# New Monsanto Commercial



## cntrywmnkw (Jun 5, 2013)

Have any of you other folks out there seen the new Monsanto commercials? I just started seeing them starting after Jan. 1. I got so angry & upset at seeing them I almost put a round into the tv. They show very peaceful & nice scenes of people sitting down around a picture perfect dinner table & close-ups of perfect chicken & vegetables, then show scenes of cattle grazing in a pasture & fields of grains & vegetables, paleeze, makes me sick: facepalm: Another one is showing the same things, but has a website at the bottom & says "join the monsanto conversation, um no, they don't want to hear my comments. Unfortunately, 95% of people have NO clue about monsanto & it's evils.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

A few of their paid spokesmen will be along shortly to tell you how wonderful and benevolent Monsanto is...


----------



## Lazy J (Jan 2, 2008)

Helping feed the US and the world's growing population.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Yes nothing wrong with that.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Why Is Monsanto Evil, But DuPont Isn't Or how about ADM they are not either? They ALL make chemicals that are used in the growing and production of food for the world. And there are other companies as well. Cargill, or Conagra? And there are plenty more as well Cargill and others makes feeds for cattle and horses.~! You chew gum? Monsanto pretty much has a hand in all of them. LOL


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

We live in a, mostly, capitalistic nation. If you don't like them then don't support them and don't buy their products nor any goods produced with their products. If enough people do this then they will either change or go out of business.


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

watcher said:


> We live in a, mostly, capitalistic nation. If you don't like them then don't support them and don't buy their products nor any goods produced with their products. If enough people do this then they will either change or go out of business.


If the government would allow packaging to say what had GMO in it, it would be easier to on buy things that don't support them. Big corporate money talks in Washington, not the will of the people.


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

dont forget they got their very own federal law protecting them.


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)




----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Well since the majority of Americans are consuming some derivative of a GMO grain every time they come together at the dinner table, that commercial reflects reality. 

Why is this one particular company the "boogeyman" for everything that everyone doesn't like about commercial agriculture? It's not reasonable or logical, it comes off like a phobia.

How many times we gonna talk about the labeling???? Get a clue. It's not just what is printed on the label, it's the whole system of handling the crops and the after-products that would have to be changed so the GMO could be segregated and the label would actually MEAN something. The claims on the label have to be substantiated and verifiable. When you are talking about fleets of trucks and whole trains of grain, food processing plants, etc., this is no small undertaking. The cost to add "contains GMO ingredients" and would be significant.

There are more choices available every day for "alternative" food products. I remember when, if you wanted organics, you either produced it yourself or found the hippies selling it at the swap meet! Now there are organics in every grocery store and even chains like Whole Foods to support that movement. Yet the whining about it just continues to increase in volume.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

One can either like, or not like a Corporation, but getting angry over one, just does not seem healthy, IMO.

If nobody wanted Monsanto products, they'd been out business a long time ago.

I miss the days, when the Right picked on General Motors.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> One can either like, or not like a Corporation, but getting angry over one, just does not seem healthy, IMO.
> 
> If nobody wanted Monsanto products, they'd been out business a long time ago.
> 
> I miss the days, when the Right picked on General Motors.


I still pick on them! And all the others too! I will admit my favorite car is a GM product. It was made in 1966 tho! My GMC big truck is mostly a pile of ill fitting junk plastic!


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

IF you don't like what is out there grow your own. Isn't that what homesteading is all about. I can buy anything I want organic, why don't the Non GMO growers label their own instead of wanting everyone to do it for them. We had an organic farm for over 10 years in the 80's early 90's and labeled and sold it ourselves. I never grew anything GMO but it wasn't the in thing then either. I guess organic isn't good enough any more. Seems many think like Obama, no one wants to build anything themselves, they just want to tear down what others have done. So, you want something, build it. Make Non GMO what organic used to be, or whatever the new fad is, or going to be, next...James


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

cntrywmnkw said:


> Have any of you other folks out there seen the new Monsanto commercials? I just started seeing them starting after Jan. 1. I got so angry & upset at seeing them I almost put a round into the tv. They show very peaceful & nice scenes of people sitting down around a picture perfect dinner table & close-ups of perfect chicken & vegetables, then show scenes of cattle grazing in a pasture & fields of grains & vegetables, paleeze, makes me sick: facepalm: Another one is showing the same things, but has a website at the bottom & says "join the monsanto conversation, um no, they don't want to hear my comments. Unfortunately, 95% of people have NO clue about monsanto & it's evils.


There is no monsanto chicken or vegetables. No monsanto cattle. No monsanto pasture grasses. There are a few monsanto grain crops, a few dupont grain crops a few bayer grain crops. What is so upsetting about this so far? I do not know why the anger issues? explain better maybe, rather than just saying you are angry, tell us why, otherwise we have no idea. Inform us please?

How do you know they don't wish to hear your comments? They are opening the lines of communication, they obviously are not scared of scientific debate, and feel they can back themselves up. Are you informed enough about the company to go toe to toe with them? Because if you are, go ahead. If you actually know the issues, and can argue them with grace, knowledge, and scientific basis, why would they not want to hear your comments? If your comments are founded in science, and proof of evil doings, why not expose them for what you say they are?

Unfortunately, 95% of people have no idea about Monsanto period. Or farming, for that matter If they did, they would not be so angry and paranoid.

Tell us about the evils. I am very curious how one company, among MANY, which are all doing the same thing, is evil...

Is Bayer evil too? Dupont? Dekalb? Nufarm? Dow?


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

Forgot. Even though I detested the farcical show known as Food, Inc., I never got angry enough to want to shoot my TV. I found it utterly amusing and hilarious as a farmer...

Like, that show should be on the Comedy Network. Seriously... lol.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

> it would be easier to on buy things that don't support them


It couldn't be any easier, the govt has provided you with a label to look for it's called organic.


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

jwal10 said:


> IF you don't like what is out there grow your own. Isn't that what homesteading is all about. I can buy anything I want organic, why don't the Non GMO growers label their own instead of wanting everyone to do it for them. We had an organic farm for over 10 years in the 80's early 90's and labeled and sold it ourselves. I never grew anything GMO but it wasn't the in thing then either. I guess organic isn't good enough any more. Seems many think like Obama, no one wants to build anything themselves, they just want to tear down what others have done. So, you want something, build it. Make Non GMO what organic used to be, or whatever the new fad is, or going to be, next...James


Thank you for your post!! You say it very well.

The organic label has been around for a while but I am starting to see the words "Non-GMO" showing up on some packaging. I have a feeling we'll see more of it in years to come.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Thats fine for some to do that, but lets not make it a Government LAW to do so. Voluntary nothing wrong with that. It is called Choice in what companies Choose to do. If companies want to add that label and charge accordingly, fine.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

I am in no way anti-corporation, but Monsanto is evil. It's that simple.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Why are they so evil and not those others? Seems to me it is just picking on the big guy just because they have deep pockets. Well hate to break it to ya, but those others have just as deep pockets.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

BlackFeather said:


> If the government would allow packaging to say what had GMO in it, it would be easier to on buy things that don't support them. Big corporate money talks in Washington, not the will of the people.



Does your government have regulations agains labelling products that contain GMO or are you saying you want regulations requiring such?

I'm of the opinion that if North America insist on massive quantities of cheap food, they're going to sacrifice quality in favour of quantity. 

I'm also of the opinion that as long as North Americans are prepared to sacrifice farmland to satisfy urban sprawl, less acres are available to produce that cheap food supply.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

JJ Grandits said:


> I am in no way anti-corporation, but Monsanto is evil. It's that simple.


Explain. Why won't someone explain why Monsanto is evil using some factual science from a normal reputable, scientific source or paper? 

Is Dow evil? Bayer? 

I think some of us are waiting for the why. The reason that is not forthcoming.


----------



## partndn (Jun 18, 2009)

farmerDale said:


> Explain. Why won't someone explain why Monsanto is evil using some factual science from a normal reputable, scientific source or paper?
> 
> Is Dow evil? Bayer?
> 
> I think some of us are waiting for the why. The reason that is not forthcoming.


Wait all you want. It's been done hundreds of times here, and you disagree. 

Yes, Dow and the rest are bad too. Big ag, altogether. Monster is mentioned more than any other because they have the largest lobby and most money influence with law makers, FDA, USDA, and the other crooks.

This ain't a tell my why thread. Start your own or go bump up one of the old, tired ones if you want to refresh the why's. 

Forget scientific examples or reasons why people don't like Moneysanto and others. It's very simple. People who value freedom tend to be bothered when money controls gov, and gov controls your choices. Those who value freedom less will never be satisfied with proofs or facts, even if they claim to desire such.

It seems the OP said they were disgusted with the image and message portrayed in the commercials, and I completely agree. Psychological tools to the mass sheep, and unfortunately, quite successful.


----------



## cntrywmnkw (Jun 5, 2013)

Thank you partndn. I was merely trying to mention these new commercials being aired in which Monsanto is trying to portray themselves as these great benefactors of humanity. As far as research & reports, look up Natural News, a link was posted by one of the people on this forum. I only mentioned Monsanto, because that is the ONLY commercial that I've seen. 

As for those of you who asked, I DO homestead, I raise my own heirloom vegetables & herbs, I raise chickens for eggs & meat, the reason I do, is because I wanted to know EXACTLY what was going into the food I ate & how my animals are being treated. My hens are NOT confined, they have access to 5 acres plus their coop that they are put in at night, they also have a 14 x 35 covered run that they can go in as well. My garden is fertilized with the manure from my goats & chickens, not chemicals.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

BlackFeather said:


> If the government would allow packaging to say what had GMO in it, it would be easier to on buy things that don't support them. Big corporate money talks in Washington, not the will of the people.


It is allowed. I think what you would like is for it to be required.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

cntrywmnkw said:


> Thank you partndn. I was merely trying to mention these new commercials being aired in which Monsanto is trying to portray themselves as these great benefactors of humanity. As far as research & reports, look up Natural News, a link was posted by one of the people on this forum. I only mentioned Monsanto, because that is the ONLY commercial that I've seen.
> 
> As for those of you who asked, I DO homestead, I raise my own heirloom vegetables & herbs, I raise chickens for eggs & meat, the reason I do, is because I wanted to know EXACTLY what was going into the food I ate & how my animals are being treated. My hens are NOT confined, they have access to 5 acres plus their coop that they are put in at night, they also have a 14 x 35 covered run that they can go in as well. My garden is fertilized with the manure from my goats & chickens, not chemicals.


Are there not chemicals in your animal manure? Just saying! lol. Nitrogen from manure, and nitrogen from urea is exactly the same to the soil and the plants. 

I guess I just don't get the anger. I will admit to that. 

I appreciate your trying to explain... Thanks.

Dale


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

jtbrandt said:


> It is allowed. I think what you would like is for it to be required.


If you were following it when it came up in congress, the majority wanted packages to state if it had GMO, Big Ag lobbied hard to get it defeated, they didn't want the people to know. Big money won out. That is the real problem, bowing to special interests because they donate a lot of money to your campaign.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

BlackFeather said:


> If you were following it when it came up in congress, the majority wanted packages to state if it had GMO, Big Ag lobbied hard to get it defeated, they didn't want the people to know. Big money won out. That is the real problem, bowing to special interests because they donate a lot of money to your campaign.


I'm not able to determine from this if you are telling me I was wrong in the post you quoted. Was I wrong? I'm not arguing one way or the other, just trying to clarify things.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

There is absolutely no need to add that kind of cost to any products that will just be passed on to the consumer. And make tons of work and add many dollars Up and Down the line for everyone on everything. See,s like many thing that all a company has to do is slap a table on that is far far from the truth. From the field to which transport products to the processing plant that HAS to at that time make sure things are separate, to trucking. Storage tanks, train cars, pipelines that carry items from one place to another, auger set ups etc.
A Whole bunch of things that are not looked at when just slap a label on a product.


----------



## unregistered41671 (Dec 29, 2009)

farmerDale said:


> Forgot. Even though I detested the farcical show known as Food, Inc., I never got angry enough to want to shoot my TV. I found it utterly amusing and hilarious as a farmer...
> 
> Like, that show should be on the Comedy Network. Seriously... lol.


I knew a guy in Venus FLA that shot his TV when "Liberace" was on one of the channels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberace


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

arabian knight said:


> There is absolutely no need to add that kind of cost to any products that will just be passed on to the consumer. And make tons of work and add many dollars Up and Down the line for everyone on everything. See,s like many thing that all a company has to do is slap a table on that is far far from the truth. From the field to which transport products to the processing plant that HAS to at that time make sure things are separate, to trucking. Storage tanks, train cars, pipelines that carry items from one place to another, auger set ups etc.
> A Whole bunch of things that are not looked at when just slap a label on a product.



The associated cost relating to those steps will be passed onto the consumer or there will be a lot of food labeled with, 'may contain GMO products,' just like packaging regarding nuts.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Why would you get angry about seeing an ad in which Monsanto tries to portray itself in a positive light? You may not like them, but at least there is a tangible argument that could be made that they are helping people- that what they do is positive. Agree with them or not, a least an argument could be made that what they are portraying is true. 

Why not save your negative energy for ads for which there is absolutely no shred of arguable truth?

Do you get angry when you see one of the "New York promotes business" ads?
Do you get angry when a Demopublican or Republicrat claims to be looking out for you?
Do you get angry when Fox runs one of its "Fair and Balanced" ads?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

cntrywmnkw said:


> Thank you partndn. I was merely trying to mention these new commercials being aired in which Monsanto is trying to portray themselves as these great benefactors of humanity. As far as research & reports, look up Natural News, a link was posted by one of the people on this forum. I only mentioned Monsanto, because that is the ONLY commercial that I've seen.
> 
> As for those of you who asked, I DO homestead, I raise my own heirloom vegetables & herbs, I raise chickens for eggs & meat, the reason I do, is because I wanted to know EXACTLY what was going into the food I ate & how my animals are being treated. My hens are NOT confined, they have access to 5 acres plus their coop that they are put in at night, they also have a 14 x 35 covered run that they can go in as well. My garden is fertilized with the manure from my goats & chickens, not chemicals.



How many goats and chickens would I have to raise to fertilize 640 acres of wheat?


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

It has something to do with playing God. Only God is merciful and they are not.


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

So you want big government to tell you it has GMO? You would believe that (them) before you would believe a group of growers telling you it does not have GMO?

....James


----------



## Lazy J (Jan 2, 2008)

JJ Grandits said:


> It has something to do with playing God. Only God is merciful and they are not.


That's the same argument used against the small pox vaccine and Galileo.


----------



## Lazy J (Jan 2, 2008)

wr said:


> How many goats and chickens would I have to raise to fertilize 640 acres of wheat?


I believe a wheat crop could utilize 2 tons of commercial layer litter every 2 years. That is 640 tons per year, 100laying hens in a commercial layer house produce about 4 tons per year. That calculates to about 16,000 hens worth of manure per year.


----------



## cntrywmnkw (Jun 5, 2013)

WOW, am I ever sorry I started this thread.

I only mentioned that I put my chicken & goat manure on MY garden, period. I NEVER said it would do large acreages. I grew up on farms. I had one uncle who had 5000 acres, he had 10-12 dairy cows we milked by hand & had several "paddocks" around the barn for the cows to "lounge" in before being turned back out to pasture. We'd rake the manure from those several paddocks up & let it "age" before we loaded it into a "honey wagon" & then take & spread THAT on the fields. We didn't have all 5000 acres in production at one time, crops were rotated & some were left fallow. My folks had a very small farm only 150 acres, but we did the same thing, only on much smaller scale, we didn't have dairy cattle, but had chickens & sheep, we raked up the sheep manure & after it had aged & used that on the fields & again we used rotational plantings & pasturing.


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

Bellyman said:


> The organic label has been around for a while but I am starting to see the words "Non-GMO" showing up on some packaging. I have a feeling we'll see more of it in years to come.


 I hope to see it right along with Organic at all the Supermakets, soon. Labels saying No GMOs used in this product, not "This product was made with GMOs". I don't think the Monsanto haters and big government people will be happy until I have NO choice....James


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

cntrywmnkw said:


> WOW, am I ever sorry I started this thread.
> 
> I only mentioned that I put my chicken & goat manure on MY garden, period. I NEVER said it would do large acreages. I grew up on farms. I had one uncle who had 5000 acres, he had 10-12 dairy cows we milked by hand & had several "paddocks" around the barn for the cows to "lounge" in before being turned back out to pasture. We'd rake the manure from those several paddocks up & let it "age" before we loaded it into a "honey wagon" & then take & spread THAT on the fields. We didn't have all 5000 acres in production at one time, crops were rotated & some were left fallow. My folks had a very small farm only 150 acres, but we did the same thing, only on much smaller scale, we didn't have dairy cattle, but had chickens & sheep, we raked up the sheep manure & after it had aged & used that on the fields & again we used rotational plantings & pasturing.


Have no regrets. Everyone has the right to an opinion, but debate is healthy. If a person feels strongly, and wants to share their thoughts, they should not feel bad to do so. This is not about quashing ideas or philosophy. It is about chatting about issues, and sharing what we know.

Don't have regrets...


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

Hi Jwal10, you should see these little butterly labels on foods...it's sometimes pretty small but should be displayed on the front of the food item. Here's a list of products: http://www.nongmoproject.org/find-non-gmo/search-participating-products/ 

http://www.nongmoproject.org/ - the general site.

From their website- "What does &#8220;Non-GMO Project Verified seal&#8221; mean?
The verification seal indicates that the product bearing the seal has gone through our verification process. Our verification is an assurance that a product has been produced according to consensus-based best practices for GMO avoidance:
&#8226;We require ongoing testing of all at-risk ingredients&#8212;any ingredient being grown commercially in GMO form must be tested prior to use in a verified product.
&#8226;We use an Action Threshold of 0.9%. This is in alignment with laws in the European Union (where any product containing more than 0.9% GMO must be labeled). Absence of all GMOs is the target for all Non-GMO Project Standard compliant products. Continuous improvement practices toward achieving this goal must be part of the Participant&#8217;s quality management systems.
&#8226;After the test, we require rigorous traceability and segregation practices to be followed in order to ensure ingredient integrity through to the finished product.
&#8226;For low-risk ingredients, we conduct a thorough review of ingredient specification sheets to determine absence of GMO risk.
&#8226;Verification is maintained through an annual audit, along with onsite inspections for high-risk products."

This will be my last post here because I know how these threads go. I'm not here to argue, just give a piece of information. I vote with my wallet and gladly spend more for foods I cannot grow myself which I feel are better for my family. Bye.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

cntrywmnkw said:


> WOW, am I ever sorry I started this thread.
> 
> I only mentioned that I put my chicken & goat manure on MY garden, period. I NEVER said it would do large acreages. I grew up on farms. I had one uncle who had 5000 acres, he had 10-12 dairy cows we milked by hand & had several "paddocks" around the barn for the cows to "lounge" in before being turned back out to pasture. We'd rake the manure from those several paddocks up & let it "age" before we loaded it into a "honey wagon" & then take & spread THAT on the fields. We didn't have all 5000 acres in production at one time, crops were rotated & some were left fallow. My folks had a very small farm only 150 acres, but we did the same thing, only on much smaller scale, we didn't have dairy cattle, but had chickens & sheep, we raked up the sheep manure & after it had aged & used that on the fields & again we used rotational plantings & pasturing.



My grandfather farmed much the same way except he has his soil tested to verify his fertilizer requirements in order to maximize his yields. 

Modern farming requires a much sharper pencil now that input and equipment costs have become insanely high.


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

the river here still tests for monsantos junk so high it is advised to only eat one meal a month of fish from it....its been out of production since 1978ish-? but still all these years water still tests high for it....how much more evidence do you need....dump it on ya land....wait till this agent orange corn from dupont(or whichever one it is) is being planted.

http://www.wvgazette.com/News/201311220094



CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- The West Virginia Supreme Court on Friday upheld approval of the settlement in a landmark lawsuit over pollution of the community of Nitro with dioxin from the former Monsanto chemical plant.
The court voted 4-1 to affirm a January ruling in which Circuit Judge Derek S---e approved the class-action settlement aimed at resolving longstanding allegations that Monsanto contaminated Nitro with toxic pollution from the production of the defoliant Agent Orange. Chief Justice Brent Benjamin dissented.
In a 14-page decision reached without oral argument, the court said it found "no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error" in various appeals filed over S---e's nearly 400-page settlement-approval order.
Under the settlement, thousands of Nitro-area residents will be eligible for medial monitoring and property cleanups as part of the $93 million deal.
For more than 50 years, the Monsanto plant churned out herbicides, rubber products and other chemicals. The plant's production of Agent Orange, a defoliant deployed widely in the Vietnam War, created dioxin as a toxic chemical byproduct.
Dioxin has been linked to cancer, birth defects, learning disabilities, endometriosis, infertility and suppressed immune functions. The chemical builds up in tissue over time, meaning that even a small exposure can accumulate to dangerous levels.
In February 2012, Monsanto agreed to the settlement on the eve of an expected six-month trial in which residents sought medical monitoring for dioxin-related illnesses and a cleanup of what they argued was a contaminated community.
The company agreed to a 30-year medical-monitoring program with a primary fund of $21 million for initial testing and up to $63 million in additional money dependant on what levels of dioxin are found in residents.
- See more at: http://www.wvgazette.com/News/201311220094#sthash.dl02EBp6.dpuf

http://www.wvgazette.com/News/201311220094#sthash.dl02EBp6.dpuf


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

my backyard thank you very much...!!!!!!!!!!


http://www.naturalnews.com/023254_Monsanto_PCB_toxic.html#

NaturalNews) The new Monsanto has clearly come to dominate the American food chain with its genetically modified (GM) seeds. It's a master at enforcing its 674 biotechnology patents, using tyrannical and ruthless tactics against small farmers. This new Monsanto has also moved into the production of milk with it artificial growth hormones, seeking to dominate the dairy industry as effectively as it has the seed business. Has this new corporate image made us forget about the old Monsanto's decades long history of scorched earth and toxic contamination?

An article in the May, 2008 edition of _Vanity Fair_ chronicles the history of Monsanto from its beginnings to its efforts to shed itself of the image of toxic environmental and human threat.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/023254_Monsanto_PCB_toxic.html##ixzz3OcfJBdSh



In 1949, at the Nitro plant, a pressure valve blew on a container of this herbicide, producing a plume of vapor and white smoke that drifted out over the town. Residue coated the interior of buildings and those inside them with a fine black powder. Within days, workers experienced skin eruptions, and many were diagnosed with chloracne, a long lasting and disfiguring condition. Others felt intense pains in their chest, legs and trunk. A medical report from the time said the explosion "caused a systemic intoxication in the workers involving most major organ systems." Doctors detected a strong odor coming from the patients they described as men "excreting a foreign chemical through their skins".

Monsanto downplayed the incident, saying that the contaminant was "fairly slow acting" and only an irritant to the skin.

Meanwhile, the Nitro plant continued to produce herbicides, In the 1960's it manufactured Agent Orange, the powerful herbicide used by the U.S. military to defoliate jungles during the Vietnam War, and which became the focus of lawsuits by veterans contending they had been harmed by exposure to the chemical. Agent Orange also created dioxin as a by-product.

At the Nitro plant, dioxin waste went into landfills, storm drains, streams, sewers, into bags with the herbicide, and then the waste was burned out into the air. Dioxin from the plant can still be found in nearby streams, rivers, and fish. Residents have sued Monsanto and Solutia for damages, but Monsanto claims "the allegations are without merit" and promises to vigorously defend itself. The suit may drag on for years. Monsanto has the resources to wait; plaintiffs usually don't.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/023254_Monsanto_PCB_toxic.html##ixzz3OcfWGV6z
​

​


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

From 1929 to 1971, the Anniston, Alabama plant produced PCBs as industrial coolants and insulating fluids for transformers and other electrical equipment. PCBs became central to American industries as lubricants, hydraulic fluids, and sealants. PCBs are highly toxic members of a family of chemicals that mimic hormones, and have been linked to damage in the liver and nervous system, as well as immune, endocrine and reproductive disorders. The Environmental Protective  Agency (EPA), and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, part of Health and Human Services, classify PCBs as "probably carcinogens".

Today, after tons of contaminated soil have been removed in an effort to reclaim the Anniston site, the area around the old Monsanto plant continues to be one of the most polluted spots in the U.S. While the plant was in production, excess PCBs were dumped in a nearby open-pit landfill or allowed to flow off the property with storm water. Some were poured directly into a creek running alongside the plant and emptying into a larger stream. PCBs are contained in private lawns fertilized with soil from the plant.

The people of Anniston have breathed air, planted gardens, drunk from wells, fished in rivers, and swum in creeks contaminated with PCBs without knowing the danger. As public awareness grew in the 1990's, health authorities found elevated levels of PCBs in houses, yards, streams, fields, fish &#8211;- and people. The cleanup is now underway, and will take years,* but once PCB is absorbed into human tissue, it is there forever.*
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/023254_Monsanto_PCB_toxic.html##ixzz3OcgDVDHY
​


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And right there is the reason that those extreme libertarians will never get into power. Get Rid Of The EPA.
Go tell that to those folks.
Cut back on the over reaching power of the EPA absolutely, but not get rid of them altogether.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

cntrywmnkw said:


> WOW, am I ever sorry I started this thread.
> 
> I only mentioned that I put my chicken & goat manure on MY garden, period. I NEVER said it would do large acreages. I grew up on farms. I had one uncle who had 5000 acres, he had 10-12 dairy cows we milked by hand & had several "paddocks" around the barn for the cows to "lounge" in before being turned back out to pasture. We'd rake the manure from those several paddocks up & let it "age" before we loaded it into a "honey wagon" & then take & spread THAT on the fields. We didn't have all 5000 acres in production at one time, crops were rotated & some were left fallow. My folks had a very small farm only 150 acres, but we did the same thing, only on much smaller scale, we didn't have dairy cattle, but had chickens & sheep, we raked up the sheep manure & after it had aged & used that on the fields & again we used rotational plantings & pasturing.


Sounds like a great way to do things. But how many of the 330 million mouths to feed we have in this country, did that take care of? Not to mention people around the world who buy our excess production and depend on it. 

Of course the very best way is for people to raise their own food. It's almost always a better quality product and usually more gentle on the earth to produce. But the cold hard fact is, not everyone can do it. People in cities with no access to land, people who are not physically or mentally able, they live in a harsh climate, or maybe they just don't want to. And, the methods we like don't usually carry over to large scale production, not enough food for everybody would be produced. So mass produced food makes for a reliable supply, it's efficient and that also keeps it more affordable. Anyone who wants to avoid commercially produced products, can. Produce it yourself or find a producer to buy from who meets your standards. Not as convenient as strolling thru a grocery store but it can be done. Likewise to avoid GMO. If it contains soy or corn products, just assume they were GMO varieties unless it's labeled organic. No conspiracy, no boogeyman, just the realities of the world we live in.


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

elkhound said:


> ....wait till this agent orange corn from dupont(or whichever one it is) is being planted.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Hey that was good. I love 2-4-D which is only part of the formula. Does good things on my fence lines and lasts a nice long time. Love it. And does wonders on other nasties like poison oak and poison ivy, I hate them with a passion.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Lazy J said:


> That's the same argument used against the small pox vaccine and Galileo.


I didn't even know Galileo had the small pox vaccine. Quite the guy.


----------



## J.T.M. (Mar 2, 2008)

jwal10 said:


> IF you don't like what is out there grow your own. Isn't that what homesteading is all about. I can buy anything I want organic, why don't the Non GMO growers label their own instead of wanting everyone to do it for them. We had an organic farm for over 10 years in the 80's early 90's and labeled and sold it ourselves. I never grew anything GMO but it wasn't the in thing then either. I guess organic isn't good enough any more. Seems many think like Obama, no one wants to build anything themselves, *they just want to tear down what others have done*. So, you want something, build it. Make Non GMO what organic used to be, or whatever the new fad is, or going to be, next...James


^^^^^ the bold fits Monsanto to a tee :facepalm:

Perhaps you need to do your homework James . Farmer Jones GMOs are pollinating with Farmer Janes crop and officially rendering them useless for her intended use ( Monsato freely admits to this ) .Is that cool ? Whos tearing whom down ? 
My issue with GMOs is now you got more pesticides and more roundup being applied then ever before .So much so that RU is now being found in breast milk . Water hemp and pigweed , even cockalbur are showing signs of resistant here .
GMO " settled science " types are no different than the global warming " "settle science " types


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

More being applied? More?
Oh that is not correct at all. In Fact there is even Less being used now than ever before. No farmer large or small wants to use any more of ANY product on their fields because of the COST. And that is a Fact. Boy some of this is so far fetched and so far out of the world of fantasying now when little to no true Facts being presented than ever before.


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

J.T.M. said:


> ^^^^^ the bold fits Monsanto to a tee :facepalm:
> 
> Perhaps you need to do your homework James . Farmer Jones GMOs are pollinating with Farmer Janes crop and officially rendering them useless for her intended use ( Monsato freely admits to this ) .Is that cool ? Whos tearing whom down ?
> My issue with GMOs is now you got more pesticides and more roundup being applied then ever before .So much so that RU is now being found in breast milk . Water hemp and pigweed , even cockalbur are showing signs of resistant here .
> GMO " settled science " types are no different than the global warming " "settle science " types


 
Like always don't stay on topic, Smear everything until you have nothing except "see"....James


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

I have built my life without GMO, never grown any. I have used Roundup and many of the knockoffs, I see no difference. I would use it again, just don't need it here. I have built my life without it. I use commercial fertilizers and spray IF something will destroy what I have built. I will fight anything that takes my choices away. I have spent 50 years building what I have....James


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

2dogs-mom said:


> Hi Jwal10, you should see these little butterly labels on foods...it's sometimes pretty small but should be displayed on the front of the food item. Here's a list of products: http://www.nongmoproject.org/find-non-gmo/search-participating-products/
> 
> http://www.nongmoproject.org/ - the general site.
> 
> ...


 I have seen them, thanks. As I said, I hope to see them everywhere. No GMOs, GMO free, all good....James


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

J.T.M. said:


> ^^^^^ the bold fits Monsanto to a tee :facepalm:
> 
> Perhaps you need to do your homework James . Farmer Jones GMOs are pollinating with Farmer Janes crop and officially rendering them useless for her intended use ( Monsato freely admits to this ) .Is that cool ? Whos tearing whom down ?
> My issue with GMOs is now you got more pesticides and more roundup being applied then ever before .So much so that RU is now being found in breast milk . Water hemp and pigweed , even cockalbur are showing signs of resistant here .
> GMO " settled science " types are no different than the global warming " "settle science " types


It is completely FALSE, that we farmers apply more herbicides because of gm crops. The truth is we apply FAR less than our grandparents and parents did. We also burn FAR less fuel per acre, because gm crops enhance and aid in the soil building practice of no tillage farming.

As far as glyphosate resistant weeds: Resistant weeds have always been there, to every herbicide made by man. Weed resistance is not a new thing because of gm crops: It is completely unrelated.

The science is settled on gm crops, but it is misconceptions like the ones you hold that keep this old dead horse beating away. 

I have asked over and over, what it is that is feared by the anti gm types. Falsehoods such as the more herbicide used theme, or the, I hate monsanto theme, are mostly the answers. No one has ever stated that the gene is poisonous. Or given good reasons that erosion of soil is preferable to saving it.

Just attempting to straighten up some of the misconceptions...


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ort-mandatory-labels-on-foods-containing-dna/


----------



## J.T.M. (Mar 2, 2008)

jwal10 said:


> Like always don't stay on topic, Smear everything until you have nothing except "see"....James


Did I vere off topic James ,I don't know as my internet time is very limited and your post is the only one in this thread Iv read and therefore responded to .So if I am off topic then its only because you were . Perhaps in the urban landscape weed resistance is not as visible . But when you live in the middle of a couple thousand acres of corn and beans its right there looking you in the face.In talking to hundreds of farmers ... (I load , sell, and spread poultry and swine poop for a living so I have more contact with farmers then your typical county bumpkin ) I am told that without a dought that they are applying more pesticides and roundup then ever before . 

Im not sure if this is the link where Monsatos spokesman admits to the cross pollination or to the more pesticides use .REmember , Goggle is your friend .
http://cityclubofboise.org/audio/2015/20150108GMO.mp3


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

JJ Grandits said:


> I am in no way anti-corporation, but Monsanto is evil. It's that simple.


This is based on what? Please present evidence and facts rather than opinion and rumor.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

jwal10 said:


> http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ort-mandatory-labels-on-foods-containing-dna/


 I love the first comment in such articles as that was. not really a scientific polling by any stretch of the imagination.



> Haha. And how about that dihydrogen monoxide? Major component of acid rain. Just a few drops in your lungs can kill you. Definitely time to ban it.


----------



## J.T.M. (Mar 2, 2008)

Syngenta, one of the worldâs largest pesticide makers, reported that sales of its major soil insecticide for corn, which is applied at planting time, more than doubled in 2012. Chief Financial Officer John Ramsay attributed the growth to âincreased grower awarenessâ of rootworm resistance in the U.S. Insecticide sales in the first quarter climbed 5% to $480 million.

The frustrating part is that rootwormsâ resistance to the Bt corn gene was entirely predictable â so predictable that some companies seized it as a financial opportunity:

American Vanguard bought a series of insecticide companies and technologies during the past decade, betting that insecticide demand would return as Bt corn started losing its effectiveness. In the past couple of years, that wager has paid off. 

The Newport Beach, Calif., company reported that its soil-insecticide revenue jumped 50% in 2012, and company earnings climbed 70% as its stock price doubled. Its insecticide sales rose 41% in the first quarter to $79 million, with gains driven by corn insecticide.
Its ok ,no worries they'll just create a new strain of resistant corn :facepalm:


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Now combine that report with How many acres of Corn were Increased last year. Of course the more corn is planted makes for good sales at ANY chemical companies bottom line. LOL


----------



## J.T.M. (Mar 2, 2008)

97.4 million acres in 2012 / 91.1 million in 2014 

According to Chief Financial Officer John Ramsay of Syngenta , its due to &#8220;increased grower awareness " of rootworm resistance in the U.S.. But I suppose you could know more about it than he does
~ shrugs ~

giddyup !!!!


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

How much insecticide was used before BT?

....James


----------



## J.T.M. (Mar 2, 2008)

jwal10 said:


> How much insecticide was used before BT?
> 
> ....James


I don't know James ... I doubt you'll find many that want to return to the days of applying massive amounts of arsenic and hydrogen cyanide like in " the good ol' days " .Why ya askin' ?


----------



## J.T.M. (Mar 2, 2008)

farmerDale said:


> It is completely FALSE, that we farmers apply more herbicides because of gm crops. The truth is we apply FAR less than our grandparents and parents did. We also burn FAR less fuel per acre, because gm crops enhance and aid in the soil building practice of no tillage farming.
> 
> As far as glyphosate resistant weeds: Resistant weeds have always been there, to every herbicide made by man. Weed resistance is not a new thing because of gm crops: It is completely unrelated.
> 
> ...


You do understand that even Monsato admits to everything I have posted on this thread ... right ? 
Just attempting to straighten up some of the misconceptions...:kiss:


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

J.T.M. said:


> You are the one that posts things that even you don't know what they are, and admit it.
> 
> I grew over 60 different Organic Heritage vegetables for seed on 200 acres. I had to keep each from pollinating another crop. Even with neighbors all around. Ever hear of buffer zones. I could grow other crops in buffer zones. Or use those areas to perform weed control measures. Same as many gardeners including myself, no difference than GMO. You sound like the Goobermutt is going to take care of you. That is not homesteading.
> 
> ...


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

J.T.M. said:


> I don't know James ... I doubt you'll find many that want to return to the days of applying massive amounts of arsenic and hydrogen cyanide like in " the good ol' days " .Why ya askin' ?




Thought so. Because it went way down right after and has been growing since because as always there is a resistance built up over the years to all chemicals. Same as grasshoppers, and all insects, they ebb and flow. Tomorrow there will be a different miracle drug. You ever taken any prescription drug?....James


----------



## J.T.M. (Mar 2, 2008)

No need to wait for that miracle drug James , Dows has it :
http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/01/dows-new-gmo-seed-puts-us-agriculture-crossroads

My breast milk comment was actually a snarky comment towards some "Science is settle" person who is trolling me via PMs. You realy need to reread what you typed there James 
The money quote from the above link 
" Your fields are becoming choked with weeds that have developed resistance to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide. As soon as the USDA okays our product, all your problems will be solved."
 ...


----------



## J.T.M. (Mar 2, 2008)

jwal10 said:


> You are the one that posts things that even you don't know what they are, and admit it.
> 
> I grew over 60 different Organic Heritage vegetables for seed on 200 acres. I had to keep each from pollinating another crop. Even with neighbors all around. Ever hear of buffer zones. I could grow other crops in buffer zones. Or use those areas to perform weed control measures. Same as many gardeners including myself, no difference than GMO. You sound like the Goobermutt is going to take care of you. That is not homesteading.
> 
> ...


James James James ....:facepalm:
Of course Iv heard of buffer zones , I live in corn country . I wonder if you , like MOnsato- (who BTW wants to tare down what farmer Jane worked hard on building ) expect the small farmer to pay for and use their own land to build this buffer zone ? 
Not impressed with your 200 ~ giggle ~ acre farm BTW


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> This is based on what? Please present evidence and facts rather than opinion and rumor.


The answer is, because. Take it at that. Because. Is that not enough proof for you?


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

J.T.M. said:


> James Of course....I live in corn country . I wonder if you....expect the small farmer to pay for and use their own land to build this buffer zone ?
> Not impressed with your 200 ~ giggle ~ acre farm BTW


 
Why do you say Monsanto wants to tear down what farmer Jane has built??????

They only sell what is being bought, same as any Ag. company. 

You want to farm, you do what you have to, Not wait and scream for the Goobermutt to do it for you. I did work with all my neighbors to incorporate their crops to build buffer zones. 

Giggle all you want, just another diversion by you.

For your information, I grew 1600 acres of conventional crops, peppermint, wheat, grass seed, silage corn for a dairy, and cannery vegetables. We don't grow grain corn or soybeans in this part of Oregon. The Organic farm was right in the middle of the land I owned and farmed. It is still farmed Organic, that parcel was sold separate and is largely fruit orchards that I developed and the current owner has enlarged. He sells organic fruit all over the valley, even has the contract for the fruit served for all the schools in this county. It does border a road in front and conventionally farmed acreages on both sides, rear border is the Little Luckiamute river....James


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

farmerDale said:


> It is completely FALSE, that we farmers apply more herbicides because of gm crops. The truth is we apply FAR less than our grandparents and parents did.



I don't know what your parents or grandparents did, but the use of herbicides is steadily rising. The slight downward trend in usage during the first few years of GE herbicide-resistant crops has been reversed, and usage is steadily climbing back to pre-GMO days.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

jwal10 said:


> You are the one that posts things that even you don't know what they are, and admit it.
> 
> I grew over 60 different Organic Heritage vegetables for seed on 200 acres. I had to keep each from pollinating another crop. Even with neighbors all around. Ever hear of buffer zones. I could grow other crops in buffer zones. Or use those areas to perform weed control measures. Same as many gardeners including myself, no difference than GMO. You sound like the Goobermutt is going to take care of you. That is not homesteading.
> 
> ...


Monsanto patent for glyphosate has expired and the herbicide is now made by dozens of companies.

What are the ingredients of glyphosate? just curious.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

greg273 said:


> I don't know what your parents or grandparents did, but the use of herbicides is steadily rising. The slight downward trend in usage during the first few years of GE herbicide-resistant crops has been reversed, and usage is steadily climbing back to pre-GMO days.


I farm, and that is definitely not the case. Not only is far less being used today, than in the 1950's, what is being used in today's farming, is far less harmful, and far better for building the soils and preventing erosion.

Certain herbicides have seen more use, yes. But many have completely disappeared from use because of the toxicity, and farmer reluctance to continue using them,especially the ones that required tillage to incorporate them into the soil.

When I started farming 23 years ago, I had to use some pretty gross stuff, and had to rip up the soil and make it erodible so the herbicide would work well, which eroded the soil, and caused organic matter to burn up, and made me use three times the diesel I do now. Not only that, but the rates of those ridiculously toxic herbicides that we had to use, were insane compared to the far safer and much more environmentally desirable ones available today.

Maybe they use more where you are at, I don't know, but up here, we use FAR less. Not even comparable.

And our soil, water, and general environment is extremely glad that gm crops have allowed for a much cleaner environment..


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

plowjockey said:


> Monsanto patent for glyphosate has expired and the herbicide is now made by dozens of companies.
> 
> What are the ingredients of glyphosate? just curious.


 http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphotech.html#chem

....James


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

are farmers using less pesticides? of course they are.

http://acsh.org/2014/11/meta-analysis-shows-gm-crops-reduce-pesticide-use-37-percent/


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

farmerDale said:


> Maybe they use more where you are at, I don't know, but up here, we use FAR less. Not even comparable.


 I can't argue about what you do on your farm, but yes, pesticide use dropped after the introduction of GMO crops in 1996, as would be expected, but has risen almost every year since. And since resistance to glyphosate is becoming an issue, it is being replaced with some of the older, more toxic standbys, like 2,4D.


----------



## Lazy J (Jan 2, 2008)

greg273 said:


> I can't argue about what you do on your farm, but yes, pesticide use dropped after the introduction of GMO crops in 1996, as would be expected, but has risen almost every year since. And since resistance to glyphosate is becoming an issue, it is being replaced with some of the older, more toxic standbys, like 2,4D.


What that chart doesn't show is the increase in acres of corn and soybeans since the introduction of GMOs.

The total acres of corn and soybean planted in '95 was 133.9 million acres compared with 161.7 million on '08. That is a 20.75 % increase in acreage, co if you take this chart and equate it to AI/Acre then the use of pesticides is in fact falling on a per acre or per bushel produced.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

That chart certainly does nothing to help aid your theory. As Lazy J says, acreage has far exceeded the small herbicide increase. And like I said before, herbicides of yore, were FAR more environmentally damaging than the ones we use today.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And 21 SELETED crops. What crops? Like they went around and sorted through and choose to do them instead a over all usage. But hey the left just can't stand anything that they don't believe in even if it doesn't match the true facts as what is happening.
What has really increased is HOME OWNERS spring things around on there lawns But That is not crops now is it? But it Does add into the BUYING of such products. 
And even I have used and still will use 2-4-D, it is great around fence lines.
But Usage is sparingly. And I don't have to use it every year either. it IS that good. But hater you go Not farmer am I. But I bought that 2-4-D at our local Farm Supply store and me buying it would add into that UASAGE now wouldn't lt? But not being used on crops either. LOL


----------



## okiemom (May 12, 2002)

2,4 d is also used on grass for grazing land not just crops. Overuse of chemicals on golf courses has caused many to become banned from being used on golf courses. They are a huge ,not often mentioned, abuser of chemicals. Golf courses don't really produce anything but green grass for a game and have huge runoff and environmental issues so I am more off putted by that than farmers trying to produce more food for 7 billion people in the world.


----------



## haley1 (Aug 15, 2012)

Chuck Norris doesn't trust monsanto

http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/chuck-norris-raises-red-flag-over-monsanto/

There always seems to be something afoot that could possibly threaten our health and well-being. And we generally don&#8217;t have to look very far to find it. On occasion, the news finds us. The problem is that the threat is not always clear, nor are the actions we need to take to deal with it. It&#8217;s what makes it so hard for us to avoid tripping over what is toxic to us.



A good case in point is the latest dust-up over glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto&#8217;s Roundup, the world&#8217;s best-selling weedkiller. Monsanto began marketing glyphosate under the Roundup name in the 1970s, and it quickly became an industry standard. In 1997, its use tripled with the introduction of Monsanto&#8217;s Roundup Ready crops, plantings genetically modified to withstand glyphosate in order to enable farmers to use more of the herbicide in killing crop-threatening weeds. Glyphosate is sprayed on most of the corn and soybean crops in the United States, as well as over sugar beets, canola and other crops.

In 2007 alone, the agricultural sector applied between 180 million and 185 million pounds of glyphosate to crops in this country. The home and garden sector applied 5 million to 8 million pounds, and industry, commerce and government applied 13 million to 15 million pounds of glyphosate. It was the most widely used herbicide in U.S. agriculture and second-most widely used herbicide in the home and garden sector.

The reason it should be on our radar now is that glyphosate is under a standard registration review by the Environmental Protection Agency. The agency is determining whether glyphosate use should continue as is or be limited or even halted.

For years, various interest groups, as well as researchers and scientists from several countries, have complained that heavy use of glyphosate is causing problems for plants and animals, including humans. Studies have been conducted, and findings have been made.

In 2011, U.S. government scientists said they detected significant levels of glyphosate in air and water samples. A 2013 MIT study argued that glyphosate residue in food and water induces disease by disrupting normal cellular detoxifying functions. The authors of the study claimed that exposure can eventually lead to increased risk of gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer&#8217;s disease. This was a peer-reviewed scientific research paper from one of our nation&#8217;s leading academic institutions &#8211; something you&#8217;d think would not be easily dismissed.

Apparently, it was.

In May 2013, federal regulators agreed to raise the permitted tolerance levels for glyphosate residue in food, citing an increased human resistance to the compound. No independent tests were conducted in reaching the conclusion that higher residue levels of this stuff pose no danger to humans or the environment. Levels were raised in oilseed crops &#8211; which include sesames, flaxes and soybeans &#8211; to 15 times the previous levels. Regulators also raised the allowable levels for sweet potatoes and carrots to 25 times the previous levels.

In making their determination, the government officials relied on tests and data provided by the manufacturer, which deems the risks as insignificant. Monsanto says glyphosate has been extensively studied and has a long track record of safe and effective use.

And the company could be right. We may have far more important things to worry about. Heck, glyphosate may be so insignificant we could sprinkle its residue on our cornflakes. Who knows? It may even be in our cornflakes.

But I have an uneasy feeling when I hear terms such as &#8220;insignificant risks&#8221; or &#8220;inadequate evidence&#8221; when the topic is potential impact and continued proliferation of an ever-present synthetic compound that has yet to be the subject of a comprehensive, independent U.S. government study.

What do I believe when I read that even the EPA&#8217;s technical fact sheet on glyphosate states, for example, that chronic long-term exposure can cause kidney damage and reproductive effects?

And when an MIT study argues that glyphosate&#8217;s &#8220;negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body&#8221;?

Do I read this as it sounds &#8211; that maybe what is being called insignificant or low-risk in the short term could escalate into having a significant impact on health over the years? Is it something that could shorten a person&#8217;s life?

The U.S. Department of Agriculture routinely tests food for chemical residues to make sure they are within approved tolerance levels but does not routinely test for glyphosate. The rationale has been budget restrictions and the lower health risks associated with this synthetic compound. So don&#8217;t look for any warning labels any time soon. The only real way you have of knowing whether glyphosate traces or residue is in the food you eat is if you grow it yourself or only buy products that are certified organic.

The EPA promised a completed preliminary risk assessment of glyphosate by the end of last year.

We&#8217;re still waiting.

Write to Chuck Norris with your questions about health and fitness. Follow Chuck Norris through his official social media sites, on Twitter @chucknorris and Facebook&#8217;s &#8220;Official Chuck Norris Page.&#8221; He blogs at ChuckNorrisNews.blogspot.com.


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/chuck-norris-raises-red-flag-over-monsanto/#xkrztT4T2usxJ8AF.99


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

Well, if Chuck Norris doesn't like it..  I do like him!

In all seriousness though, as per usual, the comments from other readers at the end are interesting - you can sure glean how many others feel and I'll give you a hint, it ain't love for Monsanto.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

This hatred for Monsanto, is now getting into the same situation as the global warming people have, nothing more than a religious Cult and has nothing to do with scientific facts.


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

Do you know your beer? What is your favorite....James

http://www.gmofreebeer.com/gmo-beer-listing.html


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

re:

_A 2013 MIT study argued that glyphosate residue in food and water induces disease by disrupting normal cellular detoxifying functions. The authors of the study claimed that exposure can eventually lead to increased risk of gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer&#8217;s disease. This was a peer-reviewed scientific research paper from one of our nation&#8217;s leading academic institutions &#8211; something you&#8217;d think would not be easily dismissed.

_That piece of work has been linked or posted here previously, and if I was sending my kid to MIT I'd yank them out and want my money back. It was a joke coming from an institution that used carry a lot of respectability. It wasn't a real study, no actual research was done. It was a compilation, a sweep mining operation of other studies with all kinds of assumptions and extrapolations. I wish I had a dollar for every "might" and "possibly" in that paper!


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

MO_cows said:


> re:
> 
> _A 2013 MIT study argued that glyphosate residue in food and water induces disease by disrupting normal cellular detoxifying functions. The authors of the study claimed that exposure can eventually lead to increased risk of gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimerâs disease. This was a peer-reviewed scientific research paper from one of our nationâs leading academic institutions â something youâd think would not be easily dismissed.
> 
> _That piece of work has been linked or posted here previously, and if I was sending my kid to MIT I'd yank them out and want my money back. It was a joke coming from an institution that used carry a lot of respectability. It wasn't a real study, no actual research was done. It was a compilation, a sweep mining operation of other studies with all kinds of assumptions and extrapolations. I wish I had a dollar for every "might" and "possibly" in that paper!


There are scientific papers that speak to the fact that the medical field is actually looking at glyphosate as a cancer fighting drug. Apparently, glyphosate fights cancer. Peer reviewed. 

The internet, it's got everything on it to support whatever we believe in!!!

Thank goodness and three cheers for Al Gore!!!


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Interesting that people have such strong convictions over things they know so little about. 
How can you have strong feelings about labeling GMO foods, yet not know what plants are GMO? How can you be against GMO, but not understand DNA? How can you hate Monsanto, but not know the dozens of other companies that market GMO seeds? How can you hate Monsanto's Roundup, but not understand that the generic glyphosate far outsells their name brand? How can you get excited over insect resistance or weed resistance when it is the basis of evolution?
Yes, Monsanto produced PCPs. But so did many others. Because Monsanto produces hundreds of different compounds increases the chances that one will later be found to be hazardous. Agent Orange is completely safe, but the unintended, unknown at the time, contaminate, dioxin is one of the most toxic chemicals known. Agent Orange is made of 2,4D and 2,4,5T and both are still on the market. Dow also made Agent Orange, are you boycotting them, too?

50 years ago, most people barely had time to scan the lead sentence of a few paragraphs of most topics. Today, the internet has expanded data a million times. Much is either misleading or outright false. If I believe Monsanto is ruining honest farmers, I can find "proof" to support my belief. If I believe that Monsanto tries to prevent theft of their product and out of millions of customers, has only had to sue a handful, I can find that information, too. People want answers, but don't have the time to become educated enough to sort through the piles of conflicting information. Once Natural News told a few lies, things I knew to be lies, I had to write them off as misinformation that needs to be ignored.

Glyphosate (generic Roundup) and GMO crops allow "No Till" farming, that saves millions of tons of top soil. 
Bt is safe on Organic gardens. Bt gene in corn (one of the GMO crops) eliminates the need for toxic insecticides used to kill corn borers.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

The problem with Monsanto is the way they can bulldoze peoples rights.

I have NONE of their products in my farming operation ,YET they can come onto my land WITHOUT my permission and overriding my no trespassing signs and destroy my stuff.

Things like that get people riled up and make them see the company as evil.
Obviously the company isn't evil since its just a Idea. (even though companies are a evil Idea)Its the people running that company that are evil.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> The problem with Monsanto is the way they can bulldoze peoples rights.
> 
> I have NONE of their products in my farming operation ,YET they can come onto my land WITHOUT my permission and overriding my no trespassing signs and destroy my stuff.
> 
> ...


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Wanda said:


> Are you saying they can trespass and destroy your crop? I would like to see where that has happened without a court order.:umno:


Apparently its fairly common. 

I spotted a guy walking out of my field by the time I got there he had drove off and there wasn't any obvious damage so I didn't worry about it .Later I hear about Monsanto spraying spots in a field with roundup to test for their seed products ,so I went and looked and sure enough about a 12x12 dead spot.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

That is speculation at the best. If it does happen why are there no reports of it. I think the guy in the field was hunting arow heads and the dead plants were killed by lighting!


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

True there is no prove what so ever just seeing a person and not seeing in action is nothing gat all. Just being paranoia from anything and anybody does nobody any good only makes one have headaches.


----------



## partndn (Jun 18, 2009)

cranbrook said:


> Interesting that people have such strong convictions over things they know so little about.
> How can you have strong feelings about labeling GMO foods, yet not know what plants are GMO? How can you be against GMO, but not understand DNA? How can you hate Monsanto, but not know the dozens of other companies that market GMO seeds? How can you hate Monsanto's Roundup, but not understand that the generic glyphosate far outsells their name brand? How can you get excited over insect resistance or weed resistance when it is the basis of evolution?
> Yes, Monsanto produced PCPs. But so did many others. Because Monsanto produces hundreds of different compounds increases the chances that one will later be found to be hazardous. Agent Orange is completely safe, but the unintended, unknown at the time, contaminate, dioxin is one of the most toxic chemicals known. Agent Orange is made of 2,4D and 2,4,5T and both are still on the market. Dow also made Agent Orange, are you boycotting them, too?
> 
> ...





How can you and others not read all the posts here and conclude that some of us have clearly stated we know other companies besides Moneysanto make similar, sometimes same chemicals?

How can you not see the difference between a science belief discussion and the frustration with a FREEDOM issue?

How can you be the one who decides you don't believe Natural News, but give NO allowance for others decide for themselves that USDA, FDA, and funded institution studies are the ones publishing LIES?

How can you have these questions concerning others, but not acknowledge others have the same questions about you and the standard repeating others' posts here?


You said "People want answers, but don't have the time to become educated enough to sort through the piles of conflicting information."
How can you estimate the intelligence or education level of those you happen to disagree with? Not cool.


----------



## partndn (Jun 18, 2009)

Wanda said:


> AmericanStand said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with Monsanto is the way they can bulldoze peoples rights.
> ...


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Apparently its fairly common.
> 
> I spotted a guy walking out of my field by the time I got there he had drove off and there wasn't any obvious damage so I didn't worry about it .Later I hear about Monsanto spraying spots in a field with roundup to test for their seed products ,so I went and looked and sure enough about a 12x12 dead spot.


Interesting. I have farmed ever since gm came out, and have yet to have monsanto or anyone else in the business trespass on my land and spray my crops. 

They only do that if there is a reason to suspect violation, generally. As in, someone tipped them off, or you grew some of their product previously for many years, and suddenly stopped growing it.

I also think a 12 by 12 area is quite excessive. Did you complain? What happened in your follow up on that?


----------



## partndn (Jun 18, 2009)

Wanda said:


> That is speculation at the best. If it does happen why are there no reports of it. I think the guy in the field was hunting arow heads and the dead plants were killed by lighting!





farmerDale said:


> Interesting. I have farmed ever since gm came out, and have yet to have monsanto or anyone else in the business trespass on my land and spray my crops.
> 
> They only do that if there is a reason to suspect violation, generally. As in, someone tipped them off, or you grew some of their product previously for many years, and suddenly stopped growing it.
> 
> I also think a 12 by 12 area is quite excessive. Did you complain? What happened in your follow up on that?





arabian knight said:


> True there is no prove what so ever just seeing a person and not seeing in action is nothing gat all. Just being paranoia from anything and anybody does nobody any good only makes one have headaches.




What causes headaches is you guys keep asking for info. Then when someone tells of their experience, you just basically suspect they are untruthful, and ask for further proof.

There will never be a proof that sways one side or the other of this argument. Maybe when we are long gone, someone will settle it.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

partndn said:


> What causes headaches is you guys keep asking for info. Then when someone tells of their experience, you just basically suspect they are untruthful, and ask for further proof.
> 
> There will never be a proof that sways one side or the other of this argument. Maybe when we are long gone, someone will settle it.


I simply ask what the follow up was like, and what Monsanto said when the complaint was launched. I sure would have complained if I suspected someone of trespassing and spraying out 144 square feet of my crop for no reason.

I am not accusing anyone of being mistruthful, I would love to know what Monsanto said, what the crop was, and why on earth they sprayed out a 12 by 12 area. I find the story interesting and would enjoy what the follow up was.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

Wanda was being humorous, and Arabian night was asking for more proof. Nothing wrong with that, IMO.


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

farmerDale said:


> I simply ask what the follow up was like, and what Monsanto said when the complaint was launched. I sure would have complained if I suspected someone of trespassing and spraying out 144 square feet of my crop for no reason.
> 
> I am not accusing anyone of being mistruthful, I would love to know what Monsanto said, what the crop was, and why on earth they sprayed out a 12 by 12 area. I find the story interesting and would enjoy what the follow up was.





farmerDale said:


> Wanda was being humorous, and Arabian night was asking for more proof. Nothing wrong with that, IMO.



how about entire towns and miles and miles of waterways...they pled guilty.


http://www.wvgazette.com/News/201311220094

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- The West Virginia Supreme Court on Friday upheld approval of the settlement in a landmark lawsuit over pollution of the community of Nitro with dioxin from the former Monsanto chemical plant.
The court voted 4-1 to affirm a January ruling in which Circuit Judge Derek S---e approved the class-action settlement aimed at resolving longstanding allegations that Monsanto contaminated Nitro with toxic pollution from the production of the defoliant Agent Orange. Chief Justice Brent Benjamin dissented.
In a 14-page decision reached without oral argument, the court said it found "no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error" in various appeals filed over S---e's nearly 400-page settlement-approval order.
Under the settlement, thousands of Nitro-area residents will be eligible for medial monitoring and property cleanups as part of the $93 million deal.
For more than 50 years, the Monsanto plant churned out herbicides, rubber products and other chemicals. The plant's production of Agent Orange, a defoliant deployed widely in the Vietnam War, created dioxin as a toxic chemical byproduct.
Dioxin has been linked to cancer, birth defects, learning disabilities, endometriosis, infertility and suppressed immune functions. The chemical builds up in tissue over time, meaning that even a small exposure can accumulate to dangerous levels.
In February 2012, Monsanto agreed to the settlement on the eve of an expected six-month trial in which residents sought medical monitoring for dioxin-related illnesses and a cleanup of what they argued was a contaminated community.
The company agreed to a 30-year medical-monitoring program with a primary fund of $21 million for initial testing and up to $63 million in additional money dependant on what levels of dioxin are found in residents.
Monsanto also agreed to spend $9 million cleaning 4,500 homes in the area to rid them of dioxin-contaminated dust. The cleanups include vacuuming carpets, rugs and accessible horizontal surfaces with High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filter vacuums, wet cleaning floors, floor vents, tops of doors and window moldings, interior window sills, ceiling fans, light fixtures and radiators.
- See more at: http://www.wvgazette.com/News/201311220094#sthash.DUDSL2Id.dpuf

http://www.wvgazette.com/News/201311220094#sthash.DUDSL2Id.dpuf


----------



## partndn (Jun 18, 2009)

Dale,
Humor doesn't negate the obvious doubt.

Neither does repeating the same question.

I do believe you are interested in what happened, if anything. Me too. But most of us know challenging the activities of those who have the funded power doesn't usually go anywhere without investing in lawyers, and may hesitate to bother. I dunno. Maybe Stand will provide more. Regardless, doesn't change the basic back and forth. Neither side's version of "proof" fits the other, so it's pointless.

Basically, I could keep asking you for proof that the nutrition facts of gmo corn are equal to non gmo. If you have confidence in the published USDA nutrition facts, and I don't.. why ask? So I don't. It's my choice whose facts I decide to have confidence in.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

partndn said:


> Dale,
> Humor doesn't negate the obvious doubt.
> 
> Neither does repeating the same question.
> ...


Good points there regarding the back and forth, partndn. I guess if divulging info is not desired, it is all good. As a farmer who has grown Monsanto seed several times, I am just very curious about that farm field visit. 

Curiosity and clarification is part of my nature. Hope y'all understand this.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Wanda said:


> Are you saying they can trespass and destroy your crop? I would like to see where that has happened without a court order.:umno:


 Pollen doesn't need a court order to trespass,and they can destroy someones non-GMO certified crop just by being neighbors with someone who farms GMO. 
And by the way, the science is FAR from 'settled' on the long term effects of splicing different species DNA together in self-replicating organisms, so lets please stop that little line of salesmanship.


----------



## partndn (Jun 18, 2009)

Amen to that.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

I wish that the anti gm folks would watch this, but I am not holding my breath. It is a youtube video by an agronomist from Alberta, Canada. Explains a lot of things about gm technology.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvFD6DRn0Cg&app=desktop[/ame]


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

greg273 said:


> Pollen doesn't need a court order to trespass,and they can destroy someones non-GMO certified crop just by being neighbors with someone who farms GMO.
> And by the way, the science is FAR from 'settled' on the long term effects of splicing different species DNA together in self-replicating organisms, so lets please stop that little line of salesmanship.


Salesmanship? Or simply facing up to the cold hard facts? GM crops have been in widespread use for over 20 years and nobody has come up with the smoking gun yet to prove any harm, any collateral damage. In spite of the efforts of a lot of smart people who want very badly to prove harm, and an army of smart lawyers who want some of Monsanto's money. You know, the same smart lawyers who can get multi-million dollar settlements because the coffee at McDonalds was too hot. So doesn't that tell you anything?

General Motor's cover up of their ignition problems led to the death of how many people? No uncertainty, no "unsettled science" there, yet how many threads have there been about the evils of that "other" GM? So that makes this ongoing anti GMO crusade to seem to be a phobic, unreasonable vendetta with cult-like tendencies. Sorry, but that's how it looks from where I'm sitting.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

I'll watch it on my big computer screen tomorrow. But this is the same guy, right?

Planned film to counter anti-GMO arguments - The Western Producer: http://www.producer.com/2015/01/planned-film-to-counter-anti-gmo-arguments/

Good luck with that.

I may be *uneducated* but am learning more each day.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

2dogs-mom said:


> I'll watch it on my big computer screen tomorrow. But this is the same guy, right?
> 
> Planned film to counter anti-GMO arguments - The Western Producer: http://www.producer.com/2015/01/planned-film-to-counter-anti-gmo-arguments/
> 
> ...


That would be great if you watch it. 

Yes that is the same fellow. I think it is time we farmers stood up for ourselves and shared our side of the story. It is obvious that we have collectively failed at reaching out, contrary to the anti side, who have completely capitalized on the propaganda front, mainly taking advantage of the fact that almost 99% of the population are not farmers.

Sharing factual science. I am 100% behind that. I hope the venture helps offset the non factual science, and the affect it has had on public and consumer perceptions. 

One can only hope...


----------



## partndn (Jun 18, 2009)

MO_cows said:


> Salesmanship? Or simply facing up to the cold hard facts? GM crops have been in widespread use for over 20 years and nobody has come up with the smoking gun yet to prove any harm, any collateral damage. In spite of the efforts of a lot of smart people who want very badly to prove harm, and an army of smart lawyers who want some of Monsanto's money. You know, the same smart lawyers who can get multi-million dollar settlements because the coffee at McDonalds was too hot. So doesn't that tell you anything?
> 
> General Motor's cover up of their ignition problems led to the death of how many people? No uncertainty, no "unsettled science" there, yet how many threads have there been about the evils of that "other" GM? So that makes this ongoing anti GMO crusade to seem to be a phobic, unreasonable vendetta with cult-like tendencies. Sorry, but that's how it looks from where I'm sitting.



Yeah. I hope that you never find that non-existent (in your opinion) smoking gun pointed at you.

Uh lawyers? You are really going to go lawyers.. pointing at lawyers on the anti Monsanto side??

Oh



my



goodness


You must have no idea really. There are more chem company lawyers in the FDA, USDA, and lobbies than in the entire country's gathering of anti gmo groups. 
And lawyer money? Please!! I don't see how you can even aim in the direction of monetary gain on the anti gmo side. Do you only recognize money when it's in settlement form? 

The sum of the top 10 most ridiculous settlement amounts you've ever seen is probably smaller than the money spent from the gmo side to PREVENT cases. There will always be lawyers who are looking for nothing other than making a cut of a winning settlement. The world does NOT need gmo or anti gmo to keep that cycle going.


Until the money isn't driving the science, you'll never know what the true facts are. 

In your words - "phobic, unreasonable, vendetta and cult-like" might be quite descriptive to me of the pro gmo crowd. But from where I sit, I'd like to think I would have refrained from posting it.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

MO_cows said:


> Salesmanship? Or simply facing up to the cold hard facts? GM crops have been in widespread use for over 20 years and nobody has come up with the smoking gun yet to prove any harm, any collateral damage. In spite of the efforts of a lot of smart people who want very badly to prove harm, and an army of smart lawyers who want some of Monsanto's money. You know, the same smart lawyers who can get multi-million dollar settlements because the coffee at McDonalds was too hot. So doesn't that tell you anything?
> 
> General Motor's cover up of their ignition problems led to the death of how many people? No uncertainty, no "unsettled science" there, yet how many threads have there been about the evils of that "other" GM? So that makes this ongoing anti GMO crusade to seem to be a phobic, unreasonable vendetta with cult-like tendencies. Sorry, but that's how it looks from where I'm sitting.


 It is getting to the point where it is yet another religion just like the global warming crowd, facts don't matter science don't matter truth don't matter, only misinformation that has been spreading all over the net now for years.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

Well I watched it and it was interesting. My kids and I always like watching those TED talks on all sorts of different subjects, so thanks for posting it because it's not something I'd be able to find on my own.

However, my mind isn't changed. I get the whole 'feed the world' mentality, I do..but as a sole consumer my main priority in this order is

family
friends
church
local community
world.

That doesn't mean that people in Uganda can go fly a kite...yes, I care about people across the world. We participate in giving programs through our church as well as our city that benefit others but still, my priority is my children/family first and I will feed them what I choose to which is mostly organic and/or non-gmo. Sometimes I don't have a choice. Sometimes I'm rushed and buy what's on sale but most of the time I stand there and read, read, read labels and research things at home. 

I'm not a farmer, just an average mom who worries about long-term effects down the road. I try to minimize future health risks by choosing things I can pronounce. I realize that some of you on here, may have a livelihood that depends on people just 'going along with the crowd' and not really caring what they put into their bodies. My only dog in this game is that I care deeply about my health as well as that of my family, and at the end of the day I will support those companies/local farmers who do things the way I agree with. 

But again thanks for taking the time to post it.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

Just out of curiosity how big of a ''study'' would you like to see on the safety of GMO crops? How many million acres have been grown up until this point in history? There are a lot of people in the world looking at this technology very closely in many different ways. Should we just conclude that only the dumb scientists have been looking,is why that smoking gun has not been found.:umno:


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And many years now these things have been used with the bushels per acre going up this is a good thing to feed the 300+ million in this country and keep up the exports as well. Which is good for all concerned.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Wanda said:


> That is speculation at the best. If it does happen why are there no reports of it. I think the guy in the field was hunting arow heads and the dead plants were killed by lighting!


 THERE ARE REPORTS OF IT! It was reading those reports that got me curious enough to go back out and look at that area closely.



farmerDale said:


> Interesting. I have farmed ever since gm came out, and have yet to have monsanto or anyone else in the business trespass on my land and spray my crops.


Humm How do you know?



farmerDale said:


> They only do that if there is a reason to suspect violation, generally. As in, someone tipped them off, or you grew some of their product previously for many years, and suddenly stopped growing it.


Wait a second first you try to make it sound like it doesn't happen because you don't see it at your place, THEN YOU EXPLAIN HOW IT DOES?



farmerDale said:


> I also think a 12 by 12 area is quite excessive. Did you complain? What happened in your follow up on that?


LOL who do I complain to? And with what? I saw a guy walk out a of a field I have a small spot of dead plants worth A BUCK! 
Think the SCOTUS will award me that buck?:hair


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

I never thought about that. How do you know if someone's been on your land? I imagine your property is large enough that you can't possibly stand there all day and keep watch. Do you have cameras? How do you prevent trespassers? Unless you physically see someone walk on your land I think it might be hard to know whether someone had some onto it or not... the farms around here have barb wire and/or no tresspassing signs but I'm sure folks ignore those things sometimes.

(this is a general question not directed at anyone in particular, btw).


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> THERE ARE REPORTS OF IT! It was reading those reports that got me curious enough to go back out and look at that area closely.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Because I harvest every square inch of my canola land, a twelve by twelve area of no crop would tip me off as I swath the field. It would be impossible to miss a patch of that size, so I know it has never happened to me. We also live in a place where my land is all touching, and there is only a few ways to get to it, the main way is past my front door. The other entrance points, do have cameras to dissuade poachers, and follow game movements. 

Yes I explained how it COULD happen. It COULD happen if you were suspected of illegally using their technology without signing off voluntarily. If you were ratted out by a neighbor or had used their products before for several years, and suddenly stopped using them, they may take steps to ensure they are not being violated.

If it were me, and as you say it was Monsanto, I would have complained, and said no more of this. Because without reason, it is illegal for them to trespass and spray your crop, no matter how small the area is. Yep, I would have complained, and WILL complain if this ever happens to me on my farm.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

2dogs-mom said:


> I never thought about that. How do you know if someone's been on your land? I imagine your property is large enough that you can't possibly stand there all day and keep watch. Do you have cameras? How do you prevent trespassers? Unless you physically see someone walk on your land I think it might be hard to know whether someone had some onto it or not... the farms around here have barb wire and/or no tresspassing signs but I'm sure folks ignore those things sometimes.
> 
> (this is a general question not directed at anyone in particular, btw).


See my response to American stand...


----------



## michael ark (Dec 11, 2013)

Gotta love cspan .http://www.c-span.org/video/?318292-1/genetically-modified-food


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

partndn said:


> Wait all you want. It's been done hundreds of times here, and you disagree.
> 
> Yes, Dow and the rest are bad too. Big ag, altogether. Monster is mentioned more than any other because they have the largest lobby and most money influence with law makers, FDA, USDA, and the other crooks.
> 
> ...



This message sums up the anti-progress messages I see around here very well.

Mostly it is based on this quote from the message:

"Forget scientific examples or reasons..."

That sums up the anti-progress folk pretty well.

Nothing factual or scientific has ever been forthcoming from those vocal few who seem to base their life on hating others.

I really feel sorry for them mostly. I fear they will end up hurting our society, and to,protect the freedoms we have I speak out against their fear monte ring and anti-human views. But still, I feel sorry for them at the same time. To live so shallow a life, to be so selfish, to need others to provide for you all the time.

Just a bad deal.

Our education system is really breaking down.

Forget science and reason, indeed!

How foolish.

Paul


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

2dogs-mom said:


> I never thought about that. How do you know if someone's been on your land? I imagine your property is large enough that you can't possibly stand there all day and keep watch. Do you have cameras? How do you prevent trespassers? Unless you physically see someone walk on your land I think it might be hard to know whether someone had some onto it or not... the farms around here have barb wire and/or no tresspassing signs but I'm sure folks ignore those things sometimes.
> 
> 
> 
> (this is a general question not directed at anyone in particular, btw).



I can't speak for others but my family has farmed for years and besides being out on the land, we do check crops regularly to ensure things are going well. We notice things like uneven growth, tracks through our fields, patches of dead crop would get our attention pretty darned fast. 


Realistically, I can't think of any valid reason for someone to risk being caught trespassing in order to kill a patch of crop in someone's field when there are research stations across the country growing various crops specifically for testing.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

That makes sense - thanks for the replies everyone.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

The Winter Joke here is that there is nothing between here and the north pole but a barbed wire fence....and its down.

Im not sure that's even there! Miles and miles with very few fences usually around small amounts of pasture or yard.
Roundup isn't a instant acting poison like gasoline. Its just not that noticeable at first. Its just a slight bit of moisture. Its a week or so later before that you notice the leaves yellowing and dying.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

wr said:


> Realistically, I can't think of any valid reason for someone to risk being caught trespassing in order to kill a patch of crop in someone's field when there are research stations across the country growing various crops specifically for testing.


I believe like explained before that is a test to see if you are raising Roundup ready crops without a agreement. 

Think of it like Walmart sending someone into your living room to see if there are any shoplifted items there.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> I believe like explained before that is a test to see if you are raising Roundup ready crops without a agreement.
> 
> Think of it like Walmart sending someone into your living room to see if there are any shoplifted items there.


Interesting. I typed a few words into duckduckgo and was reading an article about Percy Schmeiser..it talked about planes dropping spray balls -

_Alternatively, Monsanto will fly in a small plane over a farmer's canola
fields and drop one of their Monsanto Round-Up Ready (Monsanto's pesticide)
spray balls. It will then come back in about 10 days, and if the canola
field has died Monsanto knows that the farmer wasn't using its canola; If it
hasn't died, it knows he was. The fact that it is illegal to spray from the
air in Canada does not worry Monsanto in any way._

But then there's this: http://www1a.biotec.or.th/biosafety/home/detail.asp?id=840 which refutes everything above.

Hm.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

partndn said:


> Yeah. I hope that you never find that non-existent (in your opinion) smoking gun pointed at you.
> 
> Uh lawyers? You are really going to go lawyers.. pointing at lawyers on the anti Monsanto side??
> 
> ...


We have lived in prime row crop country for 25+ years. Our place is an island of grass surrounded by a sea of corn and soybeans. I live in it, I don't just read about it on the internet.

Used to see clouds of dust, aka topsoil lost forever to the wind, all summer long as corn was being cultivated. Farmers used to burn off their fields in the fall to get rid of crop residue. Oh darn that pesky organic matter! Today I'm seeing a lot less tillage, a lot more crop residue left on the soil, and a lot less of the spray buggy, versus when we moved there. I can see with my own eyes that the soil is better cared for now than it used to be. 

So that first-hand observation, along with the observation that the very best efforts of a lot of sharp people to prove damage have been futile, tells me that the sky isn't falling. I don't mean to be harsh to people who think it is. It just gets very tiresome hearing the same old, lame old unproven accusations brought up over and over again. And having people throw my friends and neighbors, farmers, under the bus over and over again, like they are too stupid to know what to do with their own land, that they want to preserve to pass down to their next generation.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

2dogs-mom said:


> Interesting. I typed a few words into duckduckgo and was reading an article about Percy Schmeiser..it talked about planes dropping spray balls -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There are way less expensive ways to find out is someone is using roundup ready canola than spray bombs and it's not illegal to grow GMO or non GMO crops so I'm not sure what point it would prove.


----------



## michael ark (Dec 11, 2013)

Here is a good one.[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUd9rRSLY4A&list=PL-oic9lh6-NrpSsJ5s6rG2YseD7yGwXqT"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUd9rRSLY4A&list=PL-oic9lh6-NrpSsJ5s6rG2YseD7yGwXqT[/ame]


----------



## partndn (Jun 18, 2009)

rambler said:


> This message sums up the anti-progress messages I see around here very well.
> 
> Mostly it is based on this quote from the message:
> 
> ...



Let me ease your burden there pal... since you quoted MY post, I don't need you feeling sorry for me. And I sure as  don't live a shallow, selfish life needing others to provide for me all the time. 

You wanna pull out a piece of my post? So excited you missed the next sentence? I was referring to how this argument will never stop. 

BOTH sides BELIEVE they have science and facts, and that's all there is to it.

Insulting, petty, condascending remarks toward the other side don't do anything to sway anyone, inform anyone, or explain to anyone what you wish they would see.

Sounds like you say "Forget FREEDOM AND LIBERTY" indeed!
Worse than foolish. And I don't feel sorry for you.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

Well, this has been an interesting thread. I saw an ad in a magazine today by Monsanto, very concerned about bees. I feel it's basically damage control. 

I know I'm the population they're trying to sway. This might be far fetched but it reminds of a wife abuser who swears they've changed by showing all the good things they say they're going to do and praying people forget about the past.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

wr said:


> There are way less expensive ways to find out is someone is using roundup ready canola than spray bombs and *it's not illegal to grow GMO* or non GMO crops so I'm not sure what point it would prove.


It is illegal to grow them without a license from the patent holder...that's what they're supposedly looking for...farmers stealing their patented genes.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

GMO elicits some very strong opinions. 

In my opinion, any consumer that wants to be informed and aware of what they feed their family, certainly has my respect. 

I also feel these discussions are often circular and tend to comparing apples to oranges. 

The small family farm/homestead will always play a role in food production but what they produce and how they produce will be dictated by the market they satisfy and input costs so to a certain degree, they have the ability to price their product accordingly. 

The average consumer has come to expect abundant supplies of cheap food from the large scale farmer who's prices are controlled by big business and commodities markets. Commercial farmers are left with high input costs, very high overhead and fairly slim profit margins. 

As long as North Americans want cheap, abundant food, they pretty much dictate how it's going to be produced.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

Directed by *Gary Null*.

Those two bolded words should give anyone pause. Look him up. He is a certified quack.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

I live in the very productive area of the corn belt. We are in easy truck delivery distance to 2 of the worlds biggest grain processors. But there is also a large amount of non GMO grains grown for a premium price. These gmo and non gmo are sometimes on the same farm. The evil seed breeders still produce thousand of non gmo variety's. I have no idea why there are so many people that believe that farmers are without choices on what to plant and what herbicides to use. If large corporations had as much power as most think, we would all be paying $100,000 for cars and paying $10.00 per gallon for gasoline!


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

Wanda said:


> I live in the very productive area of the corn belt. We are in easy truck delivery distance to 2 of the worlds biggest grain processors. But there is also a large amount of non GMO grains grown for a premium price. These gmo and non gmo are sometimes on the same farm. The evil seed breeders still produce thousand of non gmo variety's. I have no idea why there are so many people that believe that farmers are without choices on what to plant and what herbicides to use. If large corporations had as much power as most think, we would all be paying $100,000 for cars and paying $10.00 per gallon for gasoline!


Wait. We have CHOICE? But what about when Monsanto came to my door and held the gun to my head???

ound:


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

farmerDale said:


> Wait. We have CHOICE? But what about when Monsanto came to my door and held the gun to my head???
> 
> ound:



Dale since you live in an igloo in the cold frozen north, I think it is the Queen of England that tells you what to plant!


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

Wanda said:


> Dale since you live in an igloo in the cold frozen north, I think it is the Queen of England that tells you what to plant!


You are on a roll! She calls me every April. How did you know? :happy2:


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

Well, I got 11 minutes into the fictional account by Gary Null. At about the 11 minute mark, they started chatting about the criminal, Percy Schmeiser. I am not sure I can watch much more. It is so frustrating. Like the sister "documentary", food inc, it is difficult to be a farmer and watch as they lie continuously to the 99% of the populace who do not farm.

I am going to try to continue, but using Percy Schmeisers impossible story??? ugh.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

Got to 20 minutes. I have to quit there. Far too many lies and ridiculous statements. When the lady said when we eat food, our genes change permanently, I had to call it a show. 

That was a bit after Schmeiser lied and stated that we farmers can not keep our own seed any more, and after the one dude lied and said that 90% of the crops in Canada are gm.


----------



## michael ark (Dec 11, 2013)

How about my c span video with doctors testimony and a few studies?Or are you going to say the science is settled since you give no actual argument or proof i could care less how much it frustrates you.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

27 minutes in. The debunked seralini study on rats comes along.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

michael ark said:


> How about my c span video with doctors testimony and a few studies?Or are you going to say the science is settled since you give no actual argument or proof i could care less how much it frustrates you.


Hey, I need to watch that. Last night it wasn't working. I think I am through with the silly video I have been watching. I have seen enough to know it is pure sensationalism.

Thanks, I will go look at that one now. I think it was only 20 minutes or so?

ETA. I was wrong ot is close to two hours. I will have to check it another time...

A quick check up on Mr. Smith. He has no credentials, sorry. I will avoid that video as well because of this. He is a swing dancer, and has even taught it in the past. He claims to be a scientist, but has never actually worked in that field. Doctor Oz calls him a scientist, but he has no formal schooling in any single science field. Interesting stuff.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

A bit of a write up on the supposed "scientist" ahem, dancer, Mr. Smith...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonenti...frey-smith-withdraw-from-food-biotech-debate/


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

jwal10 said:


> elkhound said:
> 
> 
> > ....wait till this agent orange corn from dupont(or whichever one it is) is being planted.
> ...


----------



## Sanza (Sep 8, 2008)

cntrywmnkw said:


> Thank you partndn. I was merely trying to mention these new commercials being aired in which Monsanto is trying to portray themselves as these great benefactors of humanity. As far as research & reports, look up Natural News, a link was posted by one of the people on this forum. I only mentioned Monsanto, because that is the ONLY commercial that I've seen.
> 
> As for those of you who asked, I DO homestead, I raise my own heirloom vegetables & herbs, I raise chickens for eggs & meat, the reason I do, is because I wanted to know EXACTLY what was going into the food I ate & how my animals are being treated. My hens are NOT confined, they have access to 5 acres plus their coop that they are put in at night, they also have a 14 x 35 covered run that they can go in as well. My garden is fertilized with the manure from my goats & chickens, not chemicals.


This thread has gotten so far off topic but I am curious about what you feed your chickens and goats? Do you raise 100% of your feed yourself? Or do you buy the pellets and crumbles made up with soy and corn (both GMO) as the main ingredients?


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

Sanza said:


> This thread has gotten so far off topic but I am curious about what you feed your chickens and goats? Do you raise 100% of your feed yourself? Or do you buy the pellets and crumbles made up with soy and corn (both GMO) as the main ingredients?


I'd like to know as well as I'm going to need a food source in a few months. Hope she comes back to check the thread.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

Just purchase ''organic'' feed and you have no GMO grains used. Just the same with the food for your family. The label is there and has been in use for many years. Of course you will have to pay a slight premium, which some think is unfair.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

Not me . Hopefully I can find a local source. I just need to do some research. Nobody I know keeps chickens and I'm in a city where feed stores are few and far between. I expect to have to order some things online. It's all a learning curve. Thanks!


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

2dogs-mom said:


> Not me . Hopefully I can find a local source. I just need to do some research. Nobody I know keeps chickens and I'm in a city where feed stores are few and far between. I expect to have to order some things online. It's all a learning curve. Thanks!


 If you do not mind the price, there is someone selling and shipping any thing your heart desires!


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

I'd actually thought about making my own as there's tons of recipes out there but my issue is not having anything to grind things up with and no commercial mills near me. I could make up small quantities but I have a life and better things to do than stand in the kitchen all day making up their feed. It'd take forever..

Regarding buying anything online, I'd bet that Amazon has it..I swear they have everything. Well, I get the chicks in May so that'll buy me some time to get my stuff in order. This has been a huge learning curve for me but the info I've gotten from this board has been immensely helpful.


----------



## Bubba1358 (Nov 6, 2013)

Sanza said:


> This thread has gotten so far off topic but I am curious about what you feed your chickens and goats? Do you raise 100% of your feed yourself? Or do you buy the pellets and crumbles made up with soy and corn (both GMO) as the main ingredients?


I feed a mixture of wheat, oats, sunflower seeds, and field peas - none of which are GMO - that I mix myself and ferment for a few days. This mixture goes to the chickens and pigs, and is about 17% crude protein. No corn, no soy, no canola, no cottonseed, etc. I also buy a non-GMO layer pellet made of primarily wheat, milo, and fish meal. It's 13.99 a bag. The fermented mix is actually cheaper, when you take the weight of the finished product. My chickens do very, very well on this, plus a controlled amount of pasture. I wish I could do 100% free range, but alas - I'm just not there yet.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

Bubba, I would love more information - sending you a PM as I don't want the thread to drift too much. Thanks!


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

It's not that I'm anti-GMO it's that I'm pro health. For instance, I was reading an article in the paper today and have no problem with this: Enogen Home | Syngenta US: http://www3.syngenta.com/country/us/en/agriculture/seeds/corn/enogen/Pages/enogen-home.aspx

via DuckDuckGo for iOS

Modify away- if it's being burned up in cars I don't care.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

How many more years do we need to look at GMO crops? I would say that more than a few people in the science and business community have checked thoroughly over many years! If Monsanto is ruthless to make a dollar, why would they promote a product that would harm and alienate there customer base? They can not force a customer to buy there product.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

I think they have a hold on farmers, plain and simple. I also think they depend on unwitting consumers who either don't know or don't care to think about what they eat, which is why they were so against a label in the first place. As far as research, I know studies have been done but I still think more in the term of long term effects. I'm more on the skeptical side, I realize that.

And while they cannot force anyone to buy something, it's almost impossible to avoid foods that tie back to Monsanto. They've dominated the food supply.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Monsanto has competition. Somehow they fly under the radar for the general public. There are about 5 companies who control about everything in the grocery store. More competition than that at the production level. Monsanto has more competition than Kraft in other words.


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

rambler said:


> I find that comment so offensive and maddening, I've spent an hour trying to compose a calm reply to this nonsense.
> 
> Can't do it.
> 
> ...



i dont fully understand your anger...i just stated i dont like it....they are trying to get it...buts its DOW...its been dubbed "agent orange corn"....sorry but i am entitled to my views and opinions.....theres a reason too......i know people sick from this crap produced in these factories as its in my backyard....nitro,wva..my local waterways are tested by my states health dept and its still tests so high for a product thats not been in production since late 70's i STILL cant eat fish but once a month from there or thats the official consumption amount....sorry if my reality doesnt match your reality .


dont know if this approved now or not.


*'Agent Orange Corn' Debate Rages As Dow Seeks Approval Of New Genetically Modified Seed*



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/26/enlist-dow-agent-orange-corn_n_1456129.html




http://www.wvgazette.com/News/201311220094

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- The West Virginia Supreme Court on Friday upheld approval of the settlement in a landmark lawsuit over pollution of the community of Nitro with dioxin from the former Monsanto chemical plant.
The court voted 4-1 to affirm a January ruling in which Circuit Judge Derek S---e approved the class-action settlement aimed at resolving longstanding allegations that Monsanto contaminated Nitro with toxic pollution from the production of the defoliant Agent Orange. Chief Justice Brent Benjamin dissented.
In a 14-page decision reached without oral argument, the court said it found "no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error" in various appeals filed over S---e's nearly 400-page settlement-approval order.
Under the settlement, thousands of Nitro-area residents will be eligible for medial monitoring and property cleanups as part of the $93 million deal.
For more than 50 years, the Monsanto plant churned out herbicides, rubber products and other chemicals. The plant's production of Agent Orange, a defoliant deployed widely in the Vietnam War, created dioxin as a toxic chemical byproduct.
Dioxin has been linked to cancer, birth defects, learning disabilities, endometriosis, infertility and suppressed immune functions. The chemical builds up in tissue over time, meaning that even a small exposure can accumulate to dangerous levels.
In February 2012, Monsanto agreed to the settlement on the eve of an expected six-month trial in which residents sought medical monitoring for dioxin-related illnesses and a cleanup of what they argued was a contaminated community.
The company agreed to a 30-year medical-monitoring program with a primary fund of $21 million for initial testing and up to $63 million in additional money dependant on what levels of dioxin are found in residents.
Monsanto also agreed to spend $9 million cleaning 4,500 homes in the area to rid them of dioxin-contaminated dust. The cleanups include vacuuming carpets, rugs and accessible horizontal surfaces with High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filter vacuums, wet cleaning floors, floor vents, tops of doors and window moldings, interior window sills, ceiling fans, light fixtures and radiators.
- See more at: http://www.wvgazette.com/News/201311....DUDSL2Id.dpuf


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

*Controversy flares over "Agent Orange corn"*





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/controversy-flares-over-agent-orange-corn/


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

2dogs-mom said:


> I think they have a hold on farmers, plain and simple. I also think they depend on unwitting consumers who either don't know or don't care to think about what they eat, which is why they were so against a label in the first place. As far as research, I know studies have been done but I still think more in the term of long term effects. I'm more on the skeptical side, I realize that.
> 
> And while they cannot force anyone to buy something, it's almost impossible to avoid foods that tie back to Monsanto. They've dominated the food supply.


No. They do not have a hold on us farmers. We have choices and we make them. They have ZERO control over us.

There are massive amounts of food produced outside of Monsanto's reach. Billions of tonnes of it.

A label would tell consumers that there is something wrong with a product that there is nothing wrong with. Kind of like "organic" labelling. It is inferred that organic is somehow better, even though chemicals and herbicides and fertilizers are allowed. Even though in organic grain cropping, more fuel is used, more soil is eroded, more land is wasted, and because in organic grain production, the crops are basically starved of proper nutrition to grow well because there is no feasible way to feed them what they need efficiently.

But consumers have the wool pulled over their eyes all the time, because of the organic label. It infers something that is not there. That is the true reason most are against labels. It is non-scientific.

For organic producers, it is all about the money.

You won't hear that from mother earth news, because nothing organic farmers do is for cash.  They are so good to humankind, they farm for free! It is all about romance, right? 

The organic industry is bigger than Monsanto, but Monsanto is all about the money! Interesting, huh?


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

Oh, on an aside note, this are the 'chips' we buy. They're really good: http://www.foodshouldtastegood.com/products/tortilla-chips/multigrain-tortilla-chips I try to stock up when they go on sale, usually around $2. Enjoy.  They're more like a cracker. They are addictive!


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And that agent orange is laughable as to see how many are so gullible to really believe in such a thing. Wow.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

I always wonder where they find the goofy farmers who whine that weeds are hard to kill. Farmers who talk about "superweeds". Farmers who act surprised when using herbicides in the same mode of action group, and ending up with weed resistance. Guys who chat like 2-4D is not one of the most used and effective herbicides there is. 

Well, I guess they did find Percy Schmeiser. If they can find him, they can find anyone I guess.

It is futile for the rest of us when they find goofy and confused farmers to aid their cause. Because if the farmer is confused and does not have a clue, we can for sure bet that the consumers are going to be twice as confused.

If a farmer has weed resistance, it is his own dang fault. It has been known about since the advent of chemical weed control that care must be taken to avoid it.


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

elkhound said:


> *Controversy flares over "Agent Orange corn"*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Is this new info or more of the same, I can not run this and can not find any more info. I can understand your concern but this is 2015. I see no info that says 2-4d is like the old 245T and agent orange....James.


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

farmerDale said:


> I always wonder where they find the goofy farmers who whine that weeds are hard to kill. Farmers who talk about "superweeds". Farmers who act surprised when using herbicides in the same mode of action group, and ending up with weed resistance. Guys who chat like 2-4D is not one of the most used and effective herbicides there is.
> 
> Well, I guess they did find Percy Schmeiser. If they can find him, they can find anyone I guess.
> 
> ...


 There is concern that with dropping prices that todays farmers will do things to keep their bottom line. GMOs and roundup have been the boon to "lazy farmers". I see more and more used in the next few years to keep their bottom line. I think there is a line being drawn and the good farmers do not want to be thrown back over that line and loose what has been gained by "good practices". I see more and more consumers pushing back. Going to be a tough few years on "lazy practices"....James


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

2dogs-mom said:


> Oh, on an aside note, this are the 'chips' we buy. They're really good: http://www.foodshouldtastegood.com/products/tortilla-chips/multigrain-tortilla-chips I try to stock up when they go on sale, usually around $2. Enjoy.  They're more like a cracker. They are addictive!


This is the way to get what you want, Smart, thoughtful buying of the products you want. Companies will make what consumers want and labeling for the consumer makes it easier, thereby selling more. There is room for both. The informed will make the difference, Preaching will drive people away.

There IS a place for both. I have no influence, I don't buy either....James


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

jwal10 said:


> Is this new info or more of the same, I can not run this and can not find any more info. I can understand your concern but this is 2015. I see no info that says 2-4d is like the old 245T and agent orange....James.


its old news james...i just posted a couple links for rambler from news sources so he can see where the term agent orange came from....be it correct use of wording...its what its going to be known as it seems.


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

I see "farmers" commenting on resistant weeds on the boards all the time. Most just talk about the next chemical being talked about to kill the weeds. My concern is there are a few resistant weeds but chemicals are the "east way out" and we are right back to the high use levels. New Chemicals may be better than the "old days", but with more concern now, it will be scrutinized more, bringing more Goobermutt meddling and consumer demands....James


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Course we ALL know that is not what Agent Orange was it was way More Complicated and more chemicals put in. So calling something that it is NOT is now only misleading but to the misinformed they will believe anything as long as it is on the Net It Must Be True. Which in this case it is Not True at all.


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

elkhound said:


> its old news james...i just posted a couple links for rambler from news sources so he can see where the term agent orange came from....be it correct use of wording...its what its going to be known as it seems.



Thanks, it is hard to tell the tone of a post. I had the same concern he did, thus why I quoted it. Thought you might interject. I couldn't tell if you were stirring the hysteria. I do worry that it would be but it is only spewed by one side and I see no real evidence things are the same, but being questioned is a good thing....James


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

Farmerdale, just curious. I remember you had a thread about trying to go organic. Did that pan out? What brand of seeds to you currently use for canola (correct me if I'm wrong but I thought I read that somewhere).


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

2dogs-mom said:


> Farmerdale, just curious. I remember you had a thread about trying to go organic. Did that pan out? What brand of seeds to you currently use for canola (correct me if I'm wrong but I thought I read that somewhere).


I do have some land that I have not been able to get to because of a flooded lake for about 10 years. So it would be easy to certify. I would never try to be organic on more than a bit, but the trouble is, certifying bodies need you to convert your whole farm, which in my view severely limits the acres they could certify. Many farmers would dabble in it, if they did not have to convert their whole farm. I would also think organic may pay if I could certify my hay land as it comes out of rotation and back into grain, even if for only a couple years. But this is frowned on, and is frustrating for those of us who think we could take advantage of higher prices, by attaining certification on some of our land, some of the time. 

The trouble is the transition to organic is what breaks most guys. They have to take yield cuts for three years, (because you are then farming organically), but still receive only conventional prices, which is an enormously hard thing to do and stay in business. If I were to do some organic production, I would avoid that hard transition, by getting land certified after hay, because it is easy to not spray or fertilize hay for three years and still produce decent yields, than it is to grow regular crops.

For canola brands, I have used Ag Canada, my own seed, bayer, dekalb, Bunge, canterra, limagrain, nexera, HEAR, ( which is an industrial oil).


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

Yep - I've heard how difficult it is to become certified. It's great for a consumer like me because it ensures steps have been taken but... I can only imagine the number of hoops a farmer has to go through, and I know this is most likely a huge deterrant for some. 

The reason I was wondering is this (going back to GMO though because I know the two -organic/gmo are not necessarily mutually exclusive). I read this article and it got me to thinking. http://www.producer.com/2013/05/non-gm-canola-oil-demand-has-crusher-scrambling/ It's from late 2013.

I know there's some canola out there that is non-GMO. Personal feelings aside, what is the tipping point? At what point (if ever) would you choose it? I'm speculating here, because I saw a few of the names you listed which led me to believe you grow GM canola. You mentioned your own seed as well though so please correct me if I'm wrong.

I'll be honest with you - I don't use canola at all, never have. But if I was standing at the store looking at two bottles of oil side by side, you know which one I would choose. And though I may be the minority, we are growing. Imagine that scenario replicated many times over - wouldn't that hurt a farmer's bottom line at all? Do you think there will ever be a point where farmers who continue to use GMO seeds are going to lose out? On a similar note, could non-GMO canola be planted as sort of a niche market?

Just thinking out loud...


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Yes that field has to be kept vacant for I believe in WI it is at least 3 years before any animals can be brought in. My very good friend that had a small organic herd for milking had to do that. He was also my horse vet. So I worked at his place once in awhile until his passing. When he was still alive and milking I also helped in that and would take home some nice fresh raw milk to drink even though my Dad had a hissy fit over it i still did it knowing he kept his place very clean and the milk tank very clean as well, and being he was a veterinarian also helped in that matter.
That dairy farm is still being renting out and is still organic as I still go there once in awhile to help his window out. Once in a great while as we only live 2 miles apart.
And I an remember going to that same far and watching Dave's Grandpa milk his cows in the round barn that is no longer there what a shame that was to see that barn go..
One of the last real round barns in my area of WI.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

2dogs-mom said:


> Yep - I've heard how difficult it is to become certified. It's great for a consumer like me because it ensures steps have been taken but... I can only imagine the number of hoops a farmer has to go through, and I know this is most likely a huge deterrant for some.
> 
> The reason I was wondering is this (going back to GMO though because I know the two -organic/gmo are not necessarily mutually exclusive). I read this article and it got me to thinking. http://www.producer.com/2013/05/non-gm-canola-oil-demand-has-crusher-scrambling/ It's from late 2013.
> 
> ...


I appreciate the questions, because it shows a real interest!

First, I will say the oil from canola has no protein, therefore it is non gmo. The meal which is gmo, is fed to livestock as a high protein feed source. Every reputable health organization, has recognized the benefits and the amazing properties of canola oil in human diets. Its fatty acid profile is simply amazing compared to all the rest. Other countries try hard to emulate this profile, by selecting for oil production in their own crops, including olives and soy.

Now, speaking to the concern I may have that consumers may be shying away... First, canola oil could not, and will not be labelled gm, because it is not, so that is a moot point. Second, if consumers in Europe, Japan, and all the other countries that import tons of canola oil, start to balk, I will get concerned. But I simply do not see that ever happening, because the health attributes, and the fact it is a non gm product is its strong suit. When a country as health conscious as Japan, Germany or Belgium, or Canada, uses a product for 3 or 4 decades, I have confidence in that product.

So far as what the tipping point would be to make me seed non gm canola? A hefty, hefty premium would have to be offered. See, if I were to grow non gm canola, here are a few things that would happen:

My fuel use would rise by at least three times. I would have to till the soil so that little residue was left on the surface, so that I could apply ucky, smelly, poisonous trifluralin herbicide, ( basically a soil sterilant), to control the weeds, which needs to be incorporated twice with tillage, into a clean of residue, already heavily tilled soil surface. Once tilled this many times, the soil becomes very erodible, so I am going to lose soil, no matter what I do. With that eroded soil, will be applied fertilizers, trifluralin, and organic matter running into lakes and rivers. Not good. Not good for those who come after me to farm this land, not good for wildlife and downstream water users.

The trifluralin, does not control other weeds, like cleavers, hemp nettle, wild mustard. So then after seeding, you need to make another pass or two of herbicide to control these weeds, or risk losing a bunch of yield. So there is much more cost there. Herbicide cost would quadruple. Herbicide poison factor would at least be multiplied by 8, due to application rates and poison potency.

The bottom line, is gm canola allows me to apply herbicide ONCE, saves a pile of fuel, in the range of a multiple of three or four. My soil is not degraded, and will not erode, because I am able to use no till practices. In fact, it allows my soil to be rebuilt from the days when those practices were common, prior to gm canola. My soil OM is rising, not falling. My soil stays on the fields. The water infiltrates the soil more easily, because the soil structure is like a garden, not a parking lot. When water does run off, it is clear as a northern lake, because the soil is intact and not being eroded. When I was a kid, heck 15 years ago, the water was dark brown from a heavy silt load.

To make me walk the non gm canola road again, would take at least a doubling in price from the sale of the crop. At least.

But even then, what is soil health worth? Even with double the price, I think I would balk at watching my soil turn to a beaten pulp, watch my soil erode, watch the associated wildlife populations drop again. Gm crops are so much more environmentally favorable. We farmers need to hit this home.

Now, my other crops, the other 12 or so I grow are non gmo. I am happy with this, because they already have great herbicide options. Canola never did, which is why I am happy to grow gm canola. 

Consumers, if they knew the truth, would be SEEKING out gm food, not shying away from it, for environmental reasons alone. In the age of the Carbon scare, one would think they would jump on any cropping practice that lessens fuel usage by three fold, that allows sequestration of carbon in the soil through no tillage, that allows minimized soil erosion, that cleans up the runoff and minimizes it: amphibious life has exploded. Soil microbes and earthworms is phenomenal. Ground nesting bird life has returned. IMO, the environmental impact is so positive. We farmers need to share this better. But it is so hard, when we fight a bunch of internet savvy quacks like Dr. Oz and Oprah. We are one per cent. We farm the land. But the 99% are telling consumers we suck, we are doing it all wrong. And they do this without visiting a single farm. They do it from inside some office, in some stinky, polluted city. With their bellies full of food.

I am open to suggestions at how to argue our points, and how to fight back on the gross misinformation about our chosen career. 

Hmmm, lets see, as a consumer, would I go with some line dancer who has no scientific background, and is selling multiple fear books on the topic of gm, or would I ask farmers what is actually happening on farms? Sadly, most consumers get scared, and go with the quack. Worse, most consumers simply no longer have a farmer they can approach and talk to about these things, and I don't blame them, they can not help being generations removed from a farm. It is simply, sadly the way it is...

But alas, they fear a gene. A gene that in the case of canola, is not even in the oil in the first place!

I hope this small book helps you see where we are coming from.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

Thanks for the response - I know you probably have a lot more going in your life than I have and appreciate the time and thought put into it. 

You wrote "_I am open to suggestions at how to argue our points, and how to fight back on the gross misinformation about our chosen career."_

This a tough call..I guess talk, talk, talk and talk some more. I know it's your livelihood that depends on it. People like me are a hard sell, I know that..which is why I ask the questions I do.  I'm learning more and more each day..sometimes my opinions are changed, sometimes not. Through it all I do what I feel is best for my family, regardless what my friends think. And some think I need to move back to CA and join a commune. lol.

I will say that the words you used, *argue *and *fight back*..might not get you too far. You can always catch more flies with honey than with vinegar and I still believe education is key. Arguing and fighting shuts people down and turns them off. Have you seen the locked threads here lately? Crazy. I'm not saying that's what you're doing, but if you seem to be feeling like you're having to argue your opinion, well that might not be the best route to go. 

Again, I think more and more people are looking for products without GMO and tapping into that little niche market will be the way to go. Us dirty hippies have money to spend too. I have utmost respect for farmers, I do, because I know it's something I could never do. Well, I could do it but I would suck at it in a large way. I have a hard time managing my little postage stamp gardens I get to eke out here and there. :bored: 

And if all else fails, start a campaign that GMO items have secret Viagra properties..I dunno. Some people believe everything they hear.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

2dogs-mom said:


> Yep - I've heard how difficult it is to become certified. *It's great for a consumer like me because it ensures steps have been taken* but... I can only imagine the number of hoops a farmer has to go through, and I know this is most likely a huge deterrant for some.


This jumped out at me and I would like to respectfully suggest that you do some more research on the Organic certification process. Yes, it ensures that "steps have been taken" but not necessarily that those steps are particularly beneficial to the consumer. I see Organic certification as more of a sign that a farmer is good at dealing with bureaucracy than an indication of high quality food. Not completely knocking Organic...it is a useful label to know certain things about what you're buying, but people tend to infer more from that little USDA Organic logo than it really means. In my opinion, it carries a lot more weight for many people than it should.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

jtbrandt said:


> This jumped out at me and I would like to respectfully suggest that you do some more research on the Organic certification process. Yes, it ensures that "steps have been taken" but not necessarily that those steps are particularly beneficial to the consumer. I see Organic certification as more of a sign that a farmer is good at dealing with bureaucracy than an indication of high quality food. Not completely knocking Organic...it is a useful label to know certain things about what you're buying, but people tend to infer more from that little USDA Organic logo than it really means. In my opinion, it carries a lot more weight for many people than it should.


I know personally a situation where two brothers farm. One farms organically. On farms conventionally. Guess what happened? The organic guy bought his brothers grain to mix with his own. Because there is no way to test organic grain, they got away with this for a fair bit. But you know what else happens? When an organic buyer takes shipment of a load of "organic" grain, and it is clean and free of weeds, and has high protein due to proper N nutrition, the buyer tips off the certifying body, and closer inspection occurs. Just one of the things about the organic process that is iffy. I am told this happens frequently in the organic industry. Which is really too bad.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

That's true...there are a lot of shady practices. But even when they strictly and honestly follow the protocols, Organic certification doesn't mean as much as most people think it does.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

jtbrandt said:


> That's true...there are a lot of shady practices. But even when they strictly and honestly follow the protocols, Organic certification doesn't mean as much as most people think it does.


And don't get me wrong, it is not necessarily typical. I am simply pointing out how easy it is to cheat the system. It is part of the reason the certification bodies DO want you to convert your whole farm. They do not want you growing HRS wheat organically AND conventionally. If I did go organic on some land, I would certainly be ok if they made sure I grew a unique crop on the organic portion that I was not growing conventionally...

A farmer could spray glean, a herbicide with very long lasting effects on soils and susceptible plant life, and wait the three years, but still have glean residue in their soil, but be certified organic, because they waited three years. 

Another thing guys often do, is over apply non leaching fertilizer in the years before going organic to build the soil, so they do not take such a yield hit. Some nutrients, p and k for example, can be built up so the soil has residual fertility after the three years. So there can be plenty of fertility from high fert. applications even after the three year wait, yet you can still get certified, even if your nutrient levels are high from using high rates of "chemical" fertilizers.

Lots of stuff to think about...


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

I hope whenever you see that little butterfly logo you think of me. Adios.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)




----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

plowjockey said:


> One can either like, or not like a Corporation, but getting angry over one, just does not seem healthy, IMO.
> 
> If nobody wanted Monsanto products, they'd been out business a long time ago.
> 
> I miss the days, when the Right picked on General Motors.


Really? Ever try avoiding their products in all food and livestock feed? It's a battle that isn't easily won just to NOT end up with their crap in your food. They aren't in business because people want them to be, they are in business because government wants them to be.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

jwal10 said:


> elkhound said:
> 
> 
> > ....wait till this agent orange corn from dupont(or whichever one it is) is being planted.
> ...


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Woolieface said:


> jwal10 said:
> 
> 
> > Incidentally, Monsanto invented Agent Orange. I could hate them for that alone.
> ...


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

arabian knight said:


> Woolieface said:
> 
> 
> > Oh that is funny people calling this agent orange corn. Just a small part of the chemical is being used and when it is a partial amount of the recipe it can not be called agent orange. And 2-4-D which is only part was invented in Britain 2,4-D was brought to market as an herbicide called "Weedone" starting in 1945 by the American Chemical Paint Company
> ...


----------

