Because it's fucking stupid, expensive, serves no purpose, and only supports the agenda of the jizz gargling fucktards, that it is somehow hazardous.

If the non GMO bullshit is so much in demand, it should be a premium product...how about voluntary Non-GMO labeling,if some bunch of Hippies feel like going through the expense.

As a bystander to many gmo arguments, it seems finding the facts of actual use patterns is always disputed, nevermind whether it has negative side effects to consume the plants that have been modified to survive glyphosate.

As typical, I didn't read the article.

There a lot of issues all mixed together.
1 do farmers use less total pesticide with gmos? Or do they just use less of a variety, but dump on glyphosate.
2 does glyphosate have a negative effect on symbiotic life? bees being the big hyped one
3 do we understand the function of genes so much that we're confident there are not unintentional interactions? I assume the answer to this is trials over time, a 'try it and see' approach, since how can you answer whether you don't know something.
4 is the resistance to glyphosate we're selecting for in weeds right now worth it, and is 2,4-D really what we want to use next? Only a small chemical mistake away from dioxin.

I take issue with people that attempt to compare selective breeding with direct genetic substitution from a non-breedable source. I don't think it is inherently evil or bad to perform such science, but I think given our still limited understanding of genetics there is more risk in the latter than the former, and brushing it off as insignificant is hubris, and makes the pro gmo crowd come across as arrogant narcissists.

For the same reason that most artificial food dye is just #xx. Its meaningless.

Do you really care if your dye is made from crushed beetles? Do companies have to start marketing the amount of fly shit that is in your food.

Outside of spoiled food, just the act of breathing is far more likely to give you health issues.

I understand your point, but the if your going to start demanding minutiae, demand it everywhere. Not just your pet issue of GMO's.

I sense the retard in this thread is strong.

Yup, I'm buying that.

#1 Depends on the Traits of the specific crop. RR beans and corn, or BT Corn, etc. The crop plant expressing BT's, means insecticide use is greatly reduced or eliminated in many cases.
RR Corn and beans means Glyphosate can safely be applied at an early growth stage, without killing the crop. Which eliminates the use of soil persistent pre-emergents, and corn safe herbicides that are more persistent and possibly more of a problem than Glyphosate.
In the end, YES. The GMO's eliminate or greatly reduce the total use of Pesticides in the end. That is the point.

#2
One has to understand Glyphosate, and how it works. Essentially, Glyphosate causes a plant to lose it's immunity to a natural pathogen found in the soil, that is only a Pathogen to plants.
The mode of action does not exist in anything other than plants. The only Chemical compound studied as much as Glyphosate, is 2,4,D, that has been around since the 50's.
You also have to understand the use and timing of Glyphosate application on RR crops.
It is applied at an early growth stage, and LONG before the pollinators and beneficials have any interest in the crop, and numbers are extremely low.
The Notion that Glyphosate is screwing with Bees, is laughable hysteria. The stuff is applied around colonys by Beekeepers, and has been for decades.

#3
We understand it enough, to not expect too many surprises at this point, and understand it more, daily, like everything else.

#4
2,4,D has been in use globally since the 50's. Yeah, it's one step from a nasty compound. So is the blood in your veins, water in your Coffee, and Salt in your bread.
The Glyphosate resistance in weeds we are seeing now, is definitely a problem for one mode of action. There are others to be exploited, and not all species are developing resistance, nor will they. The arrogance of science, was in assuming "Nothing will develop resistance" despite partial kill at lower rates, prescribed by agenda driven politics. The fields where Palmer Amararanth have never developed resistance, have always been hit with the high rate. Resistance started in those states where lower rates were prescribed. The old rules still apply, as nature could give a shit about the politics, of appeasing and ignorant electorate.

Agreed on the arrogance of Science, and the blind followers.
Like any newish technology or understanding, shit is going to happen until the matter becomes more completely understood.
The science behind GMO's is well founded and established however. I share your cautious objectivity.

Lol, no it's not.

 
This. It's fucked up, but not nearly as fucked up as it's often portrayed.

The article is very elementary, at best, and full of assumptions, generalizations, and wanton ignorance at worst.

I appreciate your candor.  Your flippant comparison made for 2,4-D aren't very helpful, although I get the "it has been used for a long time" thing.  If you get contaminated blood you get AIDS, contaminated water with lead could result in mental retardation.   Not sure about a salt contamination example.  Based on those examples, I'm not sure whether you're saying don't be concerned about contaminants or be concerned?  I'm not a chemist, and I don't know the process by which 2,4-D is produced and how controllable the problem is.  If I understood it it would allay my concerns.  Much as my understanding of blood donation screening and not sharing needles, and knowledge of the pipes in my house being copper and not lead make me feel better about the very real risks of blood or water contamination.

Poking around a little this seems to "generally" describe the process but only mentions dioxins in passing.  http://nzic.org.nz/ChemProcesses/production/1J.pdf

It has been much more than a decade since I took a chemistry class, and while I got a 5 on my AP test, it isn't the same as a doctorate ;)

edit: it looks like dioxins are a by product of 2,4,5-T production, which implies their presence in 2,4-D samples is from cross contamination rather than a direct result of the 2,4-D processes.  Is it a case that they're produced in proximity due to similarities in production, and that is the source?  Or is it a source in herent to the production process, such as if the temperature is too low during a step or something similar?  I realize you may not have the answer.

so what's up with the WHO? www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-20/who-classifies-monsanto-s-glyphosate-as-probably-carcinogenic-

Actually that's what most of the non-GMO labeling is over.

Right now companies can join a non-GMO labeling organization that certifies their foods as GMO free. Companies have spent millions upon millions of dollars developing non-GMO labels (Kashi is a big one). So , if they went to mandatory GMO labeling, then those millions of dollars to label themselves as a non-gmo food have been for nothing when a company like Kellogs can just put on their food it's GMO free, since a good deal of it already is.

Additionally, in the EU where GMO labeling became mandatory, many companies went away from GMO feedstocks and have increased prices to compensate due to the additional farmland requirements needed.

Farmers are occasionally spraying it right before harvest to assist in desiccating the crop.  They not spraying it on harvested crops, that's just stupid.

Pre-harvest sprays have some pretty strict label requirements; restricted to certain crops, seed must be of a certain maximum moisture content, etc.  The whole idea is to dry out the stalks to make it easier to harvest, and further reduce grain moisture to minimize post-harvest drying requirements.

It's not ridiculous, it's science and it works.

What's your application rate?  Your mix solution is just one of the figures that determines application rate.

One of the prep herbicides we use, Oust, is typically applied at a rate of 1.5 OUNCES of product per acre.  A typical per-acre prep rate might be:
6 qts glyphosate
20 oz. imazapyr
7 ounces Milestone
1 qt. triclopyr
12.8 oz DLZ (an adjuvant)

We mix all that up in a big tank with 800 gallons total solution and apply at 15 gallons per acre.

YOu have no clue how a cattle operation works.  Prices go up, you run cows an extra year or 2, so increase demand leads to older animals.

Then why not label everything?  Why not label the name of every worker who had contact with the product?  Why not label calorie content of every item on a restaurant menu?

Why spray?  Gain absolutely nothing and costs money.  Stupid farmers went broke years ago.

Actually, if we're going force labeling, doesn't it make sense to label everything that isn't "organic/natural/etc"?   Use the natural product as the baseline and add labels based on biocides and GM.  Even "organic" pesticides would be labeled in this system.  


I'd prefer to not have the labeling at all, but if we have to do it, it makes more sense this way.

Go to this thread, if we have this you would not need labeling as everyone, including corporations, politicians and criminals will be full of love and honesty
Love and freedom

Actually, it is, is well documented, and not tinfoil.
Your girl Carol Browner and your pal Van Jones are not shy about the goals of you Social Globalists, and neither is CPUSA.

I got scolded for "Not keeping the runway clear" by our Bee Keep one year.

He gives me a list of stuff not to use when they are here, and we stick to it. I have Blue Orchard's and bumble bee populations to protect as well.

Once upon a time, real investigative journalists were paid a salary to interview these alleged farmers, and ask these sort of questions.

In the Internet age, conjecture apparently does just fine.

The vast majority of eco leftists have no idea who those people are and they wouldn't give a fuck if they did.

There is nothing expensive about food in your backyard and neighborhood.  Local food is just another safeguard against those globalist dipshits and their utopia.

Eta-  Most local/clean food types believe there are enough resources on Earth to maintain a population much larger than our current number.  But we waste these resources on bullshit like lawns.

GMO is poison...Many more studies have confirmed that it increases cancer rates by up to 75% in some species of rats.

Many inferences made in this article are, well...Bullshit. As is the hypothesis of your study.

Nothing tells me this more however then the blatant control monsanto tries to exert on the industry as a whole and the countless dolars spent to buy them protection in congress. Not to mention, monsato shit Is ILLEGAL in places that actually respect the science over the lobbyists. Fuck Off OP

i agree good job OP

Labeling Non GMOs doesnt have to be a regulation...People do it because its a great  for their products sales. When on the otherhand we have the GMO foods unwilling to label. Why? Because no one with half a brain and the money to choose, would choose that garbage

The cost and penaltys associated with labeling under a standard, created to appease the ignorance driven fears of hysterical twats, is not a small thing to impose, nor is it wise.

If the dipshits you consider "Intelligent" have the capacity to read a label, they can simply opt for one of the Fraudulently labeled "Organic" options, or choose to go with the same that the producer invested in labeling as "Non-GMO".

If there is a marketing advantage to Non-GMO products, the Non-GMO producers should be paying to take advantage of it, NOT their competitors.

Is it a requirement for GM to advertise for Toyota? Does Budweiser pay to advertise for Sam Adams?

What you propose is pure stupidity on many levels, and for many reasons, based upon a hysterical assumption, driven by disinformation and willful ignorance.
The majority of people could give a shit about GMO's, and rightly consider the hysteria as laughable profiteering...and they are correct.

The loons that buy into all the lies and bullshit, assume everything has GMO content unless it is labeled as "organic" already.
The Std. products do NOT cater to their psychosis, and they seek specialty market products.
The onus is on the Specialty market to pay for and comply with labeling requirements.

If ACTUAL science, produces evidence that GMO's are somehow unhealthy like Alcohol or Tobacco, then it would proper to label the products as such.
Until then, unfounded claims, laughable pseudoscience, and the lamentations of delusional Hippies backed by a Marxist agenda and funding, can fuck off.

Not flippant at all really. H202 is one "Step" from the water in your Coffee. Salt is toxic in concentration, but essential at lower levels, is it not?
We rely on a LOT of compounds for life, that are literally "One step" from being Toxic, and literally have to consume many that are highly toxic in high concentration.


2,4,D as a compound is about as safe as it gets, and has proven to be so for over 60 years and a gazillion studies. Yeah, it has a nasty cousin compound, but so does the water in your blood, and you don't guzzle a quart of 2,4,D anymore than you would munch on a pound of Salt tabs. That was my point. Didn't mean to be flippant.



The issue/hysteria with 2,4,5-T, is largely a leftist/Anti/Organic loon, talking point, that relies on the Agent Orange use in Vietnam, to cause fear mongering among the willfully ignorant.
I keep hearing that "2,4,D is agent Orange" from the Militant Organic idiots, who simply parrot the marxist spin machine Dogma.

2,4,D Amine production CAN get contaminated through sloppy/careless production practices, and little to no QA/QC, like anything can.
Specifics I have read, state a hundred parts per Billion have been found, but IIRC it was Chinese/Indian production and not EPA Reg., and also IIRC, it was a third world concern because of the general ignorance and economic pressures on producers in that market. Imported fruits and veggies are scary to start with..but that is another matter.

The Brits concluded a huge long term study of 2,4,D several years back, and I forget which Publication I read it in, but it was conclusive on safety, as long as the chemistry was to std.
and it did mention the tainted 2,4,D found elsewhere. It's killing me that I can't find it online, as it was in one of the monthly Grower pubs I get, and I had it in the shitter library for a long time.


The stuff we get, is all EPA Reg. with guaranteed analysis, 1-1 traceback and all that, as it is required by law.
We keep records of everything applied to the crop, including the analysis of the water used for irrigation. Most conventional Specialty crop growers have to, or do so for GAMP's and liability protections. It's not willy nilly like with the Organic side.

I am unaware of anyone selling unclassified pesticides here in the states.
I am sure the EPA would have a bloody fit over Totes marked "2,4,D...Mostly" and no analysis to back it up.
No Farmer I know, would risk putting the stuff on the crop anyway. The potential losses and liabilitys are just too huge to even consider.

After watching Food Inc.  Yeah bitch all you want about organic food and meats.  The shit they do to Cattle/Chicken and Soy farmers is BS.  Feedlot cattle and grow house chickens are fucking nasty.  When a chicken cant even walk cause it grew so fast it's muscles cant support its weight cause it was pumped full of hormones to grow twice as quick to cut it's growing time in half.  Yeah fuck that.  Im not a tree hugger or anything like that.  Yet our food chain is really fucked when you realize what's involved in it

Wow, and people though the class of '13 was bad around here! I think the 15'ers are going to steal the crown...

I'm willing to bet that you also believe that human CO2 is warming the planet, and we need to take steps to reduce it; that you also believe that the evil Koch brothers are destroying this country; that we need to "increase taxes on the rich"; and that we need to make "reasonable, common sense" compromises with the left on gun control. How am I doing so far?

And it gets worse when you realize that guys trying to raise animals ethically and economically on a large scale are getting hassled by the USDA and other Departments of making you sad.  Theres a book called Everything I Want to do is Illegal by Joel Salatin thats worth reading if you care about this stuff.

Nobody hides the fact that food dye is present, and research shows that food dye does have detrimental affects on the body (and in fact many are banned outside of the US).

So are we dishonestly including selectively bred crop species in the definition of "GMO", the way Con Agra and Monstano are desperate to do in order to dilute the meaning of the term, or are we sticking to the original and intended definition of GMO, which is plantae with genes from animalia spliced in via laboratory muckery?

Just wanted to check ahead because if it's the former you have less than zero credibility, OP.

Not how it works at all.  It inhibits the Shikimic acid pathway and prevents the plant from making and using needed amino acids so the plants eventually die.  Glyphosate is rapidly absorbed by the soil and not released and therefore has no true residual activity.  Where did you get this pathogen idea?

"Food inc" was about as truthful as a documentary, as anything Michael Moore has produced...matter of fact, Moore is probably a little more accurate in his drivel.

The Organic assholes,realized that they had to conduct a smear campaign, and provide the 98% of folks that don't have a damn clue, with disinformation, misinformation, and lies, in order for their fraud to work.

It looks like you took the bait.

Want healthy food? Garden your own fruits and vegetables. Case closed.

that viewpoint is actually rather rare in environmental leftism.  those guys tend to get the most attention, but it's because they're few and far between.  the prevailing view among hardcore environmentalists (as opposed to celebrities-with-causes or college kids looking for a way to get back at daddy) is that neo-malthusian overpopulation logic is fundamentally wrong.

in short, the standard claim is that there is no problem of supply--the problem is distributional inequity.  their reasoning ties in with the standard laundry list of marxist talking points, and overpopulation runs completely counter to that line of thought.

i haven't seen that documentary, so i won't dispute you on that.  what makes me chuckle is how the organic food market is perceived.  it isn't "fraud".  for lack of a better term, you're talking about a marketing campaign--it's no different than watching an infomercial.  in most cases, it's just designed to drive up demand for products labeled 'organic'.

IOW, capitalism in action.

One of the grower seminar speakers on soil, herbicides and carryover a couple years back, described the inhibiting action in that manner.
"Life soil"...or "Soil life, agronomic consulting", or something like that. Lots of good info on Mychors, and soil content, so no reason to doubt the guy.
The way I understand it, is the action is indirect, and the pathogen is responsible.

Either way, unless you're a plant or a microbe, it's not going to effect anything.

No, it's Fraud.

If they were selling pet rocks with the disinformation, fear mongering, and slander based marketing, it would be plain old capitalism.
The problem is, they are putting crusty dog terds in the box, and not rocks.
90%+ of the shit with an Organic label on it, doesn't even meet their own std., and a LOT of it won't meet std. for conventional production. AKA FRAUD.

When the USDA busts one of the largest suppliers of "Organic" soils and nutrients, for selling contaminated materials, to several thousand "Organic" producers,
and not one of those producers gets decertified by the third party auditors or the USDA directly, you absolutely have Fraud.

When there is a "Organic" grower, working a small farm that 30 years ago was a low spot, filled with river dredging muck taken from 3/4 mile downstream of a now gone paper factory.... it's "Fraud". (Yes, the Hippies have been told by us old coots, that remember the paper mill and the dredging in the early 70's.)

When the Chinese can import produce with an "Organic" label, and third party audits are done by the Chinese...it's on a level of fraud only Moonies, and Tom Cruise can understand.

If you get moment loose from your studies, and like a good read.http://www.examiner.com/article/is-it-organic-a-book-review

There is such a thing as roundup resistant alfalfa.

You don't spray it 'prior to feeding' except to kill weeds in the field & make better feed for the livestock.

There are way, way too many people on the planet.

It's at the point of being ridiculous.

If a product is labeled as 'non-GMO' there would HAVE to be a tolerance level of GM built in the label as an acceptable quantity because it is absolutely impossible to guarantee 100% non-GMO in an openly pollinated plant that has GMO types grown anywhere within 100 miles of it.

Non-GMO is, in my opinion, is fear mongering & charging a premium for something that isn't there & is basically impossible to even be there. I tried growing non-GMO corn & soybeans for the premiums back when GM grains first came out. You can do all you can to preserve genetic purity, but you just can't stop nature from doing what nature does & that is insuring genetic diversity by winds & insects distributing pollen (In this case- GM pollen) to my 'non-GM' fields. Hell, the seed company's can't even keep seed pure. I had to replant a field of 'non-GMO corn once. Sprayed the field with roundup to kill what was there, first. I had live plants still in the field after the real non-GM plants were dead. That proved to me, right there, that the seed hadn't been genetically pure. Off types had got in the bag or there had been cross pollinating in the seed field. Either way, there was no way I could guarantee genetic purity of what I was selling after that & that was WAY before GM was as widespread as it is now.

What would really bother me is what I would be getting when I laid my good money down for 'non-GM' products. The reason we use GM crops is REDUCE the amount of chemical applied to the crop, especially the insecticides. If I were to buy a few ears of non-GM sweet corn, for instance, I'd rather what I was buying was infested with worms than not. Because a lot of homeopathic aren't subject to EPA review, you have absolutely no idea what may have been applied to those ears if there aren't any bugs there. With GM sweet corn I have absolutely no fear whatsoever of feeding my grand kids a clean, safe, pesticide free food.

I said it the way I did because we were actually applying it directly to the weeds because the weeds and the crop are a broadleaf. So we hook up hand wands and hoses to our sprayer and have 8 people walk behind and spray only the weeds because the chemical will kill the crop as well.

But some stuff we sprayed last week was at 1qt/acre of Makaze, which is similar to round-up. We spray with a 90ft boom and a 1500gal tank at and our goal is to run out the tank on a typical 130-135 acre field, which is about 11gal/acre.

So for 11 gallons of water there is a whole quart of chemical and then that is applied over a 43560 sq ft area.

I use it as a salad dressing.  Yum.