. Practice eating more foods that are local to your area will benefit you as it introduces your body to the virus, good bacteria and bad bacteria; it allows your body to build up immunities and resistance to the vector in your locale.

Arthur Robey's picture
Arthur Robey
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2010
Posts: 3936
Sexy Little Critters.

In his book "Whole Earth Discipline" (Any other hippies here?) Stewart Brand shows that we are a veritable walking swamp full of organisms that freely exchange genes in a completely uninhibited manner. Oh well, so much for the sanctity of the species.

It is only the walking swamp that has become anal about this issue.

It is an abuse of the technology to produce a herbicide resistant plant so that you can sell more chemicals, but the technology is not misused if it produces B.T. cotton.

My phantasy is for a perennial, nitrogen fixing wheat crop. No more plowing, sewing or nitrogen application. Being perennial it could out-shade weeds. Add to my list then would be broad leaves and being at least 5ft tall with rhizomes so that it can emulate the smothering ability of kikuyu.

Arthur Robey's picture
Arthur Robey
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2010
Posts: 3936
Natural Products.

I came across this video in my mailbox that I thought you might like.

gallantfarms's picture
gallantfarms
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 18 2009
Posts: 27
Monsanto's "Science" Doesn't Add Up

Five New Reasons Monsanto’s ‘Science’ Doesn’t Add Up

By Katherine Paul and Ronnie Cummins 

Organic Consumers Association, February 27, 2014 
 
To hear the pesticide and junk food marketers of the world tell it, anyone who questions the value, legitimacy or safety of GMO crops is naïve, anti-science and irrational to the point of hysteria.



But how long can Monsanto ignore the mounting actual scientific evidence that their technology is not only failing to live up to its promises, it’s putting public health at risk?

Here are five new reports and studies, published in the last two months, that blow huge holes in Monsanto’s “sound science” story. Reports of everything from Monsanto’s Roundup causing fatal, chronic kidney disease to how, contrary to industry claims, Roundup persists for years, contaminating soil, air and water. And oh-by-the-way, no, GMO crops will not feed the world, nor have they reduced the use of herbicides and pesticides.

Full article:

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_29419.cfm

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments