|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Roundup's magicial ingredient is animal fat.
I just buy generic 41% glyphosate (home depot HDX) and add a tiny bit of laundry detergent. low suds.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
that particular compound isnt dangerous to humans, affect streams with very high alkaline conditions. halflife is short so no accumulation. would even qualify as organic given it is an snimalfat derivative.
|
On October 25 2014 03:47 oneofthem wrote: that particular compound isnt dangerous to humans, affect streams with very high alkaline conditions. halflife is short so no accumulation. would even qualify as organic given it is an snimalfat derivative. Organic or not you can't say that it has no impact on human. There is a wiki about check it - it shows that various studies have different point of view on the subject, the more recent studies showing some problems especially with pregnancy and fertility.
And (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weed-whacking-herbicide-p/)
Used in yards, farms and parks throughout the world, Roundup has long been a top-selling weed killer. But now researchers have found that one of Roundup’s inert ingredients can kill human cells, particularly embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells.
The new findings intensify a debate about so-called “inerts” — the solvents, preservatives, surfactants and other substances that manufacturers add to pesticides. Nearly 4,000 inert ingredients are approved for use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Glyphosate, Roundup’s active ingredient, is the most widely used herbicide in the United States. About 100 million pounds are applied to U.S. farms and lawns every year, according to the EPA.
Until now, most health studies have focused on the safety of glyphosate, rather than the mixture of ingredients found in Roundup. But in the new study, scientists found that Roundup’s inert ingredients amplified the toxic effect on human cells—even at concentrations much more diluted than those used on farms and lawns.
One specific inert ingredient, polyethoxylated tallowamine, or POEA, was more deadly to human embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells than the herbicide itself – a finding the researchers call “astonishing.”
“This clearly confirms that the [inert ingredients] in Roundup formulations are not inert,” wrote the study authors from France’s University of Caen. “Moreover, the proprietary mixtures available on the market could cause cell damage and even death [at the] residual levels” found on Roundup-treated crops, such as soybeans, alfalfa and corn, or lawns and gardens.
The research team suspects that Roundup might cause pregnancy problems by interfering with hormone production, possibly leading to abnormal fetal development, low birth weights or miscarriages.
|
On October 25 2014 03:22 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2014 03:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 25 2014 03:00 WhiteDog wrote:On October 25 2014 02:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 24 2014 16:48 WhiteDog wrote:On October 24 2014 08:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 24 2014 08:27 WhiteDog wrote:On October 24 2014 08:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 24 2014 07:47 WhiteDog wrote:On October 24 2014 07:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:[quote] How am I nitpicking? My 'broad and easy metaphor' is how the Washington State Academy of Science put it, and how Neil deGrasse Tyson put it as well ( link, link, link). There just isn't a substantial difference between non-GMO genetic modification and GMO genetic modification. Many non-GMO genetic modification techniques use genetic analysis to help isolate the desired traits. It's really not a whole lot different from GMOs. Romanticizing farmers dutifully keeping the best seeds at the end of the harvest is recalling a past that hasn't existed for a long time. Example: [quote] linkAs for the business practices that come with GMOs, yes, some 'bad' things occur, but some good things occur as well. Lumping them together doesn't help anyone. GMOs often help farmers use less chemicals and focus on safer chemicals to grow crops - that's a good thing! Yet you want a GMO label so you can ... make bad decisions like assume that GMOs mean negative environmental consequences? Well the academy of science has an incomplete vision on the subject, and that's perfectly normal in a sense since they're only scientist - their activity is based on cutting reality into "objects" simple enough to be understood. My political and economic vision see this metaphore as stupid. Nitpicking is your opus operatum. I've already discussed my problem with GMO and modern agriculture at large in previous posts. I don't believe any good will come from GMO who are commercialized by the private sector, but maybe that's my snobism and ignorance who's talking. May I add that GMO does not necessarily mean less chemicals. http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/07/02/gmo-crops-mean-more-herbicide-not-less/Over the past 15 years, farmers around the world have planted ever larger tracts of genetically engineered crops.
According to the USDA, in 2012 more than 93 percent of soy planted was “herbicide tolerant,” engineered to withstand herbicides (sold by the same companies who patent and sell the seeds). Likewise, 73 percent of all corn now is also genetically modified to withstand chemicals produced to kill competing weeds.
One of the main arguments behind creating these engineered crops is that farmers then need to use less herbicide and pesticide. This makes farms more eco-friendly, say proponents of genetically modified (GM) crops, and GM seeds also allow farmers to spend less on “inputs” (chemicals), thereby making a greater profit.
But a new study released by Food & Water Watch yesterday finds the goal of reduced chemical use has not panned out as planned. In fact, according to the USDA and EPA data used in the report, the quick adoption of genetically engineered crops by farmers has increased herbicide use over the past 9 years in the U.S. The report follows on the heels of another such study by Washington State University research professor Charles Benbrook just last year.
Both reports focus on “superweeds.” It turns out that spraying a pesticide repeatedly selects for weeds which also resist the chemical. Ever more resistant weeds are then bred, able to withstand increasing amounts – and often different forms – of herbicide.
At the center of debate is the pesticide glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto Round Up. Food & Water Watch found that the “total volume of glyphosate applied to the three biggest GE crops — corn, cotton and soybeans — increased 10-fold from 15 million pounds in 1996 to 159 million pounds in 2012.” Overall pesticide use decreased only in the first few years GE crops were used (42 percent between 1998 and 2001) and has since then risen by 26 percent from 2001 to 2010.. Plantings went up as well, so your source isn't really accurate. Here's USDA: Herbicide use dipped down then back up a bit, but... Despite the relatively minor effect HT [Herbicide-tolerant] crop adoption has had on overall herbicide usage, HT crop adoption has enabled farmers to substitute glyphosate (which many HT crops are designed to tolerate) for more traditional herbicides. Because glyphosate is significantly less toxic and less persistent than traditional herbicides, the net impact of HT crop adoption is an improvement in environmental quality and a reduction in health risks. linkBut please keep citing misinformation, you're making my case for me Edit: To GH - if you plant more corn you use more chemicals. If you switch to a safer chemical you will use more of the safer chemical. My source is perfectly accurate, and I never said that chemicals went up with GMO : I carefully said that it does not necessarily mean a decrease in chemical usage. I know perfectly well that the ratio between chemical and production hasn't went up, but absolute chemicals has gone up. GMO is used as a tool to continue and pursue a specific agricultural production process that is, in my opinion, detrimental to our society. The simple fact that weed create a resistance to the heavy usage of said pesticide will force Mosanto and the like to create new pesticide, more efficient in killing weed and also more dangerous for the eco system. In the long run, well you might understand the end result. Citing absolute numbers is bad. GMOs have lead to a decrease in insecticide use, and a move to safer herbicides. The only other statement you can make is that organics would have lead to greater reduction in insecticide / herbicide use. An increase in chemical use due to an increase in production is NOT the same as an increase in chemical use due to GMOs. I know you understand this... Having to create new pesticides has nothing to do with GMOs. Resistances to glycines has been weaker than with many other herbicides: + Show Spoiler + Absolute numbers are not bad, and again that's your opus operatum at play, unable to understand that only absolute numbers are relevant if you want to evaluate the impact of a specific production process on environment or health : it depends on what you want to witness. That there is an increase in productivity, we all agree, but it does not change the production process, GMO today are only engineered to improve productivity and facilitate the use of pesticides - which is completly understandable since Mosanto produce both the GMO and the pesticides. Stop discarding all informations that does not go in your way please ? The same goes for your resistance to glycines : what I see from the graph you gave is that glycines are only heavily used since the end of 1990 and not that the resistance to them is weaker. A quick search tells me 2000 is also the date where the pattern became public for exemple or that RoundUp was the most sold out herbicides by the end of 1997. Note that glycines are not the only chemicals present in RoundUp and is actually pretty useless by itself (it does not penetrate the plant without its adjuvants). Those adjuvants usually have more toxicity, like the POE-15. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23000283 The compositions in adjuvants were analyzed by mass spectrometry. Here we demonstrate that all formulations are more toxic than glyphosate, and we separated experimentally three groups of formulations differentially toxic according to their concentrations in ethoxylated adjuvants. Among them, POE-15 clearly appears to be the most toxic principle against human cells, even if others are not excluded. It begins to be active with negative dose-dependent effects on cellular respiration and membrane integrity between 1 and 3ppm, at environmental/occupational doses. We demonstrate in addition that POE-15 induces necrosis when its first micellization process occurs, by contrast to glyphosate which is known to promote endocrine disrupting effects after entering cells. Altogether, these results challenge the establishment of guidance values such as the acceptable daily intake of glyphosate, when these are mostly based on a long term in vivo test of glyphosate alone. Since pesticides are always used with adjuvants that could change their toxicity, the necessity to assess their whole formulations as mixtures becomes obvious. This challenges the concept of active principle of pesticides for non-target species. And yes the resistance is absolutly normal, maybe the solution would be to discuss on production / usage of chemical (as opposed to natural pesticides and herbicides) and solve some of the output problem by increasing supply, etc. Or to say in economic language, the optimum of production is not necessarily the highest production, but a level of production that would take the impact on environment and health into account. The hell is wrong with you? Absolute use went up because production went up. Production didn't go up because "fuck it let's grow more food", production went up because during that period there was a global boom in agriculture driven by demand from developing countries. Someone would have grown more food or people would have faced food shortages. Trying to link increased production of food to 'use of GMOs' is just so flawed that I'm having a hard time understanding how you're even coming to that conclusion. So what that GMOs 'facilitate' the use of pesticides? Money 'facilitates' the use of pesticides. Better ban money! So does gravity. Better ban that too! GMOs have lead to less chemicals used. Whether they 'facilitate' the use or not is a red herring. The introduction of GMOs have contributed to a healthier environment due to less and less harmful use of chemicals. Amazingly, you're arguing the exact opposite of what the facts tell us. It seems like you've decided, without looking to the facts first, that GMOs are bad and you're willing to grab onto whatever flimsy rationale you can find to maintain that belief. You're the one who is not looking at the fact. GMO haven't created a healthier environment, the use of herbicide per unit produced has gone up since the introduction of GMO, and only insecticide as gone down : the end result is not a healthier environment. Overall, there is an absolute increase in pesticide and herbicide use, so the production process still create more environmental damage than before, with or without GMO, altho it also produce more food. Meanwhile, there is a huge waste of a substantial part of production, people who just eat more than they should, and others that don't have access to the necessary food : increasing production is not necessarily the only solution. Crop rotation has gone down, diversity too, farmers are more dependant on specific firms than they were before. Plus I never defended the idea of an absolute ban on GMO, but you're so talking alone in your own world that you don't actually read what people write but make assumptions. But continue to live in your fairy land, and see the stats how you want them to. Altho the ban in France is a great thing : we don't really need Mosanto messing with our agriculture. No. I posted the facts - per unit use of chemicals has gone down. Moreover, the chemicals that are being used are safer. The net effect is a healthier environment. I'll repeat from the USDA: Despite the relatively minor effect HT [Herbicide-tolerant] crop adoption has had on overall herbicide usage, HT crop adoption has enabled farmers to substitute glyphosate (which many HT crops are designed to tolerate) for more traditional herbicides. Because glyphosate is significantly less toxic and less persistent than traditional herbicides, the net impact of HT crop adoption is an improvement in environmental quality and a reduction in health risks. Facts are facts. If you are going to refuse to accept facts for what they are, there's no point in discussing this with you any further. It's just wrong, you gave herbicide per unit produced and it has gone up. + Show Spoiler + Up or down ? As for the glyphosate, I posted a research showing that the RoundUp is made with glyphosate AND some other adjuvants who have a way higher toxicity than the glysophate. The glysophate is useless by itself, it cannot penetrate the plant, and need other chemicals to really act. The RoundUp is not made of ONE chemical only. You're also putting aside the fact that we could substitute this way of producing that rely heavily on pesticides and herbicides and think about better production process, that maximize crop rotation for exemple (something GMO could absolutly do). Again, if you refuse to see the full picture then just stop arguing. I posted two charts, one showing insecticide going way down, the other showing herbicide slightly increasing. You only manage to post one, and ignore the other. Examples of using GMOs has been to make them more friendly to glysophate, which means a move to less harmful herbicide and the Bt-corn, which means less insecticide. Only looking to herbicide use misses the point! The point is less insecticide and safer herbicide. Cherry picking the data, only looking at herbicide use, isn't accurate. Also, the herbicide chart on its own is a mixed bag - corn is down, cotton and soybeans are up.
It doesn't matter that Roundup uses more than glysophate. You're still using more glysophate and less chemicals that are more toxic. Remember - we're measuring the use of glysophate to that of more toxic chemicals, if Roundup also uses more toxic chemicals, that's already been measured. The net effect is that less toxic chemicals are being used. The USDA isn't wrong here.
Also, since you like absolute numbers so much, here's a better source on that:
+ Show Spoiler +
During 1980-2007 the aggregate quantity of pesticides applied in the U.S. declined at an average rate of 0.6 percent per year Source
|
On October 25 2014 04:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2014 03:22 WhiteDog wrote:On October 25 2014 03:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 25 2014 03:00 WhiteDog wrote:On October 25 2014 02:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 24 2014 16:48 WhiteDog wrote:On October 24 2014 08:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 24 2014 08:27 WhiteDog wrote:On October 24 2014 08:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 24 2014 07:47 WhiteDog wrote:[quote] Well the academy of science has an incomplete vision on the subject, and that's perfectly normal in a sense since they're only scientist - their activity is based on cutting reality into "objects" simple enough to be understood. My political and economic vision see this metaphore as stupid. Nitpicking is your opus operatum. I've already discussed my problem with GMO and modern agriculture at large in previous posts. I don't believe any good will come from GMO who are commercialized by the private sector, but maybe that's my snobism and ignorance who's talking. May I add that GMO does not necessarily mean less chemicals. http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/07/02/gmo-crops-mean-more-herbicide-not-less/[quote] Plantings went up as well, so your source isn't really accurate. Here's USDA: Herbicide use dipped down then back up a bit, but... Despite the relatively minor effect HT [Herbicide-tolerant] crop adoption has had on overall herbicide usage, HT crop adoption has enabled farmers to substitute glyphosate (which many HT crops are designed to tolerate) for more traditional herbicides. Because glyphosate is significantly less toxic and less persistent than traditional herbicides, the net impact of HT crop adoption is an improvement in environmental quality and a reduction in health risks. linkBut please keep citing misinformation, you're making my case for me Edit: To GH - if you plant more corn you use more chemicals. If you switch to a safer chemical you will use more of the safer chemical. My source is perfectly accurate, and I never said that chemicals went up with GMO : I carefully said that it does not necessarily mean a decrease in chemical usage. I know perfectly well that the ratio between chemical and production hasn't went up, but absolute chemicals has gone up. GMO is used as a tool to continue and pursue a specific agricultural production process that is, in my opinion, detrimental to our society. The simple fact that weed create a resistance to the heavy usage of said pesticide will force Mosanto and the like to create new pesticide, more efficient in killing weed and also more dangerous for the eco system. In the long run, well you might understand the end result. Citing absolute numbers is bad. GMOs have lead to a decrease in insecticide use, and a move to safer herbicides. The only other statement you can make is that organics would have lead to greater reduction in insecticide / herbicide use. An increase in chemical use due to an increase in production is NOT the same as an increase in chemical use due to GMOs. I know you understand this... Having to create new pesticides has nothing to do with GMOs. Resistances to glycines has been weaker than with many other herbicides: + Show Spoiler + Absolute numbers are not bad, and again that's your opus operatum at play, unable to understand that only absolute numbers are relevant if you want to evaluate the impact of a specific production process on environment or health : it depends on what you want to witness. That there is an increase in productivity, we all agree, but it does not change the production process, GMO today are only engineered to improve productivity and facilitate the use of pesticides - which is completly understandable since Mosanto produce both the GMO and the pesticides. Stop discarding all informations that does not go in your way please ? The same goes for your resistance to glycines : what I see from the graph you gave is that glycines are only heavily used since the end of 1990 and not that the resistance to them is weaker. A quick search tells me 2000 is also the date where the pattern became public for exemple or that RoundUp was the most sold out herbicides by the end of 1997. Note that glycines are not the only chemicals present in RoundUp and is actually pretty useless by itself (it does not penetrate the plant without its adjuvants). Those adjuvants usually have more toxicity, like the POE-15. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23000283 The compositions in adjuvants were analyzed by mass spectrometry. Here we demonstrate that all formulations are more toxic than glyphosate, and we separated experimentally three groups of formulations differentially toxic according to their concentrations in ethoxylated adjuvants. Among them, POE-15 clearly appears to be the most toxic principle against human cells, even if others are not excluded. It begins to be active with negative dose-dependent effects on cellular respiration and membrane integrity between 1 and 3ppm, at environmental/occupational doses. We demonstrate in addition that POE-15 induces necrosis when its first micellization process occurs, by contrast to glyphosate which is known to promote endocrine disrupting effects after entering cells. Altogether, these results challenge the establishment of guidance values such as the acceptable daily intake of glyphosate, when these are mostly based on a long term in vivo test of glyphosate alone. Since pesticides are always used with adjuvants that could change their toxicity, the necessity to assess their whole formulations as mixtures becomes obvious. This challenges the concept of active principle of pesticides for non-target species. And yes the resistance is absolutly normal, maybe the solution would be to discuss on production / usage of chemical (as opposed to natural pesticides and herbicides) and solve some of the output problem by increasing supply, etc. Or to say in economic language, the optimum of production is not necessarily the highest production, but a level of production that would take the impact on environment and health into account. The hell is wrong with you? Absolute use went up because production went up. Production didn't go up because "fuck it let's grow more food", production went up because during that period there was a global boom in agriculture driven by demand from developing countries. Someone would have grown more food or people would have faced food shortages. Trying to link increased production of food to 'use of GMOs' is just so flawed that I'm having a hard time understanding how you're even coming to that conclusion. So what that GMOs 'facilitate' the use of pesticides? Money 'facilitates' the use of pesticides. Better ban money! So does gravity. Better ban that too! GMOs have lead to less chemicals used. Whether they 'facilitate' the use or not is a red herring. The introduction of GMOs have contributed to a healthier environment due to less and less harmful use of chemicals. Amazingly, you're arguing the exact opposite of what the facts tell us. It seems like you've decided, without looking to the facts first, that GMOs are bad and you're willing to grab onto whatever flimsy rationale you can find to maintain that belief. You're the one who is not looking at the fact. GMO haven't created a healthier environment, the use of herbicide per unit produced has gone up since the introduction of GMO, and only insecticide as gone down : the end result is not a healthier environment. Overall, there is an absolute increase in pesticide and herbicide use, so the production process still create more environmental damage than before, with or without GMO, altho it also produce more food. Meanwhile, there is a huge waste of a substantial part of production, people who just eat more than they should, and others that don't have access to the necessary food : increasing production is not necessarily the only solution. Crop rotation has gone down, diversity too, farmers are more dependant on specific firms than they were before. Plus I never defended the idea of an absolute ban on GMO, but you're so talking alone in your own world that you don't actually read what people write but make assumptions. But continue to live in your fairy land, and see the stats how you want them to. Altho the ban in France is a great thing : we don't really need Mosanto messing with our agriculture. No. I posted the facts - per unit use of chemicals has gone down. Moreover, the chemicals that are being used are safer. The net effect is a healthier environment. I'll repeat from the USDA: Despite the relatively minor effect HT [Herbicide-tolerant] crop adoption has had on overall herbicide usage, HT crop adoption has enabled farmers to substitute glyphosate (which many HT crops are designed to tolerate) for more traditional herbicides. Because glyphosate is significantly less toxic and less persistent than traditional herbicides, the net impact of HT crop adoption is an improvement in environmental quality and a reduction in health risks. Facts are facts. If you are going to refuse to accept facts for what they are, there's no point in discussing this with you any further. It's just wrong, you gave herbicide per unit produced and it has gone up. + Show Spoiler + Up or down ? As for the glyphosate, I posted a research showing that the RoundUp is made with glyphosate AND some other adjuvants who have a way higher toxicity than the glysophate. The glysophate is useless by itself, it cannot penetrate the plant, and need other chemicals to really act. The RoundUp is not made of ONE chemical only. You're also putting aside the fact that we could substitute this way of producing that rely heavily on pesticides and herbicides and think about better production process, that maximize crop rotation for exemple (something GMO could absolutly do). Again, if you refuse to see the full picture then just stop arguing. I posted two charts, one showing insecticide going way down, the other showing herbicide slightly increasing. You only manage to post one, and ignore the other. Examples of using GMOs has been to make them more friendly to glysophate, which means a move to less harmful herbicide and the Bt-corn, which means less insecticide. Only looking to herbicide use misses the point! The point is less insecticide and safer herbicide. Cherry picking the data, only looking at herbicide use, isn't accurate. Also, the herbicide chart on its own is a mixed bag - corn is down, cotton and soybeans are up. It doesn't matter that Roundup uses more than glysophate. You're still using more glysophate and less chemicals that are more toxic. Remember - we're measuring the use of glysophate to that of more toxic chemicals, if Roundup also uses more toxic chemicals, that's already been measured. The net effect is that less toxic chemicals are being used. The USDA isn't wrong here. Also, since you like absolute numbers so much, here's a better source on that: + Show Spoiler +Show nested quote +During 1980-2007 the aggregate quantity of pesticides applied in the U.S. declined at an average rate of 0.6 percent per year Source This shows how obnoxious you can be. I clearly said that insecticide has gone down and herbicides has gone up, then you say I'm wrong, then I post one of your two charts that shows herbicides has gone up and you're unhappy. Fabulous. You know the RoundUp is an herbicide right ? Your chart is also problematic to me, since the data I have on the subject shows an increase in herbicide. http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/07/02/gmo-crops-mean-more-herbicide-not-less/
But a new study released by Food & Water Watch yesterday finds the goal of reduced chemical use has not panned out as planned. In fact, according to the USDA and EPA data used in the report, the quick adoption of genetically engineered crops by farmers has increased herbicide use over the past 9 years in the U.S. The report follows on the heels of another such study by Washington State University research professor Charles Benbrook just last year.
Food & Water Watch examined U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data to document the increased use of herbicides that has accompanied the adoption of herbicide-tolerant GE crops. Our analysis looks at the rapid proliferation of GE crops and affiliated pesticides in the United States and points out the interdependent relationship between these two industries that also fuels the crisis of weed resistance. http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/reports/superweeds/
And finally for a more serious study of the subject that dates back to 2012 :
A model was developed to quantify by crop and year the impacts of six major transgenic pest-management traits on pesticide use in the U.S. over the 16-year period, 1996–2011: herbicide-resistant corn, soybeans, and cotton; Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) corn targeting the European corn borer; Bt corn for corn rootworms; and Bt cotton for Lepidopteron insects.
Herbicide-resistant crop technology has led to a 239 million kilogram (527 million pound) increase in herbicide use in the United States between 1996 and 2011, while Bt crops have reduced insecticide applications by 56 million kilograms (123 million pounds). Overall, pesticide use increased by an estimated 183 million kgs (404 million pounds), or about 7%.
Contrary to often-repeated claims that today’s genetically-engineered crops have, and are reducing pesticide use, the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds in herbicide-resistant weed management systems has brought about substantial increases in the number and volume of herbicides applied. http://www.enveurope.com/content/pdf/2190-4715-24-24.pdf
About glysophate you don't know what you're saying. The article I posted perfectly explain the subject. But sure you're a physicist too. They usually tested glysophate alone and didn't test out the chemicals that compose the RoundUp aside from glysophate because they thought those were inert. Long story short they are not inert.
|
On October 25 2014 04:06 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2014 04:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 25 2014 03:22 WhiteDog wrote:On October 25 2014 03:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 25 2014 03:00 WhiteDog wrote:On October 25 2014 02:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 24 2014 16:48 WhiteDog wrote:On October 24 2014 08:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 24 2014 08:27 WhiteDog wrote:On October 24 2014 08:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:[quote] Plantings went up as well, so your source isn't really accurate. Here's USDA: Herbicide use dipped down then back up a bit, but... [quote] linkBut please keep citing misinformation, you're making my case for me Edit: To GH - if you plant more corn you use more chemicals. If you switch to a safer chemical you will use more of the safer chemical. My source is perfectly accurate, and I never said that chemicals went up with GMO : I carefully said that it does not necessarily mean a decrease in chemical usage. I know perfectly well that the ratio between chemical and production hasn't went up, but absolute chemicals has gone up. GMO is used as a tool to continue and pursue a specific agricultural production process that is, in my opinion, detrimental to our society. The simple fact that weed create a resistance to the heavy usage of said pesticide will force Mosanto and the like to create new pesticide, more efficient in killing weed and also more dangerous for the eco system. In the long run, well you might understand the end result. Citing absolute numbers is bad. GMOs have lead to a decrease in insecticide use, and a move to safer herbicides. The only other statement you can make is that organics would have lead to greater reduction in insecticide / herbicide use. An increase in chemical use due to an increase in production is NOT the same as an increase in chemical use due to GMOs. I know you understand this... Having to create new pesticides has nothing to do with GMOs. Resistances to glycines has been weaker than with many other herbicides: + Show Spoiler + Absolute numbers are not bad, and again that's your opus operatum at play, unable to understand that only absolute numbers are relevant if you want to evaluate the impact of a specific production process on environment or health : it depends on what you want to witness. That there is an increase in productivity, we all agree, but it does not change the production process, GMO today are only engineered to improve productivity and facilitate the use of pesticides - which is completly understandable since Mosanto produce both the GMO and the pesticides. Stop discarding all informations that does not go in your way please ? The same goes for your resistance to glycines : what I see from the graph you gave is that glycines are only heavily used since the end of 1990 and not that the resistance to them is weaker. A quick search tells me 2000 is also the date where the pattern became public for exemple or that RoundUp was the most sold out herbicides by the end of 1997. Note that glycines are not the only chemicals present in RoundUp and is actually pretty useless by itself (it does not penetrate the plant without its adjuvants). Those adjuvants usually have more toxicity, like the POE-15. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23000283 The compositions in adjuvants were analyzed by mass spectrometry. Here we demonstrate that all formulations are more toxic than glyphosate, and we separated experimentally three groups of formulations differentially toxic according to their concentrations in ethoxylated adjuvants. Among them, POE-15 clearly appears to be the most toxic principle against human cells, even if others are not excluded. It begins to be active with negative dose-dependent effects on cellular respiration and membrane integrity between 1 and 3ppm, at environmental/occupational doses. We demonstrate in addition that POE-15 induces necrosis when its first micellization process occurs, by contrast to glyphosate which is known to promote endocrine disrupting effects after entering cells. Altogether, these results challenge the establishment of guidance values such as the acceptable daily intake of glyphosate, when these are mostly based on a long term in vivo test of glyphosate alone. Since pesticides are always used with adjuvants that could change their toxicity, the necessity to assess their whole formulations as mixtures becomes obvious. This challenges the concept of active principle of pesticides for non-target species. And yes the resistance is absolutly normal, maybe the solution would be to discuss on production / usage of chemical (as opposed to natural pesticides and herbicides) and solve some of the output problem by increasing supply, etc. Or to say in economic language, the optimum of production is not necessarily the highest production, but a level of production that would take the impact on environment and health into account. The hell is wrong with you? Absolute use went up because production went up. Production didn't go up because "fuck it let's grow more food", production went up because during that period there was a global boom in agriculture driven by demand from developing countries. Someone would have grown more food or people would have faced food shortages. Trying to link increased production of food to 'use of GMOs' is just so flawed that I'm having a hard time understanding how you're even coming to that conclusion. So what that GMOs 'facilitate' the use of pesticides? Money 'facilitates' the use of pesticides. Better ban money! So does gravity. Better ban that too! GMOs have lead to less chemicals used. Whether they 'facilitate' the use or not is a red herring. The introduction of GMOs have contributed to a healthier environment due to less and less harmful use of chemicals. Amazingly, you're arguing the exact opposite of what the facts tell us. It seems like you've decided, without looking to the facts first, that GMOs are bad and you're willing to grab onto whatever flimsy rationale you can find to maintain that belief. You're the one who is not looking at the fact. GMO haven't created a healthier environment, the use of herbicide per unit produced has gone up since the introduction of GMO, and only insecticide as gone down : the end result is not a healthier environment. Overall, there is an absolute increase in pesticide and herbicide use, so the production process still create more environmental damage than before, with or without GMO, altho it also produce more food. Meanwhile, there is a huge waste of a substantial part of production, people who just eat more than they should, and others that don't have access to the necessary food : increasing production is not necessarily the only solution. Crop rotation has gone down, diversity too, farmers are more dependant on specific firms than they were before. Plus I never defended the idea of an absolute ban on GMO, but you're so talking alone in your own world that you don't actually read what people write but make assumptions. But continue to live in your fairy land, and see the stats how you want them to. Altho the ban in France is a great thing : we don't really need Mosanto messing with our agriculture. No. I posted the facts - per unit use of chemicals has gone down. Moreover, the chemicals that are being used are safer. The net effect is a healthier environment. I'll repeat from the USDA: Despite the relatively minor effect HT [Herbicide-tolerant] crop adoption has had on overall herbicide usage, HT crop adoption has enabled farmers to substitute glyphosate (which many HT crops are designed to tolerate) for more traditional herbicides. Because glyphosate is significantly less toxic and less persistent than traditional herbicides, the net impact of HT crop adoption is an improvement in environmental quality and a reduction in health risks. Facts are facts. If you are going to refuse to accept facts for what they are, there's no point in discussing this with you any further. It's just wrong, you gave herbicide per unit produced and it has gone up. + Show Spoiler + Up or down ? As for the glyphosate, I posted a research showing that the RoundUp is made with glyphosate AND some other adjuvants who have a way higher toxicity than the glysophate. The glysophate is useless by itself, it cannot penetrate the plant, and need other chemicals to really act. The RoundUp is not made of ONE chemical only. You're also putting aside the fact that we could substitute this way of producing that rely heavily on pesticides and herbicides and think about better production process, that maximize crop rotation for exemple (something GMO could absolutly do). Again, if you refuse to see the full picture then just stop arguing. I posted two charts, one showing insecticide going way down, the other showing herbicide slightly increasing. You only manage to post one, and ignore the other. Examples of using GMOs has been to make them more friendly to glysophate, which means a move to less harmful herbicide and the Bt-corn, which means less insecticide. Only looking to herbicide use misses the point! The point is less insecticide and safer herbicide. Cherry picking the data, only looking at herbicide use, isn't accurate. Also, the herbicide chart on its own is a mixed bag - corn is down, cotton and soybeans are up. It doesn't matter that Roundup uses more than glysophate. You're still using more glysophate and less chemicals that are more toxic. Remember - we're measuring the use of glysophate to that of more toxic chemicals, if Roundup also uses more toxic chemicals, that's already been measured. The net effect is that less toxic chemicals are being used. The USDA isn't wrong here. Also, since you like absolute numbers so much, here's a better source on that: + Show Spoiler +During 1980-2007 the aggregate quantity of pesticides applied in the U.S. declined at an average rate of 0.6 percent per year Source This shows how obnoxious you can be. I clearly said that insecticide has gone down and herbicides has gone up, then you say I'm wrong, then I post one of your two charts that shows herbicides has gone up and you're unhappy. Then you show a graph about absolute pesticide use, knowing full well that GMO are supposed to greatly reduce the use of pesticides. Fabulous. You know the RoundUp is an herbicide right ? About glysophate you don't know what you're saying. The article I posted perfectly explain the subject. But sure you're a physicist too. I wrote: I posted the facts - per unit use of chemicals has gone down.
You replied with: It's just wrong, you gave herbicide per unit produced and it has gone up.
You refuted my argument about chemicals by citing a sub-category of chemicals.
You keep dancing around the facts. Less pesticide, and less harmful pesticides. A study that says 'glysophates more dangerous than thought' is not the same as 'glysophates more dangerous than previously used chemicals'.
|
On October 25 2014 04:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2014 04:06 WhiteDog wrote:On October 25 2014 04:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 25 2014 03:22 WhiteDog wrote:On October 25 2014 03:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 25 2014 03:00 WhiteDog wrote:On October 25 2014 02:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 24 2014 16:48 WhiteDog wrote:On October 24 2014 08:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 24 2014 08:27 WhiteDog wrote: [quote] My source is perfectly accurate, and I never said that chemicals went up with GMO : I carefully said that it does not necessarily mean a decrease in chemical usage. I know perfectly well that the ratio between chemical and production hasn't went up, but absolute chemicals has gone up. GMO is used as a tool to continue and pursue a specific agricultural production process that is, in my opinion, detrimental to our society. The simple fact that weed create a resistance to the heavy usage of said pesticide will force Mosanto and the like to create new pesticide, more efficient in killing weed and also more dangerous for the eco system. In the long run, well you might understand the end result. Citing absolute numbers is bad. GMOs have lead to a decrease in insecticide use, and a move to safer herbicides. The only other statement you can make is that organics would have lead to greater reduction in insecticide / herbicide use. An increase in chemical use due to an increase in production is NOT the same as an increase in chemical use due to GMOs. I know you understand this... Having to create new pesticides has nothing to do with GMOs. Resistances to glycines has been weaker than with many other herbicides: + Show Spoiler + Absolute numbers are not bad, and again that's your opus operatum at play, unable to understand that only absolute numbers are relevant if you want to evaluate the impact of a specific production process on environment or health : it depends on what you want to witness. That there is an increase in productivity, we all agree, but it does not change the production process, GMO today are only engineered to improve productivity and facilitate the use of pesticides - which is completly understandable since Mosanto produce both the GMO and the pesticides. Stop discarding all informations that does not go in your way please ? The same goes for your resistance to glycines : what I see from the graph you gave is that glycines are only heavily used since the end of 1990 and not that the resistance to them is weaker. A quick search tells me 2000 is also the date where the pattern became public for exemple or that RoundUp was the most sold out herbicides by the end of 1997. Note that glycines are not the only chemicals present in RoundUp and is actually pretty useless by itself (it does not penetrate the plant without its adjuvants). Those adjuvants usually have more toxicity, like the POE-15. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23000283 The compositions in adjuvants were analyzed by mass spectrometry. Here we demonstrate that all formulations are more toxic than glyphosate, and we separated experimentally three groups of formulations differentially toxic according to their concentrations in ethoxylated adjuvants. Among them, POE-15 clearly appears to be the most toxic principle against human cells, even if others are not excluded. It begins to be active with negative dose-dependent effects on cellular respiration and membrane integrity between 1 and 3ppm, at environmental/occupational doses. We demonstrate in addition that POE-15 induces necrosis when its first micellization process occurs, by contrast to glyphosate which is known to promote endocrine disrupting effects after entering cells. Altogether, these results challenge the establishment of guidance values such as the acceptable daily intake of glyphosate, when these are mostly based on a long term in vivo test of glyphosate alone. Since pesticides are always used with adjuvants that could change their toxicity, the necessity to assess their whole formulations as mixtures becomes obvious. This challenges the concept of active principle of pesticides for non-target species. And yes the resistance is absolutly normal, maybe the solution would be to discuss on production / usage of chemical (as opposed to natural pesticides and herbicides) and solve some of the output problem by increasing supply, etc. Or to say in economic language, the optimum of production is not necessarily the highest production, but a level of production that would take the impact on environment and health into account. The hell is wrong with you? Absolute use went up because production went up. Production didn't go up because "fuck it let's grow more food", production went up because during that period there was a global boom in agriculture driven by demand from developing countries. Someone would have grown more food or people would have faced food shortages. Trying to link increased production of food to 'use of GMOs' is just so flawed that I'm having a hard time understanding how you're even coming to that conclusion. So what that GMOs 'facilitate' the use of pesticides? Money 'facilitates' the use of pesticides. Better ban money! So does gravity. Better ban that too! GMOs have lead to less chemicals used. Whether they 'facilitate' the use or not is a red herring. The introduction of GMOs have contributed to a healthier environment due to less and less harmful use of chemicals. Amazingly, you're arguing the exact opposite of what the facts tell us. It seems like you've decided, without looking to the facts first, that GMOs are bad and you're willing to grab onto whatever flimsy rationale you can find to maintain that belief. You're the one who is not looking at the fact. GMO haven't created a healthier environment, the use of herbicide per unit produced has gone up since the introduction of GMO, and only insecticide as gone down : the end result is not a healthier environment. Overall, there is an absolute increase in pesticide and herbicide use, so the production process still create more environmental damage than before, with or without GMO, altho it also produce more food. Meanwhile, there is a huge waste of a substantial part of production, people who just eat more than they should, and others that don't have access to the necessary food : increasing production is not necessarily the only solution. Crop rotation has gone down, diversity too, farmers are more dependant on specific firms than they were before. Plus I never defended the idea of an absolute ban on GMO, but you're so talking alone in your own world that you don't actually read what people write but make assumptions. But continue to live in your fairy land, and see the stats how you want them to. Altho the ban in France is a great thing : we don't really need Mosanto messing with our agriculture. No. I posted the facts - per unit use of chemicals has gone down. Moreover, the chemicals that are being used are safer. The net effect is a healthier environment. I'll repeat from the USDA: Despite the relatively minor effect HT [Herbicide-tolerant] crop adoption has had on overall herbicide usage, HT crop adoption has enabled farmers to substitute glyphosate (which many HT crops are designed to tolerate) for more traditional herbicides. Because glyphosate is significantly less toxic and less persistent than traditional herbicides, the net impact of HT crop adoption is an improvement in environmental quality and a reduction in health risks. Facts are facts. If you are going to refuse to accept facts for what they are, there's no point in discussing this with you any further. It's just wrong, you gave herbicide per unit produced and it has gone up. + Show Spoiler + Up or down ? As for the glyphosate, I posted a research showing that the RoundUp is made with glyphosate AND some other adjuvants who have a way higher toxicity than the glysophate. The glysophate is useless by itself, it cannot penetrate the plant, and need other chemicals to really act. The RoundUp is not made of ONE chemical only. You're also putting aside the fact that we could substitute this way of producing that rely heavily on pesticides and herbicides and think about better production process, that maximize crop rotation for exemple (something GMO could absolutly do). Again, if you refuse to see the full picture then just stop arguing. I posted two charts, one showing insecticide going way down, the other showing herbicide slightly increasing. You only manage to post one, and ignore the other. Examples of using GMOs has been to make them more friendly to glysophate, which means a move to less harmful herbicide and the Bt-corn, which means less insecticide. Only looking to herbicide use misses the point! The point is less insecticide and safer herbicide. Cherry picking the data, only looking at herbicide use, isn't accurate. Also, the herbicide chart on its own is a mixed bag - corn is down, cotton and soybeans are up. It doesn't matter that Roundup uses more than glysophate. You're still using more glysophate and less chemicals that are more toxic. Remember - we're measuring the use of glysophate to that of more toxic chemicals, if Roundup also uses more toxic chemicals, that's already been measured. The net effect is that less toxic chemicals are being used. The USDA isn't wrong here. Also, since you like absolute numbers so much, here's a better source on that: + Show Spoiler +During 1980-2007 the aggregate quantity of pesticides applied in the U.S. declined at an average rate of 0.6 percent per year Source This shows how obnoxious you can be. I clearly said that insecticide has gone down and herbicides has gone up, then you say I'm wrong, then I post one of your two charts that shows herbicides has gone up and you're unhappy. Then you show a graph about absolute pesticide use, knowing full well that GMO are supposed to greatly reduce the use of pesticides. Fabulous. You know the RoundUp is an herbicide right ? About glysophate you don't know what you're saying. The article I posted perfectly explain the subject. But sure you're a physicist too. I wrote: You replied with: You refuted my argument about chemicals by citing a sub-category of chemicals. You keep dancing around the facts. Less pesticide, and less harmful pesticides. A study that says 'glysophates more dangerous than thought' is not the same as 'glysophates more dangerous than previously used chemicals'. No you are dancing around the facts like you always do. I don't even know if you care about facts, what matters is your "visions", more ideological than anything.
Here is what I wrote GMO haven't created a healthier environment, the use of herbicide per unit produced has gone up since the introduction of GMO, and only insecticide as gone down : the end result is not a healthier environment. An increase of herbicide and a decrease of pesticide does not result in a healthier environment. At best you could say it's the statu quo, which it's not since the decrease in pesticides use is lower than the increase in herbicides. Now you could say that the production is more efficient in term of its impact on environment, which means that it produce less chemicals per unit produced, but it does not lead to a healthier environment, all in all there are more chemicals in the environment than before.
Your point about RoundUp is bullshit and this prove how you cannot read anything that someone post you'd know that other agent in the RoundUp were not tested because they were thought inert. So narrowminded. I add that the simple fact that RoundUp is so overused create a problem, because, as anybody might know, the toxicity of a specific agent is not the only question, but to understand the real impact of an agent you need to take into consideration the dosage and the length.
Public health concerns Heightened risk of public health impacts can be expected in the wake of more intensive herbicide use, especially applications later in the season on herbicideresistant crop varieties. While current risk assessment science suggests that glyphosate is among the safer herbicides per hectare treated in terms of human health risks, both the frequency of human exposures and levels of exposure via food, drinking water, and the air have no doubt risen in the U.S. in recent years. Two-thirds to 100% of air and rainfall samples tested in Mississippi and Iowa in 2007–2008 contained glyphosate [34]. The likely approval and use of herbicide-resistant crops in the U.S. engineered to survive applications of multiple herbicides adds tricky new dimensions to herbicide-risk assessments. Applications later in the growing season will be more likely to lead to residues in silage or forage crops. As a result, herbicide residues in milk, meat, or other animal products might become more common. The jump in herbicide volumes applied during June and July will increase the risk of drift and herbicide movement via volatilization, possibly exposing people via the air, water, or crops grown in the proximity of treated fields. Risks from the drift and volatilization of 2,4-D and dicamba are of special concern, given that these two herbicides have triggered thousands of non-target crop damage episodes over the last 20 years in the U.S. Indeed, for several years, 2,4-D has been the leading cause of crop damage episodes investigated by State departments of agriculture [35].
Environmental impacts linked to HR technology A long list of environmental effects can be triggered, or made worse, by the more intensive herbicide use required to keep pace with weeds in farming systems heavily reliant on herbicide-resistant crops. Glyphosate has been shown to impair soil microbial communities in ways that can increase plant vulnerability to pathogens [36-38], while also reducing availability of certain soil minerals and micronutrients [39]. Landscapes dominated by herbicide-resistant crops support fewer insect and bird species; e.g., a study in the American Midwest reported a 58% decline in milkweed and an 81% drop in monarch butterflies from 1999 to 2010 [40]. Heavy use of glyphosate can reduce earthworm viability [41] and water use efficiency [42]. Several studies have documented reductions in nitrogen fixation in herbicide-resistant soybean fields sprayed with glyphosate [43,44]. Transgene flow from herbicide-resistant crops can occur via multiple mechanisms and can persist in weedy relatives [45]. Individually, these environmental impacts appear, for the most part, of the same nature and in the same ballpark as the risks associated with other herbicide-based farming systems, but collectively they raise novel concerns over long-term, possibly serious impacts on biodiversity, soil and plant health, water quality, aquatic ecosystem integrity, and human and animal health. http://www.enveurope.com/content/pdf/2190-4715-24-24.pdf
|
On October 25 2014 04:35 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2014 04:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 25 2014 04:06 WhiteDog wrote:On October 25 2014 04:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 25 2014 03:22 WhiteDog wrote:On October 25 2014 03:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 25 2014 03:00 WhiteDog wrote:On October 25 2014 02:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 24 2014 16:48 WhiteDog wrote:On October 24 2014 08:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:[quote] Citing absolute numbers is bad. GMOs have lead to a decrease in insecticide use, and a move to safer herbicides. The only other statement you can make is that organics would have lead to greater reduction in insecticide / herbicide use. An increase in chemical use due to an increase in production is NOT the same as an increase in chemical use due to GMOs. I know you understand this... Having to create new pesticides has nothing to do with GMOs. Resistances to glycines has been weaker than with many other herbicides: + Show Spoiler + Absolute numbers are not bad, and again that's your opus operatum at play, unable to understand that only absolute numbers are relevant if you want to evaluate the impact of a specific production process on environment or health : it depends on what you want to witness. That there is an increase in productivity, we all agree, but it does not change the production process, GMO today are only engineered to improve productivity and facilitate the use of pesticides - which is completly understandable since Mosanto produce both the GMO and the pesticides. Stop discarding all informations that does not go in your way please ? The same goes for your resistance to glycines : what I see from the graph you gave is that glycines are only heavily used since the end of 1990 and not that the resistance to them is weaker. A quick search tells me 2000 is also the date where the pattern became public for exemple or that RoundUp was the most sold out herbicides by the end of 1997. Note that glycines are not the only chemicals present in RoundUp and is actually pretty useless by itself (it does not penetrate the plant without its adjuvants). Those adjuvants usually have more toxicity, like the POE-15. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23000283 The compositions in adjuvants were analyzed by mass spectrometry. Here we demonstrate that all formulations are more toxic than glyphosate, and we separated experimentally three groups of formulations differentially toxic according to their concentrations in ethoxylated adjuvants. Among them, POE-15 clearly appears to be the most toxic principle against human cells, even if others are not excluded. It begins to be active with negative dose-dependent effects on cellular respiration and membrane integrity between 1 and 3ppm, at environmental/occupational doses. We demonstrate in addition that POE-15 induces necrosis when its first micellization process occurs, by contrast to glyphosate which is known to promote endocrine disrupting effects after entering cells. Altogether, these results challenge the establishment of guidance values such as the acceptable daily intake of glyphosate, when these are mostly based on a long term in vivo test of glyphosate alone. Since pesticides are always used with adjuvants that could change their toxicity, the necessity to assess their whole formulations as mixtures becomes obvious. This challenges the concept of active principle of pesticides for non-target species. And yes the resistance is absolutly normal, maybe the solution would be to discuss on production / usage of chemical (as opposed to natural pesticides and herbicides) and solve some of the output problem by increasing supply, etc. Or to say in economic language, the optimum of production is not necessarily the highest production, but a level of production that would take the impact on environment and health into account. The hell is wrong with you? Absolute use went up because production went up. Production didn't go up because "fuck it let's grow more food", production went up because during that period there was a global boom in agriculture driven by demand from developing countries. Someone would have grown more food or people would have faced food shortages. Trying to link increased production of food to 'use of GMOs' is just so flawed that I'm having a hard time understanding how you're even coming to that conclusion. So what that GMOs 'facilitate' the use of pesticides? Money 'facilitates' the use of pesticides. Better ban money! So does gravity. Better ban that too! GMOs have lead to less chemicals used. Whether they 'facilitate' the use or not is a red herring. The introduction of GMOs have contributed to a healthier environment due to less and less harmful use of chemicals. Amazingly, you're arguing the exact opposite of what the facts tell us. It seems like you've decided, without looking to the facts first, that GMOs are bad and you're willing to grab onto whatever flimsy rationale you can find to maintain that belief. You're the one who is not looking at the fact. GMO haven't created a healthier environment, the use of herbicide per unit produced has gone up since the introduction of GMO, and only insecticide as gone down : the end result is not a healthier environment. Overall, there is an absolute increase in pesticide and herbicide use, so the production process still create more environmental damage than before, with or without GMO, altho it also produce more food. Meanwhile, there is a huge waste of a substantial part of production, people who just eat more than they should, and others that don't have access to the necessary food : increasing production is not necessarily the only solution. Crop rotation has gone down, diversity too, farmers are more dependant on specific firms than they were before. Plus I never defended the idea of an absolute ban on GMO, but you're so talking alone in your own world that you don't actually read what people write but make assumptions. But continue to live in your fairy land, and see the stats how you want them to. Altho the ban in France is a great thing : we don't really need Mosanto messing with our agriculture. No. I posted the facts - per unit use of chemicals has gone down. Moreover, the chemicals that are being used are safer. The net effect is a healthier environment. I'll repeat from the USDA: Despite the relatively minor effect HT [Herbicide-tolerant] crop adoption has had on overall herbicide usage, HT crop adoption has enabled farmers to substitute glyphosate (which many HT crops are designed to tolerate) for more traditional herbicides. Because glyphosate is significantly less toxic and less persistent than traditional herbicides, the net impact of HT crop adoption is an improvement in environmental quality and a reduction in health risks. Facts are facts. If you are going to refuse to accept facts for what they are, there's no point in discussing this with you any further. It's just wrong, you gave herbicide per unit produced and it has gone up. + Show Spoiler + Up or down ? As for the glyphosate, I posted a research showing that the RoundUp is made with glyphosate AND some other adjuvants who have a way higher toxicity than the glysophate. The glysophate is useless by itself, it cannot penetrate the plant, and need other chemicals to really act. The RoundUp is not made of ONE chemical only. You're also putting aside the fact that we could substitute this way of producing that rely heavily on pesticides and herbicides and think about better production process, that maximize crop rotation for exemple (something GMO could absolutly do). Again, if you refuse to see the full picture then just stop arguing. I posted two charts, one showing insecticide going way down, the other showing herbicide slightly increasing. You only manage to post one, and ignore the other. Examples of using GMOs has been to make them more friendly to glysophate, which means a move to less harmful herbicide and the Bt-corn, which means less insecticide. Only looking to herbicide use misses the point! The point is less insecticide and safer herbicide. Cherry picking the data, only looking at herbicide use, isn't accurate. Also, the herbicide chart on its own is a mixed bag - corn is down, cotton and soybeans are up. It doesn't matter that Roundup uses more than glysophate. You're still using more glysophate and less chemicals that are more toxic. Remember - we're measuring the use of glysophate to that of more toxic chemicals, if Roundup also uses more toxic chemicals, that's already been measured. The net effect is that less toxic chemicals are being used. The USDA isn't wrong here. Also, since you like absolute numbers so much, here's a better source on that: + Show Spoiler +During 1980-2007 the aggregate quantity of pesticides applied in the U.S. declined at an average rate of 0.6 percent per year Source This shows how obnoxious you can be. I clearly said that insecticide has gone down and herbicides has gone up, then you say I'm wrong, then I post one of your two charts that shows herbicides has gone up and you're unhappy. Then you show a graph about absolute pesticide use, knowing full well that GMO are supposed to greatly reduce the use of pesticides. Fabulous. You know the RoundUp is an herbicide right ? About glysophate you don't know what you're saying. The article I posted perfectly explain the subject. But sure you're a physicist too. I wrote: I posted the facts - per unit use of chemicals has gone down. You replied with: It's just wrong, you gave herbicide per unit produced and it has gone up. You refuted my argument about chemicals by citing a sub-category of chemicals. You keep dancing around the facts. Less pesticide, and less harmful pesticides. A study that says 'glysophates more dangerous than thought' is not the same as 'glysophates more dangerous than previously used chemicals'. No you are dancing around the facts like you always do. I don't even know if you care about facts, what matters is your "visions", more ideological than anything. Here is what I wrote Show nested quote +GMO haven't created a healthier environment, the use of herbicide per unit produced has gone up since the introduction of GMO, and only insecticide as gone down : the end result is not a healthier environment. An increase of herbicide and a decrease of pesticide does not result in a healthier environment. At best you could say it's the statu quo, which it's not since the decrease in pesticides use is lower than the increase in herbicides. Now you could say that the production is more efficient in term of its impact on environment, which means that it produce less chemicals per unit produced, but it does not lead to a healthier environment, all in all there are more chemicals in the environment than before. Your point about RoundUp is bullshit and this prove how you cannot read anything that someone post you'd know that other agent in the RoundUp were not tested because they were thought inert. So narrowminded. All in all there are not more chemicals in the environment than before. See my graph on absolute pounds used. GMOs also mean higher yields, which means you need less farmland for a given output.
My 'ideology' has nothing to do with this. I like GMOs because of what they do. If they actually don't do that, than I won't like them so much.
I'll have to look at that study you posted closer, but skimming through it seems like the big thing they're pointing to is herbicide resistance leading to more herbicide used. That's not something new to GMOs though, so I need to see how they're making that connection. It also looks like they're modeling their results, so there could be some error there.
If it really does turn out that RoundUp is more toxic than thought there will need to be a change. Criticizing the use of a chemical because we thought it was much safer isn't much of a criticism though. That's exactly what we should be doing and it is tangential to the use of GMOs.
|
On October 25 2014 03:40 RCMDVA wrote: Roundup's magicial ingredient is animal fat.
I just buy generic 41% glyphosate (home depot HDX) and add a tiny bit of laundry detergent. low suds. If you're doing this in California, you're likely breaking the laws with our department of pesticides and the stringent laws on runoff. Good news is you won't get caught and they obviously can't enforce to the individual use. Of course if you have hard water like most of the state it yields better results. It's always nice to have such a web of laws that you're likely breaking several and could get hauled in on any one if you piss off the wrong official or department.
|
There are already tons of round-up resistant weeds so I wonder which essential biological pathway the next big herbicide is going to target?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
afaik several new strains are already in late pipeline stage.
whitedoge where is the graph for pct of crop spread with any kind of herbicide? did roundup increase overall toxic impact or did it merely replace other weedkillers.
if you are referring to that "study" by seralini then it is no wonder. the guy is a known chalatan and propagandist. his studies include feeding gm corn to rats that are meant to develop cancer naturally and claim causality, without peer review announcing that to journalists forced to sign NDAs. go look him up he is a joke.
it is not news that if you drink roundup it will be bad, but the reason why POEA is not dangerous is due to its very short half life. meaning exposure is low. it is basically like soap. they can and have been changing surfactants to combat resistance.
|
On October 25 2014 05:01 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2014 03:40 RCMDVA wrote: Roundup's magicial ingredient is animal fat.
I just buy generic 41% glyphosate (home depot HDX) and add a tiny bit of laundry detergent. low suds. If you're doing this in California, you're likely breaking the laws with our department of pesticides and the stringent laws on runoff. Good news is you won't get caught and they obviously can't enforce to the individual use. Of course if you have hard water like most of the state it yields better results. It's always nice to have such a web of laws that you're likely breaking several and could get hauled in on any one if you piss off the wrong official or department.
Yes, the American dream is to have your own little fiefdom with a two story house and a three car garage where you can do whatever the hell you want with your lawn. Hopefully something different to distinguish your house from your neighbor's identical house in a different shade of brick. Truly something to aspire to.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
The problem is that if you fuck up your lawn you are ruining your neighbor's American dream. I'm surprised Dangles isn't more incensed about homeowners' associations than some never-enforced herbicide regulations. They are preventing you from putting up that walrus mailbox you love, man.
It's suburban tyranny. And the membership dues. Don't get me started on them. Suburban communism.
|
On October 25 2014 10:35 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2014 05:01 Danglars wrote:On October 25 2014 03:40 RCMDVA wrote: Roundup's magicial ingredient is animal fat.
I just buy generic 41% glyphosate (home depot HDX) and add a tiny bit of laundry detergent. low suds. If you're doing this in California, you're likely breaking the laws with our department of pesticides and the stringent laws on runoff. Good news is you won't get caught and they obviously can't enforce to the individual use. Of course if you have hard water like most of the state it yields better results. It's always nice to have such a web of laws that you're likely breaking several and could get hauled in on any one if you piss off the wrong official or department. Yes, the American dream is to have your own little fiefdom with a two story house and a three car garage where you can do whatever the hell you want with your lawn. Hopefully something different to distinguish your house from your neighbor's identical house in a different shade of brick. Truly something to aspire to. I always love our little strawmen and games where we each sweep the crux of the opponent's argument out of hand, perhaps changing the subject and talking at cross purposes. I'll bite a little because even despite the games, you do offer arguments and try to back up the leftist position more than most others in this thread that reside in your ideological camp. So I'll type a little from my apartment mini-fief with beige exterior to why my conception of the American dream involves rule through law and not discretion and unelected-body edicts, and maybe a little happiness of types that you might never understand.
I have aspirations, maybe that the legal system returns to more castle doctrine and less advocacy for criminals to break in and steal and put you on the defense in identifying whatever proportional response you love in the dark. If your happiness is sharing your house and property with whoever comes along, yes I'll take the fiefdom and you can judge me however much your want (Please, enjoy your freedom to do so).
I imagine you find happiness somewhere, and maybe that's not living according to laws and playing sports. I prefer to know what the law is without booking sessions with a lawyer and appointments with whatever bureaucrat is currently interpreting administrative law. Call it peace of mind. Today we all know, however blind statists prefer to not know, that every week you're breaking the minutiae of laws designed thousands of miles away by legislatures. We're saved and walk around with the knowledge that their insanity doesn't affect us because on the extreme challenge of enforceability and the political backlash for prosecuting everybody that's a nobody. Nobody knows the law except the specialized lawyers in the field and their corresponding government agents (and even then, good luck on tax law) and that's just scary if you want to call the country a free society. These examples crop up over time.
Back in the day, the government was designed to be relatively uninvolved in citizen's life, their small powers having close checks from representation, and the bigger powers affecting states and localities only. The administrative state grew, congresses subbed out their legislative powers to commissioned bodies to effect the administration of laws, and the host of statutes grew. The courts and bodies function more as kings and enforcers of king's edicts than anything else. You're in violation, you're fined, and here's the appeal process have fun while your business dies. The great irony is that it's the middle class and small businesses that bear the expenses most poorly--the mega corporations have better resources handle compliance and reporting, dare I even say lobby for loopholes that their competitors can't support. The very ones decrying monopolies are best suited to create them, with the nice-sounding bills hundreds or thousands of pages long. I don't like the decline, I'm fighting progressive policies in my own small way, and I know my side might be the losing side (that gets reamed smugly for our suburban neighborhoods). It's better over here fighting for sound governance as the large weight of society crosses over into enlightened fiat and the justice of the mob.
+ Show Spoiler +Already long-winded so I won't cover in depth those areas when prosecutorial discretion makes rewrites of the law more important than the rest of the penned law ever was. National Review did ok on it if interested.
|
On October 25 2014 11:33 Danglars wrote: Back in the day, the government was designed to be relatively uninvolved in citizen's life, their small powers having close checks from representation, and the bigger powers affecting states and localities only. The administrative state grew, congresses subbed out their legislative powers to commissioned bodies to effect the administration of laws, and the host of statutes grew. The courts and bodies function more as kings and enforcers of king's edicts than anything else. You're in violation, you're fined, and here's the appeal process have fun while your business dies. The great irony is that it's the middle class and small businesses that bear the expenses most poorly--the mega corporations have better resources handle compliance and reporting, dare I even say lobby for loopholes that their competitors can't support. The very ones decrying monopolies are best suited to create them, with the nice-sounding bills hundreds or thousands of pages long.
Do you think big businesses would fare worse, to the benefit of the small business hero, with fewer laws?
|
On October 25 2014 09:11 oneofthem wrote: afaik several new strains are already in late pipeline stage.
whitedoge where is the graph for pct of crop spread with any kind of herbicide? did roundup increase overall toxic impact or did it merely replace other weedkillers.
if you are referring to that "study" by seralini then it is no wonder. the guy is a known chalatan and propagandist. his studies include feeding gm corn to rats that are meant to develop cancer naturally and claim causality, without peer review announcing that to journalists forced to sign NDAs. go look him up he is a joke.
it is not news that if you drink roundup it will be bad, but the reason why POEA is not dangerous is due to its very short half life. meaning exposure is low. it is basically like soap. they can and have been changing surfactants to combat resistance. This shows how you lack maturity. Seralini's made one mistake, which is making tests on rats that were already more often than not touched by cancer. But please, that's science. Maybe you don't know about it, because you're kinda ignorant on how it goes on, but scientists makes mistakes, and the knowledge created is always the result of a collective work. That Seralini made a mistake in a study from 2013 how does that makes his work from 2012 irrelevant or untrue ? Not to mention he is the third name in that study, and there are two other scientist : will you dig up some story on them to discard this study too ? I think it's one of the basis of science to discuss the arguments and not the people. I've quoted the numbers in previous posts, there is an increase in use of chemicals in the US, I shouldn't have to quote three time the same things for you to read them. Don't engage in a conversation if you are not ready to take seriously the arguments that comes from others, and to at least read what they wrote.
And no RoundUp is not MORE toxic than other weedkillers, it is "supposedly" LESS toxic (doesn't mean that it has no impact right ?), but as I said, when you're studying the toxicity of something, you cannot just study it in a vacuum, you need to take into consideration the dosage, the length and frequency of absorption. The fact that 75 to 100 % of rains in some state of the US have glysophate tells a lot about the scale of use and the possible impact on environment and men, even if roundup overall is less toxic than some other weedkillers.
And your "several new strains" makes me wonder if you even understand what's the point of the discussion. That the technology can do better is no question, what's in question is how it is at use and how the relationship between the GMO industry and the herbicid industry might prevent any possible alternative (a GMO that effectively needs less pesticides, or the promotion of other ways to fight pests) to rise through the private sector. Again that's something that I bolded in another study, that put emphasis on the relationship between GMO and the herbicide industry.
that particular compound isnt dangerous to humans, affect streams with very high alkaline conditions. halflife is short so no accumulation. would even qualify as organic given it is an snimalfat derivative. From wiki :
The chemical complexity of POEA makes it difficult to study in the environment.
Laboratory experiments show that POEA has a half-life in soils of less than 7 days, that washout from soil is likely to be minimal, and that the estimated half-life in bodies of water would be about 2 weeks. Field experiments have shown that the half-life of POEA in shallow waters is about 13 hours, "further supporting the concept that any potential direct effects of formulated products on organisms in natural waters are likely to occur very shortly post-treatment rather than as a result of chronic or delayed toxicity."
A review of the literature provided to the EPA in 1997 found that POEA was generally more potent in causing toxicity to aquatic organisms than glyphosate and that POEA becomes more potent in more alkaline environments. (Potency is measured by the median lethal dose (LD50); a low LC50 means that just a little of the substance is lethal; a high LC50 means that it takes a high dose to kill.) Glyphosate has an LC50 ranging from 4.2 times that of POEA for midge larvae at pH 6.5, to 369 times that of POEA for rainbow trout at pH 9.5 (for comparison, at pH 6.5 the LC50 of glyphosate was 70 times that of POEA for rainbow trout).[3]:18 The pH value of most freshwater streams and lakes is between 6.0 and 9.0; fish species are harmed by water having a pH value outside of this range.
Two reviews have been published on the toxicity of POEA to humans. The earlier, published in 2000,[6] evaluated studies that were performed for regulatory purposes as well as published research reports. It found that "no significant toxicity occurred in acute, subchronic, and chronic studies. Direct ocular exposure to the concentrated Roundup formulation can result in transient irritation, while normal spray dilutions cause, at most, only minimal effects. The genotoxicity data for glyphosate and Roundup were assessed using a weight-of-evidence approach and standard evaluation criteria. There was no convincing evidence for direct DNA damage in vitro or in vivo, and it was concluded that Roundup and its components do not pose a risk for the production of heritable/somatic mutations in humans. ...Glyphosate, AMPA, and POEA were not teratogenic or developmentally toxic....Likewise there were no adverse effects in reproductive tissues from animals treated with glyphosate, AMPA, or POEA in chronic and/or subchronic studies. Results from standard studies with these materials also failed to show any effects indicative of endocrine modulation. Therefore, it is concluded that the use of Roundup herbicide does not result in adverse effects on development, reproduction, or endocrine systems in humans and other mammals. ... It was concluded that, under present and expected conditions of use, Roundup herbicide does not pose a health risk to humans."
The later, published in 2004,[7] said that with respect to glyphosate formulations, "experimental studies suggest that the toxicity of the surfactant, polyoxyethyleneamine (POEA), is greater than the toxicity of glyphosate alone and commercial formulations alone. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that glyphosate preparations containing POEA are more toxic than those containing alternative surfactants. Although surfactants probably contribute to the acute toxicity of glyphosate formulations, the weight of evidence is against surfactants potentiating the toxicity of glyphosate. Accidental ingestion of glyphosate formulations is generally associated with only mild, transient, gastrointestinal features. Most reported cases have followed the deliberate ingestion of the concentrated formulation of Roundup (The use of trade names is for product identification purposes only and does not imply endorsement.) (41% glyphosate as the IPA salt and 15% POEA). There is a reasonable correlation between the amount ingested and the likelihood of serious systemic sequelae or death. Advancing age is also associated with a less favourable prognosis. Ingestion of >85 mL of the concentrated formulation is likely to cause significant toxicity in adults. Gastrointestinal corrosive effects, with mouth, throat and epigastric pain and dysphagia are common. Renal and hepatic impairment are also frequent and usually reflect reduced organ perfusion. Respiratory distress, impaired consciousness, pulmonary oedema, infiltration on chest x-ray, shock, arrythmias, renal failure requiring haemodialysis, metabolic acidosis and hyperkalaemia may supervene in severe cases. Bradycardia and ventricular arrhythmias are often present pre-terminally. Dermal exposure to ready-to-use glyphosate formulations can cause irritation and photo-contact dermatitis has been reported occasionally; these effects are probably due to the preservative Proxel (benzisothiazolin-3-one). Severe skin burns are very rare. Inhalation is a minor route of exposure but spray mist may cause oral or nasal discomfort, an unpleasant taste in the mouth, tingling and throat irritation. Eye exposure may lead to mild conjunctivitis, and superficial corneal injury is possible if irrigation is delayed or inadequate. Management is symptomatic and supportive, and skin decontamination with soap and water after removal of contaminated clothing should be undertaken in cases of dermal exposure."
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
there is nothing that raises a red flag. the mechanism of action for POEA is affecting cell transport across the cell membrane. it is not good for you, sure, but it's not mutagenic or anything. of course it'll affect fish and such but as all studies you can find will say, the impact is insignifcant because of the short half life. it requires a highly alkaline environment to do damage, but that kind of condition is already in itself bad for aquatic life.
that the surfactant is more toxic than glyphosate is nothing new, it is also not a unique problem of POEA. studies were done in the 90's and nobody cared because it is not dangerous unless you literally drink it out of the bottle or dump the content into a stream.
http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/pdfs/Surfactants.pdf
seralini is a joke though
|
WhiteDog, I found this chart from the USDA on herbicide use for HT and conventional corn:
Link
I'm not entirely sure why this differs so much from the results that Environmental Sciences Europe came up with, but I did take a look at their spreadsheet. Looking at tab "Sup Tab 8 9 10 HT Rates" Table 8 they seem to be assuming that average glyphosate is used on HT corn, deriving non-HT herbicide use from the HT figures using a static formula, and using the category 'Other Herbicides on HT Acres' as just a plug figure.
I'm not sure how the plug figure is justified or if there is an explanation somewhere. If you reference row 7 from the tab "Sup Tab 1 Herb Rates" the other cells do, HT and conventional herbicide use nets out to the same amount.
If I made any errors here, or missed something, do let me know.
Edit: realized I worded this wrong.
Edit 2: Their math seems to imply that farmers using conventional varieties managed to cut their use of non-glyphosate herbicide by half over the time period while maintaining an average use of glyphosate.
|
|
|
|