HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » More joy from Monsanto .....

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 08:01 AM

More joy from Monsanto .............


April 25 (Reuters) - Heavy use of the world's most popular herbicide, Roundup, could be linked to a range of health problems and diseases, including Parkinson's, infertility and cancers, according to a new study.

The peer-reviewed report, published last week in the scientific journal Entropy, said evidence indicates that residues of "glyphosate," the chief ingredient in Roundup weed killer, which is sprayed over millions of acres of crops, has been found in food.

Those residues enhance the damaging effects of other food-borne chemical residues and toxins in the environment to disrupt normal body functions and induce disease, according to the report, authored by Stephanie Seneff, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Anthony Samsel, a retired science consultant from Arthur D. Little, Inc. Samsel is a former private environmental government contractor as well as a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

"Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body," the study says. ..................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/25/roundup-health-study-idUSL2N0DC22F20130425



53 replies, 5124 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 53 replies Author Time Post
Reply More joy from Monsanto ............. (Original post)
marmar Apr 2013 OP
no_hypocrisy Apr 2013 #1
Jasana Apr 2013 #2
Buzz Clik Apr 2013 #4
timdog44 Apr 2013 #9
Jasana Apr 2013 #10
lunasun Apr 2013 #22
Jasana Apr 2013 #30
Buzz Clik Apr 2013 #3
glowing Apr 2013 #5
Buzz Clik Apr 2013 #7
longship Apr 2013 #13
glowing Apr 2013 #18
FarCenter Apr 2013 #36
Berlum Apr 2013 #20
glowing Apr 2013 #25
longship Apr 2013 #28
Berlum Apr 2013 #37
longship Apr 2013 #40
Berlum Apr 2013 #43
longship Apr 2013 #45
lunasun Apr 2013 #23
MAD Dave Apr 2013 #24
timdog44 Apr 2013 #12
timdog44 Apr 2013 #14
Buzz Clik Apr 2013 #39
timdog44 Apr 2013 #42
Buzz Clik Apr 2013 #44
timdog44 Apr 2013 #46
Buzz Clik Apr 2013 #48
timdog44 Apr 2013 #49
Buzz Clik Apr 2013 #50
timdog44 Apr 2013 #51
watoos Apr 2013 #6
MAD Dave Apr 2013 #8
Berlum Apr 2013 #21
In_The_Wind Apr 2013 #11
timdog44 Apr 2013 #15
In_The_Wind Apr 2013 #16
timdog44 Apr 2013 #19
In_The_Wind Apr 2013 #33
timdog44 Apr 2013 #47
In_The_Wind Apr 2013 #52
Berlum Apr 2013 #17
Brimley Apr 2013 #26
mike_c Apr 2013 #27
Brainstormy Apr 2013 #34
mike_c Apr 2013 #35
Brainstormy Apr 2013 #53
thesquanderer Apr 2013 #29
Overseas Apr 2013 #31
jwirr Apr 2013 #32
L0oniX Apr 2013 #38
woo me with science Apr 2013 #41

Response to marmar (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 08:03 AM

1. Ordinarily I'd guess that Roundup could be banned like DDT, but

with the corporations controlling EPA, FDA, the Dept. of Agriculture, the House, and the Senate, I doubt it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 08:15 AM

2. And aren't some of their seeds genetically modified to resist round up...

so that you absolutely have to use roundup if you want the GMO crop to flourish? Or am not understanding that properly?

Regardless, I hate Monsanto. Imagine the nerve of them suing farmer because their GMO seeds infested their organic crops.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jasana (Reply #2)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 08:23 AM

4. You have it sort of correct:

 

Roundup is a broad spectrum herbicide and kills a wide variety of plants, including most weeds and most agricultural crops. Roundup use on agricultural fields was limited to when the crop was not growing.

Farmers liked the idea of being able to spray just one herbicide on their crops to take out all weeds without harming their crops. As a result, a number of "Roundup Ready" crops were developed. Soybean was one of the first and most popular.

If you bought and planted Roundup Ready crops, you are not obligated to using Roundup; it simply makes Roundup an option when it was not an option before.

Unfortunately, the practice of repeated spraying of Roundup on a millions of acres of farmland had the predictable result of developing resistance in some weeds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #4)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 09:27 AM

9. You are correct.

A farmer can plant Roundup ready seeds and not spray roundup. The problem being at two fold. The genetic information is still transmitted to other plants. And two, Roundup ready seeds are very expensive and so no reason to plant them unless you are going to use Roundup.

The pot growers around where I live are very clever. They wait until the corn is planted, then wait some more until the first spraying of Roundup. That is when they hustle in a hundred rows or so and then plant their marijuana. The only problem is that at the end of the season when the corn is turning golden brown, the marijuana is still green and very visible from the air. A neighbor of mine had that happen to one of his fields and DEA spotted the pot and were in the field "harvesting" it. I wonder to this day if the 200 plants that were there if only 190 were destroyed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #4)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 09:28 AM

10. Thanks for the info...

I'm starting to study this a little more in depth... just trying to find out what's happening with our food. I had a seven year case of permanent acid reflux disease and no one could figure out what was causing it. I began to view every food with the utmost suspicion.

I now have a (as yet) undiagnosed neurological condition similar to MS but my neurologist put on me Gabapentin to see if she could get rid of some of the nerve pain. Well the drug never touched the burning nerve pain on my outside skin but it did get rid of my seven year case of heartburn which I never even bothered to tell the neurologist about because I was more concerned over the fact that I couldn't stand up long enough to brush my teeth.

I have truly begun to believe that some of my long term problems have been caused by GMO foods. Of course belief is a long way from proof so I'm starting to study it.

Thanks for your post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jasana (Reply #10)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 10:08 AM

22. almost sounds like you have a flourquinolone antibiotic drug reaction-burning skin issue is common

see if it fiits your medication histrory
now about those GMO's that are round up ready and some say of no harm at all...............

Roundup Ready Crops (RR Crops) are genetically engineered crops that have had their DNA altered to allow them to withstand the herbicide glyphosate (the active ingredient of Monsanto's herbicide Roundup). They are also known as "glyphosate tolerant crops."

RR crops deregulated in the U.S. include: corn, soybeans, canola, cotton, sugarbeets, and alfalfa.
When planting Glyphosate Tolerant crops, a farmer can spray the entire crop with glyphosate, killing only the weeds and leaving the crop alive.
Yum

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roundup_Ready_Crops

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunasun (Reply #22)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 10:45 AM

30. Again thanks for the info...

as this is all new to me and I have just started to look into it.

I had to look up what a "flourquinolone antibiotic drug" was and can safely say no I have never been given any of those drugs before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 08:17 AM

3. We discussed this earlier in the week. Some important points to note:

 

1) Is Entropy a medical journal? No. Quoting Dr. Senef, "Entropy is an Open Access journal that is willing to publish novel hypotheses regarding biochemical and biophysical phenomena, which can help the community break out of its current straitjacketed research paradigm."

2) Are either of the authors medical doctors, heath scientists, medical science researchers or anything similar? No. Samsel is retired, and running down his expertise is challenging. Dr. Sensef is an computer and electrical engineer.

3) Was a direct link between Roundup and cancer, Parkinson's disease, and infertility demonstrated in this study? No. This was not original research, but a review of literature. The link between Roundup and these diseases is hypothetical and indirect.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=466210

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #3)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 08:45 AM

5. Well, then just help yourself to a glass of the herbicide.. You can buy it at HomeDepot.

 

Let me know how well you fair?

BTW, the wealthy people and politicians eat organic foods (which are much more costly for everyone else) because they know the rest of the crap is poison.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glowing (Reply #5)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 08:57 AM

7. That was pretty silly.

 

Feel better?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glowing (Reply #5)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 09:36 AM

13. Well, bad research is bad research.

I am not saying that this is bad research, but the post you responded to does point out some worrisome points with regards to the study cited in the OP.

Also, your strawman is a non-sequitur to the critique of the journal and expertise of the researchers.

If the research is biased, that is not good no matter what its conclusions are. Also, consider that, in science, one study almost never establishes new findings. As the critique points out, this isn't even new research; it's a review of previous research. Such reviews are ripe for cherry picked conclusions.

These things put this paper's conclusions in question, not a good thing. Again, no matter what its conclusions are.

That's just the way science works, my friend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #13)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 09:59 AM

18. Yeah, I have a science degree. I took chemistry, biology, physics and then

 

all of the related marine science and environmental science courses needed to complete my degree. Irrelevant of the article, not one person in their abusive manners of trying to belittle those who have not taken science courses into "shutting the hell up" about the massive amount of harmful chemicals we are polluting our world with is going to change my mind about the harm that it creates.

I have studied the effects of pollutants down to the benthic/ micro level. We are either going to speed up evolution process or just kill off the planet. We are losing biodiversity, we are killing off essential elements in the food chain process. The mess we have made of our oceans from global warming to pollutants to the nuclear disaster off the coast of Japan.

At this point, I would seriously suggest funding a worldwide NASA program on a monumental scale so that there is a manner in which we can escape to another planet when this one whithers from our stupidity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glowing (Reply #18)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 11:44 AM

36. What is your analysis of the paper?

 

Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases

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.


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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #13)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 10:02 AM

20. Most research on GMOs is controlled by the MegaCorps

Mutant Research on Mutant Food Crap.

No one should trust the corporate crap research saying GMOs are safe.

That is a crock of Poo Poo (not woo woo, but poo poo).

Hardcore Scientific Materialists will just have to swallow that fact about their vaunted Poo Poo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Reply #20)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 10:27 AM

25. I think there is a reason, seeing what happened with the France study, why the research

 

time table stops at 3 months. Honestly, its a miracle that our bodies are as resiliant as they are. So much crap to deal with bombarding us daily, weekly, yearly... (however, cancer isn't exactly going away, and some of the same companies are FDA regulated and controlled and are making oodles of money off of the sick people that our unhealthy world and lifestyles create).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Reply #20)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 10:38 AM

28. "No one should trust the corporate crap research saying GMOs are safe."

That would be cherry picking, a huge no-no in science.

You don't get to reject research based on conclusions. Also, you don't get to reject research based solely on funding source. Although the latter may flag the research for careful review, it is not fatal.

Again, single studies are not definitive. Reviews and meta-analyses are automatically highly suspect due to the ease with which conclusions can be cherry picked.

By only repeating research with tighter controls, etc. and with peer review can one be sure that a question is true or not.

This study, although interesting, needs to go through that process.

That's just the way things work in science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #28)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 11:58 AM

37. Scientific American rejects the corporate crap 'science' of GMOs.

Last edited Sat Apr 27, 2013, 12:31 PM - Edit history (1)

as should anyone with common sense...

"Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Reply #37)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 01:06 PM

40. Fine. But why blindly accept this research?

That would be equally incorrect.

Also, if corporate research is open to independent replication and review, there would be no reason to arbitrarily reject it.

But, I agree with you in principle about research that cannot be replicated and reviewed because it's proprietary.

But, the above cited research looks dodgy, at first glance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #40)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 01:32 PM

43. Why? Because corporations are occultly shoving the GMO crap down our throats

I would like to know what is in food so I can decide whether I want to eat it. But the GMO corporations have made that impossible, and they have polluted the knowledge base with their bought-and-sold CRAP 'science.' Thus, it makes sense to me to consider the science that raises questions about GMO food, since it just has not been proven safe over any long-term.

When it doubt, I choose the Precautionary Principle, not CRAP corporate 'science' -- aka 'Poo' (just as crap metaphysics is deemed 'Woo' by Scientific Materialists.

It's my body. I have right to know what is in my food. GMO goes totally OCCULT to thwart everyone's freedom to know and freedom to choose. It's freaking plug-ugly TOTALITARIAN (R).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Reply #43)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 01:41 PM

45. Not if it's a shitty paper; then I can reject it.

Again, no matter what the conclusions are.

Bad science in favor of a person's predetermined opinion is still bad science.

Note, I have not professed any opinion on GMO in my posts here. I am only addressing the problems with this paper which should make people question it regardless of its conclusions.

Bad science is bad science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glowing (Reply #5)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 10:10 AM

23. Yes Bush Romney Obama for starters

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glowing (Reply #5)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 10:21 AM

24. The USDA has a list of pesticides.

There is a list of pesticides and chemicals that are permissable for application on Certified Organic crops. It includes stuff like arsenic (insecticide), tobacco juice/nicotine(insecticide) and chrysanthemum blossom extract/permethrins(insecticide).

To say organic is the solution is folly too.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #3)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 09:29 AM

12. I think the link

between roundup and health conditions is sufficiently suspicious to investigate further and stop its use until then. It is sad in our society that our government lets corporations do the studies, and then have them accepted by the FDA or whatever government group is responsible for the safety of its people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #3)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 09:39 AM

14. My thoughts

on this kind of evidence, is that it certainly is to be looked at. And closely. But Just because a journal is not medical does not mean it is not correct. Also, medical doctors, health scientists and medical science researchers a lot of times have tunnel vision when it comes to their research. Postulations are made and then evidence is sought to prove them, not disprove them. Evidence is junked that is not wanted or even maliciously changed to support the position. There is not much in the way of pure research anymore. To much money is funneled into our universities by big pharma or ag or whoever. In my couple years of premed, I saw this happen, and am disenchanted with the way the research works. Solution? I don't know. More government oversight? Better ethics and morals? Probably. How to facilitate this? I do not have the answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to timdog44 (Reply #14)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 01:06 PM

39. The VAST majority of health-related research is funded by NIH.

 

Those studies are scrutinized as carefully as possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #39)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 01:28 PM

42. Of course if you say so.

I would disagree. That does not preclude the NIH being staffed by the revolving door of corporatists. I would also suggest that you are neglecting to include the health care research done in the universities around our country that are funded legally but unethically.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to timdog44 (Reply #42)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 01:32 PM

44. You sound just like the climate change deniers.

 

If scientific research is not giving the results they want, they immediately blame the science, scientists, and research structure.

It's exactly the argument you're using. How the hell is it possible for corporations to own the research infrastructure for investigations into pesticide safety but they have absolutely no influence on the research into climate change?

The only common denominator is ignorance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #44)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 01:44 PM

46. First, I don't think you are very nice person

calling me ignorant. You seem to get some joy from that.

Second, I am not a climate change denier. The big corporations tried to get their foot in the door on that research front but were slapped down. Besides, even though climate change is a proven thing, big corps are preventing anything from happening to mitigate the dangers of same.

Third, the majority of health care research is not pure research any more. There is a $$$$ agenda to it, brought to academia by big medical appliance makers, big pharma or big ag. I have spent too many hours digging into the research scientists and universities to only find big $$$ behind most of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to timdog44 (Reply #46)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 01:52 PM

48. Sorry about not being very nice. My blood starts to boil when DUers start misleading people.

 

Third, the majority of health care research is not pure research any more. There is a $$$$ agenda to it, brought to academia by big medical appliance makers, big pharma or big ag. I have spent too many hours digging into the research scientists and universities to only find big $$$ behind most of it.


You're prepared to back that up, right? You've been part of the NIH peer review process? You know how the system works, and you can tell us how it's all agenda-driven and tied to the medical industry?

You are prepared to provide those specifics, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #48)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 02:14 PM

49. I have not been privy to the NIH peer review process.

I assume because you bring that up that you have been. And if so, you should be well aware that conflict of interest issues are something that has only just recently been addressed and is being attempted to be implemented by the NIH. And you can look that up yourself and report back with your own citations as I don't see any in your posts.

And as to your statement about the amount of money spent by the NIH on research, it amounts to about 28% of total research in America, per the NIH's own statement on their web page.

My blood also boils when I see people trying to convince DUers about the safety of medical "things" in general in America. Deregulation has lead to self reporting and oversight by these companies which is a formula to disaster.

I have to say that your not being nice is more of a bluntness that I am not used to and could be done more diplomatically. I am guilty of the same and apologize.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to timdog44 (Reply #49)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 02:18 PM

50. Thank you for your very civil response.

 

We are destined to disagree on some finer points, and I can live with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #50)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 02:23 PM

51. Me to.

I think we have butted heads before. If we can be civil about it I have no problem. And I will try to put my sensitivity away. I have yet to meet anyone, myself included, who don't have some buttons that are easy to push.

One of the things I have a problem with on any blog site is anonymity. Nobody puts down on their profile who or what they are. Maybe I made a mistake doing that on mine, but I like people to know where I am coming from, at least a little.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 08:46 AM

6. Years ago I read that Round-up was nothing more than watered down agent orange.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to watoos (Reply #6)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 09:24 AM

8. Roundup is a completely different bird.

Agent Orange is 2, 4, 5-T. It is very similar to 2, 4-D. 2, 4-D is one of the oldest broadleaf herbicides. Agent Orange is a much stronger broadleaf herbicide.

Roundup is glyphosate. As mentioned above, is a broad range herbicide. If it is a plant and is green Roundup will kill it.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic_acid

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MAD Dave (Reply #8)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 10:03 AM

21. ...And yet is still a Death-Dealing Chemical CrapAttack

...so there is a great deal of similiarity there...

None of that scuzz belongs anywhere near the living earth, or food.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 09:28 AM

11. I used Roundup years ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In_The_Wind (Reply #11)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 09:40 AM

15. I am sad to say

I fell into the same trap. But no more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to timdog44 (Reply #15)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 09:48 AM

16. We'll be putting deep mulch around everything this month.

Yesterday we moved a 10 year old Redbud.
Earlier this week we transplanted 4 Peonies, over 100 Jonquils and only a few of the lilies (so far).

Moving is so much fun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In_The_Wind (Reply #16)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 10:00 AM

19. That is what I finally started to do.

Deep mulch, and if anything grows through, it is not deep enough. The problem I had with all the mulch was it was a wintering over place for unwanted bugs, especially those that liked my watermelons and pumpkins.

Moving a 10 year old redbud. Hope you did not hurt yourself. And peonies are not easy to move either. Hope you have a good growing year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to timdog44 (Reply #19)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 11:08 AM

33. Two strong men moved 'em. It was/is a labor of love.

I hope so.
From '96 until a '08 we added hundreds of dollars worth of landscaping.
It broke me heart to leave it all behind when we were ponzied.

Some plants need to be rotated to avoid bugs left behind. Cantaloupes were tricky.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In_The_Wind (Reply #33)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 01:51 PM

47. Sorry to hear of your travails. I understand

that you would be heartbroken to have to leave it behind. We are in the process of trying to sell our place because it has become too much for my poor back to do anymore. I have spent several years turning two acres of grass into about 70% gardens. I have a 10 level back fusion and then to my pelvis and I just can not do it anymore and do it justice. So much joy. Hope to find a small place in town where I will have a clean pallet to start with. We will be leaving a sanctuary. Hoping to sell it to the local Forest Preserve as it abut their property. We shall see.

And about the rotating. It is something that was a hard lesson. The nice thing about gardening is that it is always a work in progress and always a learning experience. Good luck to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to timdog44 (Reply #47)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 09:38 PM

52. Good luck & happy gardening in your new home when the time comes, timdog44

Your smaller place in town will be beautiful also.

We had a wonderful day transplanting.
I even picked up petunias for the very small deck. The smell will be intoxicating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 09:57 AM

17. Industrial Ag is poisoning people, animals and planet

...and churning out cheap food that leads to chronic illnesses.

Disgustipating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 10:27 AM

26. "Food, Inc." was on CBC's "The Passionate Eye" a couple of years back

 

Scary!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 10:35 AM

27. it's all made up....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tamar-haspel/condemning-monsanto-with-_b_3162694.html

Did you see the latest indictment of Monsanto making the rounds? It's a "peer-reviewed" paper in the journal Entropy, co-authored by Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff, blaming glyphosate, the compound in the herbicide Roundup, for virtually all the ills that can befall us.

But here's the thing -- they made it up. Or, all but. They say, "We explain the documented effects of glyphosate and its ability to induce disease, and we show that glyphosate is a 'textbook example' of exogenous semiotic entropy: the disruption of homeostasis by environmental toxins." Exogenous semiotic entropy! That sounds serious. Google it, though, and you find that those three words occur together in only place. This paper. They made it up. At first, I thought the whole thing was one of those jargon-laden academic hoaxes but, alas, it isn't.

more@link


on edit: The responses in this thread illustrate the worst sort of confirmation bias. Most respondents need to go back to school and learn how to think critically. How many of you actually read this paper? How many considered its arguments independently of its author's clear bias? Nada, I'm thinking. No wonder advertising is such effective behavior control. When you tell people made-up shit they just believe it. Sheesh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike_c (Reply #27)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 11:10 AM

34. The author of this article

is a GMO apologist. For reasons unknown, she's all over the internet defending Monsanto's activities, GM salmon, etc. She's no scientist, either. And the fact that three words in a paper are not Google-able is hardly evidence that the whole thing was "made up," The author's define the expression clearly.

I'm going to read these papers, but IMO, her agenda is showing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brainstormy (Reply #34)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 11:20 AM

35. ad hominem....

Yet you find it necessary to attempt to discredit the author of these comments rather than thinking critically about the arguments presented, both by Tamar Haspel and by Samsel and Seneff. Seriously. That's messed up. It's sloppy thinking. You've dismissed her arguments out of hand because they conflict with your prior bias.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike_c (Reply #35)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 09:31 AM

53. Yes, You're correct

I'm suggesting that she's a Monsanto shill. And yes, I have a prior bias. But I didn't dismiss her arguments "out of hand." I'm a food writer and researcher. I'd be delighted to be wrong to be wrong about Haspel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 10:45 AM

29. Monsanto should be said the way Seinfeld said Newman (n/t)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 11:02 AM

31. Accepting genetic modifications on food crops to allow glyphosate when glyphosate resistant weeds

were already evolving and popping up among these major food crops is really wildly reckless.

Endangering our food supply in a manner that allows the patenting and price manipulation on seeds for our basic food items just so that those food items will not die when sprayed with poisons that have killed weeds before
when we know that Roundup resistant weeds are already appearing
is such a clear example of profit motives being given precedence over public safety.


I am so sad that we did not return to being Old Democrats instead of "New" (Pro Corporate) Democrats, and increase government work in the public interest-- hiring more workers for OSHA to keep inspections going and prevent more industrial accidents, and hire more people at the USDA or EPA to work on less toxic ways to increase crop yields and reduce the numbers of poisons and genetic modifications required on our basic foods.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 11:04 AM

32. My father died of cancer and everyone blamed it on smoking but us kids knew better - we saw how he

was vert careless with Roundup. I will never believe it was the smoking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 12:05 PM

38. US American bodies are a cesspool of toxins with over 200 of them from birth on.

 

It used to be over 80 but has now skyrocketed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 01:13 PM

41. Well, they live in the administration now...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread