roundup is bad for your guts

Molly Mckee · #81 09/19/14, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PrettyPaisley

Well that's it. If you know of no law then case closed. End of story.

Huh???? That makes no sense.

sniper69 · #82 09/19/14, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jax-mom

I've been doing some research on einkorn wheat because I have weird issues with gluten and apparently this has a different makeup that makes it easier to digest. It's supposedly an old wheat and I wonder how that would fare on a large scale grown with organic methods?

Quote:

Originally Posted by farmerDale

I have a friend who grows organic einkorn. It is indeed an ancient wheat like grain. I have an old jar of wheat from the 1950's my dad had kept. I really do need to grow some of it and try to multiply it. A goal of mine is to try a "heritage" wheat in a side by side, replicated, field scale trial, to see how these old wheats may perform under more modern farming methods and vice versa. Maybe I then can sell this wheat as a "heritage" grain, for three times the price!!! lol.

Typically in small grains, and indeed with my friend, she uses a LOT of tillage and burns A LOT of diesel to grow organic crops on a medium to large scale. She mostly relies on summerfallow, that is, leaving the land idle for a year, to control some weeds, and to break down organic matter which in turn provides some nutrients. In the spring, seeding is delayed to allow a flush of early weeds, then it is tilled yet again to kill off those early weeds. After planting, a new flush of weeds come, and it is often very hard to tell what crop has been planted for the entire season because of low fertility and massive weed issues. Her yields are probably about a third of surrounding farms, and she probably gets twice the price as conventional farmers for her product.

She has much less risk in terms of financial input, because she does not spend much relatively to grow her crops. But she wonders about her future. She has such nasty weed issues after years of seeding out. Weed seeds which will be an issue for 20, 30, 60 years to come, depending on dormancy. Her soil fertility is dropping, from the inability to efficiently add nutrients. Her soil organic matter is dropping by its constant tillage and exposure to air. She burns four to five times the diesel fuel I do per acre. She loses money on expensive land the year it is left fallow. She herself does not see it as a sustainable option. We agree that the word sustainable is not attainable in reasonable scale farming.

Yes she uses forages, but so do I. Yes she uses cover crops: So do the rest of us. Sure she rotates crops, so do the rest of us. But she does not have the ability to put back into the soil all that is harvested. So her soil slowly dies.

Sorry for the novel. IMO, there is no right or wrong way to farm. There are simply misconceptions, lies, and fallacies that need to be shared about farming.

We all have our choices.

Quote:

Originally Posted by haypoint

I have had good luck growing Spelt. Quite a bit like wheat. There are some ancient varieties as well as some "improved" varieties. It has gluten, but is better tolerated by some folks. Spelt has been around a long while. Mentioned in the Christian Bible. Specialty stores stock Spelt flour. If you like it you might try growing some.

If looking for older varieties of wheat, then I would suggest http://www.ancientcerealgrains.org/s...ecatalog1.html

sammyd · #83 09/19/14, 09:56 PM

Quote:

That works both ways. Especially when you don't even allow studies to be done. It's always a benefit to your cause when you can say "no credible studies have ever been done to link blahblahblahblahblahblah" knowing full well your well compensated lawyers covered your butt before hand.

nobody is preventing any studies. It is an old stand by in the long line of myths in the anti gmo repertoire.
There is a database of over 2000 studies that have been done world wide by independent agencies and other governments concerning gmo crops. It can be found here http://genera.biofortified.org/
The bottom line is that gmo food and crops are just as safe and nutritious as non gmo food and crops.
A new study has just been released that looks at 29 years of animal health and productivity, both before and after the advent of gmo feeds. Guess what, no difference.
The data covers more than 100 billion animals and 29 years. (edited to add a link) http://www.journalofanimalscience.or.../jas.2014-8124
Here is a list of studies that all conclude gmo feed is safe, and yes there are independent studies in there.
http://www.fass.org/page.asp?pageID=...e&ULnotkn=true

Give up on the old "nobody can research this" line, it is a lie. The research has been done and it points to the anti gmo crowd being dead wrong.

farmerDale · #84 09/19/14, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammyd

nobody is preventing any studies. It is an old stand by in the long line of myths in the anti gmo repertoire.
There is a database of over 2000 studies that have been done world wide by independent agencies and other governments concerning gmo crops. It can be found here http://genera.biofortified.org/
The bottom line is that gmo food and crops are just as safe and nutritious as non gmo food and crops.
A new study has just been released that looks at 29 years of animal health and productivity, both before and after the advent of gmo feeds. Guess what, no difference.
The data covers more than 100 billion animals and 29 years.
Here is a list of studies that all conclude gmo feed is safe, and yes there are independent studies in there.
http://www.fass.org/page.asp?pageID=...e&ULnotkn=true

Give up on the old "nobody can research this" line, it is a lie. The research has been done and it points to the anti gmo crowd being dead wrong.

That post can simply NOT be quoted enough... Good job Sammy!

watcher · #85 09/20/14, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PrettyPaisley

That works both ways. Especially when you don't even allow studies to be done. It's always a benefit to your cause when you can say "no credible studies have ever been done to link blahblahblahblahblahblah" knowing full well your well compensated lawyers covered your butt before hand.

Care to point out one case when anyone has forced a study to not be done?

For the most part anyone who wishes can get access to almost any data he wishes to study. Usually all it takes is time and/or money. And I can tell you right now if ANYONE thought there was a physical danger linked to a chemical as widely used as glyphosate you can bet your entire bank account there would be people ready to toss all kinds of money and time into proving it because there'd be hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars to be made in court cases, for the lawyers that is.

The same thing applies to anything. If you can prove that using a specific brand of hair spray causes a percentage of people to grow warts on their left big toe you've hit the lawyer lottery. You find a bunch of people who have said warts and sue the maker for millions upon millions. Each person gets say $100 but you, the lawyer, gets 10-50% of the entire take.

watcher · #86 09/20/14, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PrettyPaisley

Well that's it. If you know of no law then case closed. End of story.

You stated the 'fact' its up to you to provide the evidence to back it up. Please give us cases where specific studies have been prevented.

pointer33 · #87 09/22/14, 08:03 AM

Well, I suppose this and many other topics shall never pass until something of higher magnitude comes along. I know for some time glyphosate has been looked as as an endocrine disruptor, you can look it up in the journal toxicology, and a few other places. I personally used it for a short while on weeds in my driveway, but seeing it was not the magic bullet I thought it would be I quit using it. Like morphine as a manner of controlling pain, I had expectations that were too high so I was disappointed. I think it is something I do not want to select in my food chain if I can avoid it, but do to the proliferation it is difficult. I am not the idealist to think I will change how we conduct farming...and yes folks organic farmers could feed the world, we might have to adjust human nature...ie certain systems of subsidies, and sets of values.....just think about how everything by in large is a choice. We could probably have cars that were far more economical if we did not value certain factors of performance. I think looking through this thread makes me sad. It feels divisive. I do not think I have a stellar education but getting to discussions of drinking this acid or that chemical and who will die first seems schoolyard like. I mean slow death by low level radiation or a car accident....hardly an effective argument for cars vs careless nuke usage. Reminds me of the MSDS sheet for how dangerous dihydrogen monoxide (or something like that is)...oh it's water H2O....many things depend on many factors.....I hope in your hearts you are not as angry with each other as you seem. Personally I hope to retain the freedom to grow some food and make some of my own choices in this world. Peace out homies

unregistered358967 · #88 09/22/14, 09:53 AM

I think with issues like this, it's very personal (to me included) so naturally you'll see strong opinions. I think people have polar opposite stances (safe versus not safe) and there's really no gray areas.

I do like the fact that studies are being done but I always like to look at things over the long haul, longer than these studies have shown. In my heart I'm suspcious of long-term effects so naturally I buy organic items because I just don't want to take the chance, especially on my kids. I like having the choice, which is why I like items to be labeled.

I'm not a farmer. I'm not a scientist. I'm your average mom who studies and researches in the best ways I can and makes what I feel are the best choices for my family, scrimping and pinching everywhere so that I can buy organic items. We don't have many luxuries compared to most because I like a simple life which affords me the ability to spend a little more on food. For those who say organic is out of reach, I think a closer look at finances/spending/priorities might go a long way. More often I think it's the lack of access - which is a whole other thread!!- rather than lack of money. We are NOT rich by any means.

And there are days like today when I was $1 short and had to buy the regular milk. 99% of what we eat is, but there are times it's not feasible or I just can't afford it.

So while I see these reports that GMOs are safe as is Roundup, I take the let's wait and see approach. But I do read them. I'm smart enough to admit I don't know everything and always am ready to listen/read the oppositing viewpoint.

rambler · #89 09/22/14, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoonShadows

I stopped using RoundUp years ago. If I want to kill weeds, I buy a gallon or two of vinegar, put it in my sprayer, and the weeds are wilting and on their way to dying by the end of the day.

Jim

Only thing is, acetic acid (CH3COOH) is pretty closely related to (2,4-Dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid.

In other words, vinegar is related to 2,4-D.

So, to get away from Roundup, you are using one of the other common weed killers. You just don't know it......

Then, the acid in vinegar lowers the ph in your soil, which is a chronic problem on much of our good land - too low of a soil ph. And you are adding to that problem.

Then, the acid of vinegar modifies a persons gut quite a bit too, when you consume it. Makes a lot of changes to what going on in your guts. Now, our guts are designed to deal with these changes - but if the concern is one product causes changes, why not be concerned about the changes vinegar also creates?

Of course, the big difference here is that you are used to having vinegar sitting in the kitchen when you were growing up, you are used to handling it and consuming it, your parents had it.

So, you just don't worry about it. Its a common every day thing to you.

You don't mind that it lowers your soil ph a little - hell you drink the stuff!

You don't mind that it is related to one of the earliest and most common weed killer that's been around since the 1940s. Because - you don't know. No one bothered trying to scare you about vinegar.

And you aren't concerned about the effects of vinegar on your guts, and the bugs in your tummy. Because - well you never thought about it, and it's just been a common part of the food chain since before biblical times. You never really ever thought about it did you?

Myself, if you look at the real facts, study up on it, and look at the amounts of each used per bowl of cereal or per acre or whatever, I think it would actually be quite clear that your vinegar is far, far, far more harmful to the environment and humans than the Roundup is.

But, you won't bother even looking into it.

Because, you just already know.

I get that. Human nature.

Too bad tho.

We do ourselves a dis service when we hold on to ideas without ever challenging them, researching them, looking for new answers.

I ain't going to change anyone's mind here. I know.

Just interesting that you choose to use a very harmful product in place of one that is better suited for the job. And think you are so much the better for it.

Human nature is a funny thing.

Paul

sniper69 · #90 09/22/14, 01:58 PM

Oh no we better get the government to ban vinegar - it is evil. Banning it is for the children.

(and please take my comment as the joke it is intended to be, and not serious.)

Now for a serious comment - if one decides to ingest vinegar (I do like a nice salad with vinegar and oil), or if one decides they want to use round up for weeds - let it be there choice. Just don't ask me to make a round up and oil dressing for my salad.

rambler · #91 09/22/14, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pointer33

Well, I suppose this and many other topics shall never pass until something of higher magnitude comes along. I know for some time glyphosate has been looked as as an endocrine disruptor, you can look it up in the journal toxicology, and a few other places. I personally used it for a short while on weeds in my driveway, but seeing it was not the magic bullet I thought it would be I quit using it. Like morphine as a manner of controlling pain, I had expectations that were too high so I was disappointed. I think it is something I do not want to select in my food chain if I can avoid it, but do to the proliferation it is difficult. I am not the idealist to think I will change how we conduct farming...and yes folks organic farmers could feed the world, we might have to adjust human nature...ie certain systems of subsidies, and sets of values.....just think about how everything by in large is a choice. We could probably have cars that were far more economical if we did not value certain factors of performance. I think looking through this thread makes me sad. It feels divisive. I do not think I have a stellar education but getting to discussions of drinking this acid or that chemical and who will die first seems schoolyard like. I mean slow death by low level radiation or a car accident....hardly an effective argument for cars vs careless nuke usage. Reminds me of the MSDS sheet for how dangerous dihydrogen monoxide (or something like that is)...oh it's water H2O....many things depend on many factors.....I hope in your hearts you are not as angry with each other as you seem. Personally I hope to retain the freedom to grow some food and make some of my own choices in this world. Peace out homies

A nice message, pointer.

All chemicals, even vinegar, have their good and bad sides. Some folks say we should just salt weeds, not use ag sprays. But - salt the earth? That seems so much worse that roundup!

Today I guess Dr Oz is going to have some folks on talking about a new gmo trait coming out. He is going to have some 'experts' that have produced several bad reports in the past, that are proven to be false. But it makes no matter. They will get another 15 minutes of fame, and can sell more of their books, and they will scare all of you more and more with their 'information'.

I know, over the next year, we will be quoted from this show here and other places.

And it will be from people who are lying to us.

To sell more books. They will use fear to scare you, to buy their books.

And you will stand up behind them, in fear, and lead us down their path - a path of greed and money and no concern for the truth.

And that is what makes me sad.

In general, farmers will spray one to three quarts of glyphosate on an acre of ground (about a football field) when the crop is a few inches to knee high - in May through June mostly.

The crop itself typically doesn't form seeds until Late July, and is not harvested until late September through October.

How does such a small amount of something that's been tested so very much, and is applied so early in a crops life so as to be very removed from the seeds, cause such a passion and hatred in people?

One spills far more toxins directly on your skin when you refuel your law mower, than you will ever get from the use of roundup on corn and soybean fields.

Well I rambled on, sorry pointer33. I enjoyed your message, one of moderation. It would be great if we didnt need gasoline, weed sprays, vinegar, and all the other stuff we use every day. But don't see how that would work out.

Paul

sammyd · #92 09/22/14, 05:20 PM

Quote:

but I always like to look at things over the long haul,

glyphosate has been around for 44 years
GMO has been around since the 80's.
Study after study has shown neither to have any real sort of problems.
The endocrine disruptor label is pretty iffy and based on some tests using cultured cells which may or may not reflect any real life problems. It still isn't labeled a disruptor by any real agency.

Quote:

In conclusion, the available literature shows no solid evidence linking glyphosate exposure to adverse developmental or reproductive effects at environmentally realistic exposure concentrations.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22202229

How long is long enough?

unregistered358967 · #93 09/22/14, 08:51 PM

How long? Well, I plan to be around for a long time and I'm very patient. I can get away with continuing down the same path I am.

In the meantime I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I'd put the little emoticon of two people shaking hands here but I'm on my phone and all I can give you is a

.

rambler · #94 09/22/14, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jax-mom

How long? Well, I plan to be around for a long time and I'm very patient. I can get away with continuing down the same path I am.

In the meantime I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I'd put the little emoticon of two people shaking hands here but I'm on my phone and all I can give you is a

.

I generally agree with the messages you have written here in this thread.

Folks growing a 100 foot square garden are probably better off not using gmo, aside from any chemical fears at all. That is how I would grow a small garden anyhow.

It is good you and all have choices. I want that to continue.

I don't need for you to have to buy anything that I grow.

The only part of this that bugs me - if you want to follow science, then use some science in the research!

Time and again, the anti- folk use hearsay and outright false info to support their views.

I want you to be able to actually do good sound research on these issues. And then buy whatever you want to buy, grow whatever you want to grow anyhow, no matter what the science proves or disproves.

But I would like to see real science.

I automatically discount anything the companies make the products have to say. Sure they can supply some basic info, but I'd kinda guess they would shine a good light on their products. Don't cha think.....

Unfortunately we can't trust the other side either. They want to use fear to manipulate us, sell us books, sell us seminars, sell us seeds and magic juice at 3x its worth.... They are just as evil, just as greedy as the chemical companies. Their 'studies' are based on the results they want to find, not based on a set of research and learning good info from that research.

So we are left lacking a lot. I understand that.

I'm fine with you growing or buying the products you want.

I just react to really bad science, or people making up stuff that is totally unfounded.

So far, that has been, over and over, these anti-gmo findings. If one looks into them, they are always hot air.

All typically to sell some books, or get some 15 minutes of fame.

What I fear is that these people will fool you, and create fear in you, and lead you down a wrong path.

Healthy skepticism is good.

Mindless unthinking fear is bad.

Stay healthy.

Paul

EDDIE BUCK · #95 09/23/14, 01:01 AM

Both,Roundup

roundup is bad for your guts - General Chat

And vinegar,

HAVE THEIR OWN IMPORTANT ROLL TO PLAY IN THIS HERE GREAT BIG WORLD,AND THEY BOTH PLAY IT TO PERFECTION. If You Don't Mind,Would You Please Pass Me Another Rib?

Pay me no mind.I was born this way.

Carry On