.
This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:37 AM
Continuing on with this silliness. GMO.
This message was edited May 2, 2013 6:58 AM
This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:39 AM
The research on the impacts of Roundup and GMOs on longterm health seems to be burgeoning these days. Here's another recent study:
http://nobull.mikecallicrate.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/GlyModern-diseaseSamsel-Seneff-13.pdf
This message was edited May 2, 2013 6:59 AM
WR - I agree with you on this:
Quoting:
If you don't like a particular company, don't buy their stock or their products... that is your choice & your loss.
But when every bite of food I put in my mouth comes from the same source, and is laced with poisons - where do I go?
And if the information on the label does not state that the food has been genetically engineered, and I choose not to eat GE food - how can I choose?
Mike Callicrate may have reposted the article but he didn't write it. The research was conducted by scientists who published it in what I assume is a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Just because I quote you and you don't agree with my philosophy or credits doesn't mean you're wrong.
This makes a good read about the myths and truths of GMO's
http://www.nongmoproject.org/learn-more/gmo-myths-and-truths/
This message was edited May 2, 2013 7:02 AM
Honeybee, that's a great article. Thanks! I posted it on Facebook.
Honey,
I opened the link you posted and just from perusing the introductory, it is certainly not the place to look for Truth.
They openly state that Earth Open Source, and John Fagan, are very much against GMOs, and the biggest print of the title page is DONATIONS, so with that foundation, no one should expect to find any un biased truth.
Ernie
This message was edited May 2, 2013 7:01 AM
This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:39 AM
Quote from greenhouse_gal :
...
And here's an example of the research and findings that are out there on the subject of Roundup alone, not GMOs - and GMOs permit much higher levels of Roundup to be applied on crops that we eat:
There are many scientific studies showing that glyphosate and the additives in Roundup are toxic to
human cells. Below is a list of those most pertinent to this discussion.
In 2004, Marc et al. reported that glyphosate-based pesticides cause cell-cycle dysfunction that leads to development of cancer.
In 2009 Gasnier et al. published an article in the journal Toxicology citing evidence that glyphosate based (G-based) herbicides are endocrine disruptors in human cells. They reported toxic effects to livercells “at 5 ppm [parts per million], and the first endocrine disrupting actions at 0.5 ppm, which is 800 times lower than the level authorized in some food or feed (400 ppm, USEPA, 1998). ... In conclusion, according to these data and the literature, G-based herbicides present DNA damages ... on human cells.”
In 2012 Koller et al. reported that glyphosate and its formulation (Roundup) is toxic to cells,
particularly organ cells, and exhibits DNA-damaging properties “after short exposure to concentrations
that correspond to a 450-fold dilution of spraying used in agriculture.” What is often overlooked is the role of “inert” ingredients in glyphosate formulations like Roundup, which have been found to amplify glyphosate toxicity.
In 2005, Richard et al. reported that “glyphosate is toxic to human placental JEG3 cells within 18 hr
with concentrations lower than those found with agricultural use, and this effect increases with
concentration and time or in the presence of Roundup adjuvants. Surprisingly, Roundup is always more toxic than its active ingredient. ... We conclude that endocrine and toxic effects of Roundup, not just glyphosate, can be observed in mammals.”
In 2012, Mesnage et al. reported, “This study demonstrates that all the glyphosate-based herbicides
tested are more toxic than glyphosate alone ... The formulated herbicides (including Roundup) can
affect all living cells, especially human cells. Among them, POE-15 clearly appears to be the most
toxic principle against human cells, ... We demonstrate in addition that POE-15 induces necrosis when
its first micellization process occurs, by contrast to glyphosate which is known to promote endocrine
disrupting effects after entering cells.”
Data Sources:
Diabetes incidence data: CDC
Diabetes prevalence data: CDC
ESRD data: U.S. Renal Data System
Blood pressure data: CDC
Obesity data: CDC
Acute Kidney Injury: National Kidney and Urologic Diseases Information Clearinghouse (NKUDIC) a
service of NIH (public domain).
Cancer data: National Cancer Institute-Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)
SEER 9 areas (San Francisco, Connecticut, Detroit, Hawaii, Iowa, New Mexico, Seattle, Utah, and
Atlanta).
Rates are per 100,000 and are age-adjusted to the 2000 US Std Population (19 age groups - Census
P25-1130).
Glyphosate: USDA:NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)
Percent GE corn & soy data:
1996-1999 data: USDA Agricultural Economic Report No. (AER-810) 67 pp, May 2002
2000-2012 data: USDA:NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service
This message was edited Apr 27, 2013 8:11 AM
Can you add which journals these came from , or some other way I can find the source text? The claim about "5 ppm" would be very interesting if borne out.
I'm finding some sources that say "Glyphosphate is even less toxic than the detergents ("adjuvents") included in the Roundup formulation to get it through waxy coatings on leaves", and other sources that imply POE-15 (polyethoxylated tallowamine) is significantly toxic in the real world. But the methodology may well be tissue culture, as far as I can tell so far, which is 80-90% a strawman argument.
If there is any substance to this , and not just: "LOOK, I know how to kill or transform cells in plastic!", it would make sense to use detergents that are not toxic to humans and livestock after entering the plant.
I'm curious to know whether these stidies are just tissue culture studies where chemicals are added to naked cells in plastic, or address issues like the detergent being metabolised in the plant and gut. My limited and out-of-date exoeirence with tissue culture is that, yes, almost AN YTHING will kill or damage cells in tissue culture.
Getting glasware clean enough that it doesn't kill them is REALLY HARD, and the cytotoxic effect of soap and detergent is huge. We washed and rinsed things, then had a process where we re-rinsed something like seven more times using de-ionized water, then steam-distilled water, then glass-distilled water.
I'm not throwing away every tissue-culture study in the world. Those are what you use when you can't measure the cytotoxicity any other way, but you're looki9ng for clues to HOW they might affec t cells in ways too subtle to see in whole organisms. But they call it CYTOtoxicity when it only harms naked cells, not whole organisms.
P.S. I on ly read a few pages of the first article you gave a link to. He started invoking unknowable interactions with "other" environmental pollutants even BEFORE he got around to his methods and results, let alone conclusions. Thast's the kiind of unprovable thing you say when you didn't get any real results but need some buzzwords to sound alarming. Science is about observation, not smokescreens.
His entitlement to a presumed lack of bias went away after the 4th or 5th invocation of "Western diet" in what purported to be a scientific paper about Cytochorme P-450. Science is about observation, not preaching. For me to continue to assume someone is unbiased, they have to pretend better than he did. Geeze! At least do your propagandizing in a different journal than you publish your results in ! Then only people who are paying CLOSE attention know your bias. If you preach where you publish, every reader knows your partisan bias. It's exactly like publishin g in the Monsanto-Pangloss Journal of Optimimistic Results (just on the other side).
It is so easy to 'conclude' BS or 'prove' BS with any one study, that the first and most important precondition is an impartial observer. That's hard to do even when you're trying, but when your motive is to bash "Western diet" and scare people, not learn something, I have to wonder if he's even trying.
Just to lighten up this thread. http://news.yahoo.com/comics/the-sunshine-club-slideshow/
Nice, Farmerdill.
Farmer,
Good Comic Strip, But i miss the Common sense that Pogo had so much of.
Ernie
Agreed, I still use Pogo's expression "we have met the enemy and he is us" expression to describe the condition of this country.
Farmer,
That is a coincidence. I frequently use that same expression, giving credit to Pogo, when people start blaming "They" or "Them" for the mess our Country finds itself in now.
Ernie
The most depressing thing I can think of to say about government is that democracy assures we seldom get leaders who are MUCH better than we deserve.
But I prefer to blame campaign financing laws!
Farmerdill, that's one of my 2 favorite quotes from Pogo.
The other is:
"Adults. Who do they think they is, anyway?"
"Us"
Rick,
It is not the campaign finance laws, it is not Them, or They, it is US, WE elect those people.
The best bullshooter usually gets the girl, and the best bullshooter wins the elections. And it is WE, THE PEOPLE that believe them, and vote for them.
Ernie
Actually we tend to elect representatives who promise to give us what we want. It is OUR wants that are killing us. We all have our hands out shouting gimme gimmie. gimmie.
All of the above, including Pogo.
I saw it in hardware stores: Grossmans went out of business because people want to buy cheaper ... now we have junky hardware stores.
Wal-Mart dmeands lower prices from its suppliers, so they make 'special editions' to sell to Wal-Mart. They ain't HIGHER quality.
I suppoe its the same thing with politicians. If we don't recognize or value quality (integrity), we get what we ask for. There seems to be no shortage of people and companies able and willing to pander to our lowest natures.
If what we got is what we want, we are too much bottom feeders then.
No matter what we get Indy, we always want more.
Farmer,l
To finish your sentence.......we always want more",;;;;;;"for less money and effort".
What I was referring to was the politicians 'we want'.
Our Reps in the House, and our Senators are supposed to represent us. When is the last time one of them called you to ask how they should vote on your behalf?
Mine are famous for calls and emails. The rep was particularly obnoxious for making robo calls at suppertime. They are not usually interested in my opinion, but really want to gauge which way the band is marching so they can get in front and lead it. In essence they are conducting a poll and fishing for votes. Lobbying groups are worse. Just got a big thick letter for AARP wanting me to send petitions to my congressmen supporting their position on social security and medicare. I get mail and calls from veterans groups, environmental groups etc. Even locally some group is always lobbying for thier position on something. Congressmen do respond to the loudest hue and cry or as we use to say the squeeky wheel gets the grease. Years ago I was guilty of trying to change the world to my perspective, but I out grew it during the Lyndon Johnson era.
farmerdill,
That reminds me of what Senator Douglas from Illinois said many years ago, "When I was young, I wanted to save the world. Later I wanted to save my country. Later yet, I wanted to save Illinois. Now that I am old, I just want to save the dunes [Indiana Dunes Lakeshore.]!
Farmerdill - I had my land-line phone disconnected because I got tired of all the robo dialed calls. I have a Jitterbug phone - $18.48 (including tax, etc.) per month and no unwanted calls.
Honeybee, I got rid of my land line too, as did my sis who lives in the other side of this house, partly for the same reasons. I also wish I could figure how to stop the spam emails!
We each bought a MagicJack with a year of service (unlimited US calls) for $39.95 (each). Saved $900 between us vs. Comcast telephone bills for the year. The MagicJack works well for her PC, but they don't support the Mac platform very much. She bought an additional 5 years' service (unlimited US calls) for around $100, and thankfully I declined for mine. Since I have many problems with the MJ because they don't support Macs very well, I may opt out and look for something else.
I got rid of my AT&T landline and now have have that same number for an internet phone with Ooma. The initial cost was $180 but monthly bills are less than $4. I could add there premium service for an additional $10/month.
back40bean, I bought an Ooma unit in Dec., but returned it. They said it would accommodate 2 lines, but the cost to add an additional, separate line (only found out after we got it) was ridiculous, and even included buying a special phone. (Their "2 lines" are like land lines with call waiting, NOT 2 separate numbers, which is what we needed.)
Later today I'm getting a CapTel phone from the Virginia Dept. for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (it has a screen showing the text much like close-captioning on TV). I don't know if the CapTel phone will work with my MJ, so I may need to change service regardless of price.
And you must have an internet connection for the phone to work, but it's been great for me. I only need the one line and calls are free within the usa.
back40bean, there are LOTS of VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) services now, and pricing varies. I had Vonnage for a while, no initial investment but higher monthly costs. The cost to use the internet for calls is about the cost of emails, yet many of the VOIP services want an arm/leg for it.
Magic Jack is the cheapest at $40/year, but they just don't support my Mac platform much. I don't know if the Ooma would have been any better because I sent it back when we discovered their "2 lines" didn't really mean 2 different telephone numbers.
I know we've hijacked this thread... but that happens when folks talk!
This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:40 AM
Bernie, the thing about GMO talk is that neither side will willingly reduce our stance.
You could say the same for ex-smokers vs current smokers. Or Republicans and Democrats, Catholics and Protestants, yada, yada...
Mac vs. PC .
Ford vs. Chevy
Organic vs. fertilizer