Well, I know you were trying to be a little condescending but...
This is from the national institute of environmental health sciences.
They do. They're not considered weeds on the prairie. Unless they're an invasive species.
nannyslayer
New Member
Here is some more reading if anyone is interested.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/c...anic-advocates-should-love-gmos/#.Ualn4fkU6So
http://www.cgfi.org/2002/06/the-hidden-dangers-in-organic-food/
http://med.stanford.edu/news/all-ne...-benefits-from-organic-foods-study-finds.html
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-07/fugitive-spiders-and-other-organic-food-dangers
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/...-healthier-or-safer-study-finds/#.U59onhUo6P9
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/c...anic-advocates-should-love-gmos/#.Ualn4fkU6So
http://www.cgfi.org/2002/06/the-hidden-dangers-in-organic-food/
http://med.stanford.edu/news/all-ne...-benefits-from-organic-foods-study-finds.html
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-07/fugitive-spiders-and-other-organic-food-dangers
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/...-healthier-or-safer-study-finds/#.U59onhUo6P9
nannyslayer
New Member
This right here has really bothered me, and if I missed a link that you posted on this, please excuse my ignorance, and lead me to it.
I'm not that great at explaining things, so I'm just going to do it in the only fashion I know how. Once the glyphosate is sprayed on the plant (many months before any harvest is done), it is metabolized within the plant, and no lasting residual left anywhere, that is even traceable once harvest comes around.
Now, I did see a study where they were adding glyphosate to animal feed for a study. Now that seems like a bogus study to me, do you use laundry detergent on your cloths? Bleach? Gasoline in your car you drive daily? Do you think there would be any adverse affects if you put any of those products in animal feed? That study didn't make any since to me at all.
Gladiator
PMA Member
That's false all-around Brian...not trying to be disrespectful. Just do a simple search online. It is everywhere.
Search for glyphosate research on male reproduction....although I found some that had to do with mammals and the uterine lining. Of course, not all were meta-analysis, but you can easily search and see tons of links.
When I searched to see if glyphosate was metabolized by the bean plant, I didn't find much. And the research out there was from Monsanto
Admittingly, I'm glad you said something because there are many research articles on the non-toxicity of it as well - which was refreshing to read...although none had anything to do with being 100% metabolized by the plant.
Lots of info on both sides....no doubt.
nannyslayer
New Member
No disrespect at all. Same with me, but when I work with this on a daily basis, and understand how glyphosate works within a plant, it is not completely false. You have to understand that there is a growing number of people wanting to take down Monsanto, because for one, they do not understand anything about crops. Someone labeled a GMO crop "dangerous, poisonous, ect", but when countless research has come up with nothing harmful, they attack the most used product, which is also largely produced by Monsanto.
You think I'm wrong about that? Then why do you never hear anything about bayer crop science, syngenta, Dow, du-pont, gowen, FMC, get my point? They are all MAJOR PLAYERS in the crop world, is just that Monsanto is the biggest.
But your talking about glyphosate, the most environmentally, safest chemical today. Yet many believe that there are lasting effect? I know your energetic and passionate about this, so please do me one favor. Do research on Callisto, dual(metolachlor) and acetochlor (which is widely used in Monsanto products, but they buy it, not produce it). Those are the most widely used corn chemicals today, which we know have a very long residual, active ingredient affect. Then see how much research has been done on them vs glyphosate. Monsanto makes glyphosate, yet does not make any of the other products I mentioned.
But, this will be the last I post on this subject, too many keyboard researchers know what's best for the agriculture industry, trying to ban certain ways of conventional farming, yet offering not one single alternative to growing more bushels per acre. All I ever hear is ban this, ban that, it's not good for you, Monsanto is evil, when in reality, Monsanto is spending billions trying to come up with better, more efficient, more environmentally friendly ways to farm conventionally, while no one does anything else. I do work in the ag industry, and nothing about glyphosate or a GMO crop scare me. I know how they work, how they are built and what they were designed to do, and today we are using the safest, most environmentally friendly methods and products that are available to us, which is hand over fist better than we were 25 years ago.
It's just like the grass fed/vaccinated cattle, GMO vs Organic, I try to have a discussion on it with many people, and when I show just a few facts on why we use it, what we are doing to prevent certain things, I always get a blank stare, or silence. Many people that I have had the GMO conversation with get a lot of their info from a website that is 100% against gmo's. That's kind of like going to a PETA website to research how farm animals are treated isn't it?
You think I'm wrong about that? Then why do you never hear anything about bayer crop science, syngenta, Dow, du-pont, gowen, FMC, get my point? They are all MAJOR PLAYERS in the crop world, is just that Monsanto is the biggest.
But your talking about glyphosate, the most environmentally, safest chemical today. Yet many believe that there are lasting effect? I know your energetic and passionate about this, so please do me one favor. Do research on Callisto, dual(metolachlor) and acetochlor (which is widely used in Monsanto products, but they buy it, not produce it). Those are the most widely used corn chemicals today, which we know have a very long residual, active ingredient affect. Then see how much research has been done on them vs glyphosate. Monsanto makes glyphosate, yet does not make any of the other products I mentioned.
But, this will be the last I post on this subject, too many keyboard researchers know what's best for the agriculture industry, trying to ban certain ways of conventional farming, yet offering not one single alternative to growing more bushels per acre. All I ever hear is ban this, ban that, it's not good for you, Monsanto is evil, when in reality, Monsanto is spending billions trying to come up with better, more efficient, more environmentally friendly ways to farm conventionally, while no one does anything else. I do work in the ag industry, and nothing about glyphosate or a GMO crop scare me. I know how they work, how they are built and what they were designed to do, and today we are using the safest, most environmentally friendly methods and products that are available to us, which is hand over fist better than we were 25 years ago.
It's just like the grass fed/vaccinated cattle, GMO vs Organic, I try to have a discussion on it with many people, and when I show just a few facts on why we use it, what we are doing to prevent certain things, I always get a blank stare, or silence. Many people that I have had the GMO conversation with get a lot of their info from a website that is 100% against gmo's. That's kind of like going to a PETA website to research how farm animals are treated isn't it?
Last edited:
nannyslayer
New Member
That's false all-around Brian...not trying to be disrespectful. Just do a simple search online. It is everywhere.
Search for glyphosate research on male reproduction....although I found some that had to do with mammals and the uterine lining. Of course, not all were meta-analysis, but you can easily search and see tons of links.
When I searched to see if glyphosate was metabolized by the bean plant, I didn't find much. And the research out there was from Monsanto
Admittingly, I'm glad you said something because there are many research articles on the non-toxicity of it as well - which was refreshing to read...although none had anything to do with being 100% metabolized by the plant.
Lots of info on both sides....no doubt.
Here is a little reading for you. I think this is pretty unbiased myself.
http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphotech.pdf
In VERY SHORT - Organic has its problems as well, they'll sub something "organic" (like a organic type herbicide & fungicide) that sure gives me some major concern (long story). For my own consumption & best safety, I'd like to be involved with every single minute of all the processes of all foods I eat BUT that's not a reality for me even though we do garden & hunt/fish much of our food. I see all sides of the discussion and it goes way beyond a few things like Round-up or seed treatment. You really could read or write 100 books & 20,000 studies on all different things related to this.
On the HABITAT issue - whether I farm organically or conventionally, I actually still have CONCERN with both (My wife's family farms organic successfully) ways & I still will continue to farm conventionally myself.... I have major concern with habitat loss of every single kind (simple habitat for game, flowering/pollinator plants, habitat for non-game & taking away a whole ecosystem) and changing a landscape completely (Iowa being the most transformed state in the country). We have huge top soil losses every year and even though I farm, I see SOME operations who will disc up a field that's darn near a mountain cliff if they can 1 more corn row in. Personally, for me, I will be about balance, I have a lot of land in CRP and all of my marginal or rough ground will be in CRP if it isn't already. I'll continue to plant trees, continue with CRP, Pollinators, native grasses, food plots & eventually I'll have some completely chemical free farms down the road (except for maybe a few odd-ball applications of random things here and there).
Interesting stuff guys, I could spend hours on this topic and not scratch the surface and I can imagine guys who are actually experts could spend a lifetime on this and not get it solved or figured out.
On the HABITAT issue - whether I farm organically or conventionally, I actually still have CONCERN with both (My wife's family farms organic successfully) ways & I still will continue to farm conventionally myself.... I have major concern with habitat loss of every single kind (simple habitat for game, flowering/pollinator plants, habitat for non-game & taking away a whole ecosystem) and changing a landscape completely (Iowa being the most transformed state in the country). We have huge top soil losses every year and even though I farm, I see SOME operations who will disc up a field that's darn near a mountain cliff if they can 1 more corn row in. Personally, for me, I will be about balance, I have a lot of land in CRP and all of my marginal or rough ground will be in CRP if it isn't already. I'll continue to plant trees, continue with CRP, Pollinators, native grasses, food plots & eventually I'll have some completely chemical free farms down the road (except for maybe a few odd-ball applications of random things here and there).
Interesting stuff guys, I could spend hours on this topic and not scratch the surface and I can imagine guys who are actually experts could spend a lifetime on this and not get it solved or figured out.
Last edited:
1. That is not entirely true. While glyphosate may not actually kill or maim certain organisms outright, by destroying a main food source or habitat isn't the outcome the same?
2. Don't give up. If you really believe what you're saying to be true, quitting would be a huge disservice to those who think like you do. It can be tiring dealing with people who don't seem to understand the issues or only want to repeat what they've heard from biased sources (believe me I know, I try educate a lot of Republicans
). The answers offered up are often difficult to achieve and therefore unpopular. Yet there are answers.
Why do we need to produce more bushels per acre? Is there a reason we cannot create plants (yes, GMOs) to grow in regions where it has been historically difficult to grow crops? Iowa would no longer need to feed the world so to speak. We could reduce the amount of chemicals we put into the environment and try to bring things back into balance.
I worked at Monsanto for a few years in the early 2000s. At that time they were working on creating corn plants that would require less water to grow in order to grow them in Chile(?) and other countries where irrigation was a challenge.
3. It doesn't look to me like your getting blank stares or silence here. In fact, we are having a rather informative sharing of differing view points. I'll say it again...Don't give up.
Last edited:
shadowpeople
Active Member
I had a big long post written up about organic vs. conventional, guns vs. bows and arrows, putting garbage in your body, the wussification of America, and how walking instead of driving would solve a lot more diseases and problems than are ever caused by GMO's. How it relates to the declining bee hives, I don't know. But....
People will believe what they want to believe, and will research everything in a way to support their beliefs. Then, they will try to convince others to view it the same. Nothing any amount of keyboard wars are going to change. Some people aren't happy if they don't have something to worry about and someone to argue with.
People will believe what they want to believe, and will research everything in a way to support their beliefs. Then, they will try to convince others to view it the same. Nothing any amount of keyboard wars are going to change. Some people aren't happy if they don't have something to worry about and someone to argue with.
I wanna read it.
nannyslayer
New Member
1. That is not entirely true. While glyphosate may not actually kill or maim certain organisms outright, by destroying a main food source or habitat isn't the outcome the same? Yes, but many of the chemicals we would use to replace them are more harmful with longer lasting affects.
2. Don't give up. If you really believe what you're saying to be true, quitting would be a huge disservice to those who think like you do. It can be tiring dealing with people who don't seem to understand the issues or only want to repeat what they've heard from biased sources (believe me I know, I try educate a lot of Republicans
The answers offered up are often difficult to achieve and therefore unpopular. Yet there are answers.
Why do we need to produce more bushels per acre? Is there a reason we cannot create plants (yes, GMOs) to grow in regions where it has been historically difficult to grow crops? Yes, and we have, which is almost like were are our worst enemy. Before, we had to have suitable ground to grow crops on, now with the diversity in our genetics, and the traits we produce, we are able to farm area's that were not deemed farmable 20 years ago. As an environmentalist stand point, that ground is where our pheasants raised, our deer raised, and many different plants, animals, and insects were so called quarantined. Now we are farming that ground, because of our better genetics. But our demand, even farming the ground that once wasn't suitable, is higher than ever, and we still need to produce more bushels. Iowa is the nations leading corn growing state, yet production will have to be doubled by the year 2025.
Iowa would no longer need to feed the world so to speak. We could reduce the amount of chemicals we put into the environment and try to bring things back into balance.
I worked at Monsanto for a few years in the early 2000s. At that time they were working on creating corn plants that would require less water to grow in order to grow them in Chile(?) and other countries where irrigation was a challenge. This year is the first year the drought guard trait has been released. There are several acres planted for that. Monsanto's main reason for the release of this trait is because in area's that can irrigate, they are running their water table to dangerously low levels. With the drought guard, you are able to obtain optimum yield, with half the water. Without irrigation in the area's that need it, the crop would fail, yet causing an even higher demand for grain. So the need was there for a corn hybrid that could produce the same amount of grain, on 1/2 the amount of water. Next year, we get to look at the N Guard corn, which will allow us to reduce our nitrogen levels, and still grow the same amount of bushels. They are also able to grow a nice corn crop in area's in Kansas and Nebraska, where yield has been an extreme challenge for them, due to excessive heat and drought.
3. It doesn't look to me like your getting blank stares or silence here. In fact, we are having a rather informative sharing of differing view points. I'll say it again...Don't give up.
I'll answer a few of these the best to my knowledge.
nannyslayer
New Member
I posted a few links earlier in the post that are good reads on organic vs conventional. Both have benefits, both have down falls.
Yep. I read 'em all. For the most part they were fair.
However, I do think there is a bit of smoke and mirrors going on when it comes to certain issues. For instance, the debate over organic vs GMO on human health. Unfortunately, someone is going to have to get very sick before any definitive answers can be made about the safety of GMOs. Look at the link between Alzheimer's and aluminium. Or smoking and cancer. I suppose until then we'll just have to operate under the assumption that they are as safe as their manufacturer tells us they are.
DannyBoy
Well-Known Member
I am also very passionately worried about the birds and the bees. As a career conservationist... It's hard not to be.
Loss of habitat, super clean at fields, chemicals are all responsible in some way shape or form and there are certainly arguments both ways. Nanny has certainly opened my eyes on some things so thank you for taking the time buddy.
Here's a thought tho. Why is demand so high for corn/beans?? Let's face it, we aren't "feeding the world" anymore. Ethanol is using up a good bit of that crop that's been planted on marginal acres where it could never grow before and is making it worthwhile to continue to do so while big ag continues to produce seed that can yield.
I think we solve a lot of problems: habitat loss, low wildlife/insect populations, WATER QUALITY, need for lots of chemical, etc., by farming sustainably, voluntarily. No-till, cover crops where feasible, buffer every stream, wetlands at tile outlets. Farm the best, save the rest and quit using our food for fuels and gross by-products when there is better technology out there. Keep demand high by taking land back out of production and let Monsanto keep creating higher yielding products, then let people decide for themselves if that product is safe to eat.
As for me, I sure don't have a problem eating GMO corn raised venison but will likely be hobby farming my own pork, beef, chicken in the future - because it's kind of fun and teaches my kids responsibility as well as my waistline on the slim side. I support locally grown, organic produce (aka my garden or farmers market) when I can, otherwise I buy stuff off the shelves just like most people.
We need cheap food just as much as we need wildlife, insects, organic foods, topsoil and clean water and I am confident there is a happy medium out there. Working in an NRCS office for 2 years, I saw the good and the bad both, and the good works just as well with no harm to the bottom line in most cases.
Loss of habitat, super clean at fields, chemicals are all responsible in some way shape or form and there are certainly arguments both ways. Nanny has certainly opened my eyes on some things so thank you for taking the time buddy.
Here's a thought tho. Why is demand so high for corn/beans?? Let's face it, we aren't "feeding the world" anymore. Ethanol is using up a good bit of that crop that's been planted on marginal acres where it could never grow before and is making it worthwhile to continue to do so while big ag continues to produce seed that can yield.
I think we solve a lot of problems: habitat loss, low wildlife/insect populations, WATER QUALITY, need for lots of chemical, etc., by farming sustainably, voluntarily. No-till, cover crops where feasible, buffer every stream, wetlands at tile outlets. Farm the best, save the rest and quit using our food for fuels and gross by-products when there is better technology out there. Keep demand high by taking land back out of production and let Monsanto keep creating higher yielding products, then let people decide for themselves if that product is safe to eat.
As for me, I sure don't have a problem eating GMO corn raised venison but will likely be hobby farming my own pork, beef, chicken in the future - because it's kind of fun and teaches my kids responsibility as well as my waistline on the slim side. I support locally grown, organic produce (aka my garden or farmers market) when I can, otherwise I buy stuff off the shelves just like most people.
We need cheap food just as much as we need wildlife, insects, organic foods, topsoil and clean water and I am confident there is a happy medium out there. Working in an NRCS office for 2 years, I saw the good and the bad both, and the good works just as well with no harm to the bottom line in most cases.
nannyslayer
New Member
I think you and I think a lot alike. Your on the conservation side of things, I'm on the agriculture side of things.
My #1 position is environmentalist. I have to ensure each product is used in a manner that it will least affect the environment.
I knew you were a good guy!!
letemgrow
PMA Member
Lets see....a fresh tomato or a mountain dew...that's a tough one
Healthier eating, more active lifestyle helps us regulate in all aspects. Think if America actually did all those things up to snuff. Health care rates would go down, or at least they should with less people getting sick, diabetes etc etc.