TheRealCallie said:
That is one farmer though. The majority don't do that though. Technically I'm an organic farmer because I didn't use pesticides on my vegetables, and I gave away my stuff, yea that was cheap.
But, that is not the majority.
Fast / Processed food
- Thread starter sk66rc
- Start date
Help Support Loneliness, Depression & Relationship Forum:
That is one farmer though. The majority don't do that though. Technically I'm an organic farmer because I didn't use pesticides on my vegetables, and I gave away my stuff, yea that was cheap.
But, that is not the majority.
Private companies test samples of crops in every ''organic'' farms who have the organic label. If they find any chemical, they have to pay a bill and remove the label for false adversing.
http://www.ecocertcanada.com/who-we-are
Tropicana had to pay and remove their 100% natural fruits label for false adversing.
http://naturalsociety.com/tropicana-orange-juice-lawsuits-false-advertising/
http://www.ecocertcanada.com/who-we-are
Tropicana had to pay and remove their 100% natural fruits label for false adversing.
http://naturalsociety.com/tropicana-orange-juice-lawsuits-false-advertising/
stb
Well-known member
Next thing you know they'll be sneaking amino acids into your food. I refuse to eat anything with amino acids in it,
stork_error
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2014
- Messages
- 350
- Reaction score
- 1
Shrimp said:TheRealCallie said:
You should provide proof if you say it's proven.
I think it's fair if people make health claims then they should provide proof because it's important we don't get mislead.
I'm glad I helped, Damrod.
That pesticides are harmful? Drink some, let me know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticides_in_the_United_States
Well, majorities of people drink/eat small doses every days. I call them ''guinea pig'' for long term effects. Specially when you consider that GMO got tested 3 months only, and by Monsanto. And what got tested? GMO or GMO with round up? I doubt they included round up in their tests.
stork_error said:Shrimp said:TheRealCallie said:
You should provide proof if you say it's proven.
I think it's fair if people make health claims then they should provide proof because it's important we don't get mislead.
I'm glad I helped, Damrod.
That pesticides are harmful? Drink some, let me know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticides_in_the_United_States
Of all the sources to use, you use wikipedia?
I mean, yea, I am not gonna go drink a gallon of Round-Up, but come on.
Damrod said:
You do know that the crop does not have round-up actually in it right? A round-up ready crop is a crop that has a gene in it that makes the plant resistant to glyphosate. Which you can see today, we now have 22 species of weeds that have the same gene now through NATURAL selection. In about 10 years I predict Round-up being a thing of the past to be honest.
Now Monsanto, Dow, and several land grant universities are isolating a gene for corn and soybeans to be 2,4-D- and Dicamba resistant. Monsanto inserted the gene with a gene gun, and Dow found it naturally and are breeding a mommy plant to a daddy plant hoping that the gene gets past naturally to the offspring.
We really need to blame the Native Americans for this stuff. If they didn't start messing with corn and making it single stock plant where it would produce one big ear instead of branching out and producing several small ears, we wouldn't be in this mess.
Damrod said:
My apologies, people in agriculture just say glyphosate because Round-up is the Monsanto brand of it. There is also Cornerstone, Duramax, and Touchdown made by Land O Lakes, Dow, and Syngenta. There are lots of people that don't like using Monsanto products, so it's usually just glyphosate. But I digress.
Most glyphosate application on corn and soybeans happen prior to the ears and pods forming. So getting a residue on there is a very hard thing to do in the first place. This is a good farming practice. Good farming practices = low cost = more money for the farmers, so at least most of the farmers I have worked with do follow labels and practice good farming. I know there might be some out there that over use an herbicide, but really they are idiots, they are just losing money. Plus the EPA has to approve a farmer to do applications in extreme cases. If they don't think it is safe, it's not going to happen, they have strict regulations.
Anyways, if in those cases residues do happen to get on there, then it would be below 1 part per million on the corn or bean part that is processed for our consumption. That is so low, you cannot detect it, nor does it have much threat to human health. Plus these chemicals are not allowed to be used until they have been determined by the EPA to have "reasonable certainty of no harm to humans". That is how they word it. Yea, if you go drink Round-Up it's going to poison you, but to eat things that have been sprayed by farmers that are forced to followed rules and regulations. Nope.
Also, you can actually have a acceptable daily intake of glyphosate of 13% according to a risk assessment in 2013. Artificial sweeteners have an ADI of 6%. You are more like to die buy drinking too much coke zero than a corn or soybean product.
TheRealCallie
Princess Pink Love
Just ran across this while I was looking for something else. As I said, anyone who cares to look, will find any number of problems caused by pesticides and chemicals on food.
Celiac Disease.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945755/
And here's an article on there being a probable link between glyphosate and autism.
http://althealthworks.com/2494/mit-...ate-1-in-2-children-will-be-autistic-by-2025/
There's also a video and other sources, if you want to research it any more than this.
Celiac Disease.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945755/
And here's an article on there being a probable link between glyphosate and autism.
http://althealthworks.com/2494/mit-...ate-1-in-2-children-will-be-autistic-by-2025/
There's also a video and other sources, if you want to research it any more than this.
This is like the climate change and evolution debates. On one hand you have almost unanimous scientific consensus (in this case that organic food is just a scam) on one hand and a smattering of pseudo-science and misinterpreted studies on the other. Merica.
stork_error
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2014
- Messages
- 350
- Reaction score
- 1
Check the sources inside the wiki article.. or, drink some if you dare 
Damrod said:
I have to get ready for work, so I didn't read all of these. But from what I read, they are discussing the toxicity of glyphosate. Allow me to warn you guys. THE LABEL SAYS NOT TO DRINK THIS STUFF! I don't see where it is discussing the long term affects of eating foods that came from a farm field by a farmer that practices good farming, then processed into the food we eat. Also, these studies are from different countries where the regulations are different than our EPA standards. Which makes them a little skewed.
Damrod said:
Here is a study of the long term affects of glyphosate poisoning, but like I said, do not just straight up ingest this stuff.
http://www.1hope.org/glyphos8.htm
Here is some info of on how long glyphosate stays on corn after sprayed. I do not agree with all of it though.
http://gmoanswers.com/ask/how-long-does-glyphosate-remain-roundup-ready-corn-after-it-applied
Now, I would really like to find a study where it says that using glyphosate on corn and soybeans absolutely causing something. I am not talking about poisoning, or the fact it MIGHT lead to something. People at one time said you couldn't drink while pregnant because it might harm the baby, and now they say you can drink at certain points of the pregnancy, make up your mind science! I mean the fact that cornflakes I am eating for breakfast have enough glyphosate in them that I am going to get hurt in the long run. I want to see a study that shows me that everyday foods are so tainted it is going to cause something. Not this petri-dish and lab rat stuff where they injected so much in there it causes something. There is a reason why Agent Orange isn't used a weed killer, it actually harms us (I have a student who is seeing the affects of Agent Orange because her grandpa was exposed to it!).
TheRealCallie
Princess Pink Love
The one from gmoanswers is someone from the Monsanto company. Like they are actually going to say it's bad for you? lol
The first one. Sketchy source, but when is that article from? I don't see a date anywhere, other than the references from the 1980's and 90's.
The first one. Sketchy source, but when is that article from? I don't see a date anywhere, other than the references from the 1980's and 90's.
Ok. No, your studies aren't valide. They are both made by Monsanto.
They said DDT was safe. They said tobacco was safe. Now you believe them? Come on, learn to get a critical mind...
If you drink it's poisonous, but if you take few each days on food it's not? Seriously... Are you kidding me?
They said DDT was safe. They said tobacco was safe. Now you believe them? Come on, learn to get a critical mind...
If you drink it's poisonous, but if you take few each days on food it's not? Seriously... Are you kidding me?
TheRealCallie said:
http://www.pesticide.org/get-the-fa...f-pesticide-reform/jpr-vol.15-3-fall-1995.pdf
There is the PDF for the first one.
And yea, I said I didn't agree with all the the GMO answer one, but the good farming practices part is true, I rather not scan my textbook for that information just for a silly forum debate.
PieBeNice said:
Although this is sarcastic. I do agree with this. I don't think there is enough creditable research on either side to truly come up with a decision. You have the organic people paying money for their propaganda and their high prices to make organic seem like a desirable higher class thing. And companies like Monsatan...ahem Monsanto lobbying in congress. And universities that do the research get their money from one or the either.
TheRealCallie
Princess Pink Love
I see it now, going back to look, on the first one, but thank you.
That is from 2 decades ago....Pretty sure there are studies more recent than that.
No one ever said you have to scan your textbooks, but I'd hardly say it's a "silly" debate considering the subject. Regardless whether this is a forum or not, we are all still human beings eating that honeysuckle. I think it's an intelligent debate on something that is very useful. Makes more sense than arguing about some of the stupid honeysuckle people argue about on here.
That is from 2 decades ago....Pretty sure there are studies more recent than that.
No one ever said you have to scan your textbooks, but I'd hardly say it's a "silly" debate considering the subject. Regardless whether this is a forum or not, we are all still human beings eating that honeysuckle. I think it's an intelligent debate on something that is very useful. Makes more sense than arguing about some of the stupid honeysuckle people argue about on here.
Damrod said:
No, I am not. Because the amount of residue on them would take more years than a human life time to do damage. It's just like artificial sweeteners, tobacco, and alcohol. We still consume those, some people everyday in their coffee.
