Why is that when someone reads a conspiracy story on a dodgy website they always feel the need to receive affirmation from others by getting us to waste our time too?
Glyphosate has been a very useful tool in agriculture, however the health costs are high in the long term, and the results of the near universal usage of this pesticide are now becoming evident.
Glyphosate is not the only devil, there are many other pesticides in regular use perhaps worse in the long term to be similarly avoided.
Pesticides in particular Glyphosate directly inhibit the bodily processes involved in detoxification and this can ultimately lead to systemic toxic overload, resulting in autoimmune conditions and consequent oxidative damage.
According to individual metabolism there may be a tipping point where input rate exceeds the bodies ability to break down and eliminate pesticide derived toxins and byproducts, causing a feedback loop of sorts and this curve can be logarithmic.
The solution is to break that chain by avoiding 'empty'/toxic processed foods, and rely on 'live' foods.
We require 'life energy' in addition to the mineral/calorific content of foods, and the only way to get it is to consume trusted organic plant foods.
Dan.
Glyphosate is not the only devil, there are many other pesticides in regular use perhaps worse in the long term to be similarly avoided.
Pesticides in particular Glyphosate directly inhibit the bodily processes involved in detoxification and this can ultimately lead to systemic toxic overload, resulting in autoimmune conditions and consequent oxidative damage.
According to individual metabolism there may be a tipping point where input rate exceeds the bodies ability to break down and eliminate pesticide derived toxins and byproducts, causing a feedback loop of sorts and this curve can be logarithmic.
The solution is to break that chain by avoiding 'empty'/toxic processed foods, and rely on 'live' foods.
We require 'life energy' in addition to the mineral/calorific content of foods, and the only way to get it is to consume trusted organic plant foods.
Dan.
Who needs conspiracy theories when it's real?
These things happen all the time, nothing new about it. It's just the old "lets just shovel this in a big pile under that tiny rug and hope noone will notice it" procedure all over again.
If you prefer National Geographic:
What Do We Really Know About Roundup Weed Killer?
On wikipedia there is a lot of information about it, I subjectively note that most information about toxicity is very carefully worded, and several studies are not quoted, but anyone gets to have a say on wikipedia, even the editors that sit in some marketing department of some random company. So ofcourse there will be some words that are a bit rounded off
"A 2014 review article reported a significant association between B-cell lymphoma and glyphosate occupational exposure.[11] In March 2015, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic in humans" (category 2A) based on epidemiological studies, animal studies, and in vitro studies.[9][12][13] However, in 2016 a joint meeting of the United Nations (FAO) Panel of Experts on Pesticide Residues in Food and the Environment and the World Health Organization Core Assessment Group on Pesticide Residues concluded that based on the available evidence "glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet".[16]"
And also:
"EFSA's decision and the BfR report were criticized in an open letter published by 96 scientists in November 2015 saying that the BfR report failed to adhere to accepted scientific principles of open and transparent procedures.[124][125] The BfR report included unpublished data, lacked authorship, omitted references, and did not disclose conflict-of-interest information.[125]
On April 4, 2016, Dr. Vytenis Andriukaitis, European Commissioner for Health and Food Safety, wrote an open letter to the Chair of the Board of the Glyphosate Task at Monsanto Europe asking to publish the full studies provided to the EFSA.[126]"
It is very obvious if you read a few studies about various subjects that the results of the study depends on who financed said study. Nothing new under the sun. If you pay scientists to reach a conclusion they will find the criteria to do so, this is capitalism in practice. If the scientists still find something troublesome, they write it in the study and it gets buried under legal disclaimers, a new study is financed under new criteria to try and find the best results possible.
1+1= any number you would like it to be pending on the definition of 1, the + and the =
Edit:
Nothing new at all about this, happens in medical studies constantly. Heck, anywhere they have enough virtual cash flow there is bound to be some minds that are willing to hide a few piles of dirt to increase turnover.
These things happen all the time, nothing new about it. It's just the old "lets just shovel this in a big pile under that tiny rug and hope noone will notice it" procedure all over again.
If you prefer National Geographic:
What Do We Really Know About Roundup Weed Killer?
On wikipedia there is a lot of information about it, I subjectively note that most information about toxicity is very carefully worded, and several studies are not quoted, but anyone gets to have a say on wikipedia, even the editors that sit in some marketing department of some random company. So ofcourse there will be some words that are a bit rounded off
"A 2014 review article reported a significant association between B-cell lymphoma and glyphosate occupational exposure.[11] In March 2015, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic in humans" (category 2A) based on epidemiological studies, animal studies, and in vitro studies.[9][12][13] However, in 2016 a joint meeting of the United Nations (FAO) Panel of Experts on Pesticide Residues in Food and the Environment and the World Health Organization Core Assessment Group on Pesticide Residues concluded that based on the available evidence "glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet".[16]"
And also:
"EFSA's decision and the BfR report were criticized in an open letter published by 96 scientists in November 2015 saying that the BfR report failed to adhere to accepted scientific principles of open and transparent procedures.[124][125] The BfR report included unpublished data, lacked authorship, omitted references, and did not disclose conflict-of-interest information.[125]
On April 4, 2016, Dr. Vytenis Andriukaitis, European Commissioner for Health and Food Safety, wrote an open letter to the Chair of the Board of the Glyphosate Task at Monsanto Europe asking to publish the full studies provided to the EFSA.[126]"
It is very obvious if you read a few studies about various subjects that the results of the study depends on who financed said study. Nothing new under the sun. If you pay scientists to reach a conclusion they will find the criteria to do so, this is capitalism in practice. If the scientists still find something troublesome, they write it in the study and it gets buried under legal disclaimers, a new study is financed under new criteria to try and find the best results possible.
1+1= any number you would like it to be pending on the definition of 1, the + and the =
Edit:
Nothing new at all about this, happens in medical studies constantly. Heck, anywhere they have enough virtual cash flow there is bound to be some minds that are willing to hide a few piles of dirt to increase turnover.
Last edited:
I have no desire to consume large amounts of glysophate so I am pleased that GM food is largely absent from the UK.
However,
However,
contains the same bad science as conspiracy websites. There is an argument for organic food, but this isn't it.Max Headroom said:
DF96:
I agree.
I believe we should just skip the whole tending and eating plants and beasts thing and decrease the scale: grow algae, bacteria and fungii in growth tanks. No more weeding and feeding 🙂
There's so much micro plastic being consumed or going through the gills of fish that have so small particles it penetrates the meat, and the same thing happens in humans.
Microplastics and the Threat to Our Seafood : Ocean Health Index
It's not propaganda or conspiracy theories, we did this to ourselves, we as a race should start owning up to our mistakes.
I agree.
I believe we should just skip the whole tending and eating plants and beasts thing and decrease the scale: grow algae, bacteria and fungii in growth tanks. No more weeding and feeding 🙂
There's so much micro plastic being consumed or going through the gills of fish that have so small particles it penetrates the meat, and the same thing happens in humans.
Microplastics and the Threat to Our Seafood : Ocean Health Index
It's not propaganda or conspiracy theories, we did this to ourselves, we as a race should start owning up to our mistakes.
Come back when you are 105 and we'll see if you were right!
DF96: Roundup is a weedkiller, nothing to do with Monsanto's GM crops division.
You may convince someone else, but not me. They are still painting a very pretty picture regarding Glyphosate:
https://monsanto.com/company/media/statements/glyphosate-herbicide/
Their view on "pessimistic studies" is a very interesting, maybe even amusing, read:
https://monsanto.com/company/media/statements/glyphosate-report-response/
My personal view is more along the lines of:
If it can kill plants, it's most likely not good for any animal, if it can have any sort of negative effect at all on any animal better stay far away from it. We are no different from animals, just look to the food chain, it's just about being smarter than your food, the sheep are smarter than grass, the wolves are smarter than sheep. Whoever is at the top gets to store the most heavy metals and carcinogenics consumed by species lower in the chain.
I'm in damage control/restoration after too much occupational exposure.
Monsanto in Roundup uniquely combines POEA surfactant with Glyphosate and POEA is a multiplying devil in the equation.
Many GM foods are designed to withstand weed control Glyphosate application during the growing cycle, resulting in higher retained levels of Glyphosate and other pesticides.
There is much more to the whole story.
Dan.
I can't get to the citations in the original article, so I consider it dubious at best.
On the other hand, I agree that pesticides and herbicides are not a good thing to consume.
On the other hand, I agree that pesticides and herbicides are not a good thing to consume.
Not to disagree, but recently in reading I've come across three or four indigenous native foods from different cultures that are quite harmful if not eaten at certain stages of their growth, some even where it's not trivial to tell.
It's pretty obvious right now all one can practice is damage control and buy as smart as you can. It's too easy to attack some aspects of the organic food movement as dilettantism for the elite. For instance the cost of organic grass fed beef raised here in New England is 3 to 4X what you pay for industrial midwest beef. My wife didn't read the label carefully enough on our last Christmas roast, nice looking dry aged rib roast from a place that usually has grass fed but for Christmas brought in standard corn fed ultra marbled at a special price. 2/3 of it went in the bin ($$🙁) it even made my dog sick.
BTW Max from what I read the Kiwis are very progressive on the food front.
Last edited:
There are lots of 'cures'/supplements/advice with dubious claims, but not to discount them all.
Yes although it's not so obvious to many, but awareness is increasing.
At the organic store I buy from, organic meats here are generally 50-100% more than standard meats.
Organic veges are mostly same price as supermarket, some +50%.
I find there is no comparison for taste and wholesomeness/feel good factor, and the price differential is actually cheap for the benefits.
thelittlebigstore - growers
Dan.
Last edited:
Too crunchy. We can have a lot of reservations about how food is produced, but can we at least first move past mouth breathing articles with the loosest grip on biochemistry and on to more nuanced discussion that highlights the complexity of the situation?
Irony of which is that most organic farming practices use far more dangerous compounds that persist even past washing. But two wrongs don't make a right.
Irony of which is that most organic farming practices use far more dangerous compounds that persist even past washing. But two wrongs don't make a right.
Cool. We get 3 doz eggs/mo. along with a whole mix of meat steaks as well as heart, shanks, etc. by paying a fixed "share the risk" amount with a group of local farmers once a year. The eggs are all sizes some perfectly round, brown, green, blue, way different than the uniform store bought ones.
Well there are at least two schools the one that simply wants to skirt the letter of the law and coopt the agenda and those that really care. I do take deference to your use of "most" without some evidence. There are totally non interventionist farms that don't use any "compounds" except their own compost/blood (maybe some horn silica 🙂) and you take what you get no compromise. Volunteers walk the fields picking off the bugs at times. Of course they get accused more often of dilettantism. The nice fat worm only eats the dry kernels off the end of the cob and the fact that he is nice and lively is a good sign.
Last edited:
Water is "TOXIC". You just need to drink enough of it in a certain period of time. This fact does not stop some accidental deaths from WATER! I say we ban water immediately.
Anyway, what kind of person actually eats Ritz crackers?
Anyway, what kind of person actually eats Ritz crackers?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.