Monsanto ruled to have caused man’s cancer

Discodog · 11-08-2018 1:04pm

Malayalam wrote: »

I guess he could have gone to the employers in litigation, but maybe it was a test case direct at the manufacturers. And legally manufacturers are liable if they produce and distribute dangerous products. And the damages awarded would also have been exemplary or punitive, exactly because of the underlying implication that a vast corporation has a huge duty of care. He won't see much if any of the cash - that is not the point. The point is to hold corporations accountable for negligence.

But every package of pesticide contains safety instructions. The argument seemed to be that Monsanto couldn't state categorically that the product can't cause Cancer. No one could ever state that about any product.

Wanderer78 · 11-08-2018 1:04pm

Discodog wrote: »

This was one of my first research projects. Think about it. We see ploughing as a good thing but soil has very structured layers & each has it's own unique fauna. Everything is living happily & then suddenly the top layer is buried & the bottom layer exposed to air.

We sprayed test plots with huge quantities of Paraquat over many years. These areas had a far greater number & diversity of soil fauna than the ploughed plots. Then factor in the pollution, energy use, cost, equipment to plough.

There are obvious other factors like compaction, drainage etc but it's not a simple tillage good, chemicals bad argument.

i appreciate your understanding, thank you, its something ive only been been recently enough made aware of, as i dont come from an agricultural background, actually attempted a masters in environmental science a couple of years ago, its a very interesting topic.

jh79 · 11-08-2018 1:07pm

Malayalam wrote: »

Yes, and the science gradually comes to the conclusion that there are levels of toxicity in many modern products that are implicated in adverse human health. Including plastics. I guess for some people it then becomes a cost benefit analysis type thing - we need more food, so lets spray the competing weeds and if a certain percentage of people accumulate the chemical and get cancer or other diseases it is collateral damage. I just cannot bring myself to think in that fashion.

and yes, I have hoed fields. Food can be produced organically, and with sufficient labour in sufficient quantity to provide our needs - it's just no one wants to pay the price of that, nor is the work appreciated as valid. Pity, because sitting on one's arse in an office instead is not all that happy making.

Can you give an example of a benefit of organic farming that has supporting evidence?

It is just a belief of yours that "organic" is better and legislation / policy should not be based on beliefs .

Discodog · 11-08-2018 1:10pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

i appreciate your understanding, thank you, its something ive only been been recently enough made aware of, as i dont come from an agricultural background, actually attempted a masters in environmental science a couple of years ago, its a very interesting topic.

Gardeners, like me, see digging as a good thing. We break up the soil, aerate it etc. But a natural field or forest doesn't get dug. We do it to help nurture the plants we want but it isn't necessarily the best thing for the environment.

I was really lucky. I worked with an amazing professor who taught us to question everything. But you can't legislate for human behaviour. Paraquat got a terrible reputation because people decanted it into drinks bottles & kids drank it by mistake with lethal consequences. Bleach is the same but is still on sale. The new example is detergent pods.

Malayalam · 11-08-2018 1:12pm

Discodog wrote: »

But every package of pesticide contains safety instructions. The argument seemed to be that Monsanto couldn't state categorically that the product can't cause Cancer. No one could ever state that about any product.

Just going to once more link an essay by your fellow scientists expressing serious reserve https://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2017/02/22/jech-2016-208463

Science moves constantly, data is updated, at least allow for the possibility that glyphosate is not risk-free.

My work here is done

c18a50fa42f2fc2538ab529663399ced--funny-kids-funny-babies.jpg

Discodog · 11-08-2018 1:16pm

Malayalam wrote: »

Just going to once more link an essay by your fellow scientists expressing serious reserve https://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2017/02/22/jech-2016-208463

Science moves constantly, data is updated, at least allow for the possibility that glyphosate is not risk-free.

My work here is done

Why done ?

Does a photo like like convey an image of serious research or comment ? It just makes the people that posted it look stupid. Thousand of chemicals will have found their way into breast milk.

I have never said that it's risk free, very little ever is. Life is all about balancing risk.

Wanderer78 · 11-08-2018 1:21pm

Discodog wrote: »

Gardeners, like me, see digging as a good thing. We break up the soil, aerate it etc. But a natural field or forest doesn't get dug. We do it to help nurture the plants we want but it isn't necessarily the best thing for the environment.

I was really lucky. I worked with an amazing professor who taught us to question everything. But you can't legislate for human behaviour. Paraquat got a terrible reputation because people decanted it into drinks bottles & kids drank it by mistake with lethal consequences. Bleach is the same but is still on sale. The new example is detergent pods.

all humans should question everything, always, things, a lot of the time, dont seem to be what is perceived, sounds like a great professor. where did you study, if you dont mind me asking?

Discodog · 11-08-2018 1:24pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

all humans should question everything, always, things, a lot of the time, dont seem to be what is perceived, sounds like a great professor. where did you study, if you dont mind me asking?

I was so lucky. I got the job first & then they sponsored me to study. I actually got payed to collect students at 5am, spending the day messing on the water or in fields, big pub lunch (on expenses) & then home

Malayalam · 11-08-2018 1:25pm

Discodog wrote: »

Why done ?

Does a photo like like convey an image of serious research or comment ? It just makes the people that posted it look stupid. Thousand of chemicals will have found their way into breast milk.

I have never said that it's risk free, very little ever is. Life is all about balancing risk.

Try not to be disingenuous. You know very well that the article I posted is the relevant information/link. But you are avoiding it just about as solidly as I avoid Round Up. And if you want to ''balance risk'' then be pragmatic enough to also realise that ultimately your weedkiller producers will have to pay out in the long run when the risk accumulates sufficiently in enough human tissue.

freedominacup · 11-08-2018 1:31pm

Malayalam wrote: »

Just going to once more link an essay by your fellow scientists expressing serious reserve https://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2017/02/22/jech-2016-208463

Science moves constantly, data is updated, at least allow for the possibility that glyphosate is not risk-free.

My work here is done

I don't consider roundup to be risk free but there's much more harmful sprays being used on food crops every day that never get a mention. Some of the research is laughable. I showed one particular paper to a relation of mine. She has a phd in an ag science field and would have a good understanding of the science involved. The paper showed a link between glyphosate and birth defects in laboratory rats. Her comment was that if they had administered folic acid to the rats in the same concentrations it would also have caused birth defects. Folic acid, you know the stuff women are advised to take if they are thinking of having a baby and in early pregnancy to prevent birth defects. I'm not an apologist for Monsanto or glyphosate but you'd have to wonder if it's almost a distraction from other more dubious products at this stage.

jh79 · 11-08-2018 1:32pm

Malayalam wrote: »

Try not to be disingenuous. You know very well that the article I posted is the relevant information/link. But you are avoiding it just about as solidly as I avoid Round Up. And if you want to ''balance risk'' then be pragmatic enough to also realise that ultimately your weedkiller producers will have to pay out in the long run when the risk accumulates sufficiently in enough human tissue.

There us nothing in the paper that shows a risk with round up residues in food and adverse effects.

The best study available found no risk from it in the food chain.

https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/glyphosate-causes-cancer-science-says-no/

Discodog · 11-08-2018 1:34pm

freedominacup wrote: »

I don't consider roundup to be risk free but there's much more harmful sprays being used on food crops every day that never get a mention. Some of the research is laughable. I showed one particular paper to a relation of mine. She has a phd in an ag science field and would have a good understanding of the science involved. The paper showed a link between glyphosate and birth defects in laboratory rats. Her comment was that if they had administered folic acid to the rats in the same concentrations it would also have caused birth defects. Folic acid, you know the stuff women are advised to take if they are thinking of having a baby and in early pregnancy to prevent birth defects. I'm not an apologist for Monsanto or glyphosate but you'd have to wonder if it's almost a distraction from other more dubious products at this stage.

Causes need enemies. It's much easier to choose an enemy & focus on them.

People rave about using salt as a safe weedkiller. Pop a little on a worm or mollusc & see how safe it is.

Discodog · 11-08-2018 1:47pm

I find the verdict even more surprising after reading this - my bold :

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/08/jury-orders-monsanto-pay-289...

Johnson used Roundup and a similar product, Ranger Pro, as a pest control manager at a San Francisco Bay Area school district, his lawyers said. He sprayed large quantities from a 50-gallon (about 3.8 litres) tank attached to a truck, and during gusty winds, the product would cover his face, said Brent Wisner, one of his attorneys.

Once, when a hose broke, the weed killer soaked his entire body."

That isn't Monsanto's fault.

s7ryf3925pivug · 11-08-2018 1:53pm

freedominacup wrote: »

Her comment was that if they had administered folic acid to the rats in the same concentrations it would also have caused birth defects. Folic acid, you know the stuff women are advised to take if they are thinking of having a baby and in early pregnancy to prevent birth defects.

Excessive folic acid doesn't cause birth defects. While I'd guess she knows this and was being sarcastic, a PhD in agricultural science doesn't qualify her as an expert in teratogens in any case.

s7ryf3925pivug · 11-08-2018 1:56pm

Discodog wrote: »

I find the verdict even more surprising after reading this - my bold :

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/08/jury-orders-monsanto-pay-289...

Johnson used Roundup and a similar product, Ranger Pro, as a pest control manager at a San Francisco Bay Area school district, his lawyers said. He sprayed large quantities from a 50-gallon (about 3.8 litres) tank attached to a truck, and during gusty winds, the product would cover his face, said Brent Wisner, one of his attorneys.

Once, when a hose broke, the weed killer soaked his entire body."

That isn't Monsanto's fault.

It is because they've they've professed that it is entirely harmless. "Practically nontoxic" and "safer than table salt".

Discodog · 11-08-2018 1:58pm

Daniella Cold Dude wrote: »

It is because they've they've professed that it is entirely harmless. "Practically nontoxic" and "safer than table salt".

It's safer than table salt & very non toxic to pets, wildlife etc. They have never said you can bath in it.

s7ryf3925pivug · 11-08-2018 2:00pm

Discodog wrote: »

It's safer than table salt & very non toxic to pets, wildlife etc. They have never said you can bath in it.

You can swim in saltwater.

Discodog · 11-08-2018 2:09pm

Daniella Cold Dude wrote: »

You can swim in saltwater.

Yes, very very dilute saltwater. I just looked at the label. No where does it say the product is harmless. It has a big list of warnings & instructions. By the way put some seawater on your garden plants & see if it has any effect.

YFlyer · 11-08-2018 2:12pm

Discodog wrote: »

I find the verdict even more surprising after reading this - my bold :

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/08/jury-orders-monsanto-pay-289...

Johnson used Roundup and a similar product, Ranger Pro, as a pest control manager at a San Francisco Bay Area school district, his lawyers said. He sprayed large quantities from a 50-gallon (about 3.8 litres) tank attached to a truck, and during gusty winds, the product would cover his face, said Brent Wisner, one of his attorneys.

Once, when a hose broke, the weed killer soaked his entire body."

That isn't Monsanto's fault.

Large quantities from a 50-gallon (about 3.8 litres) tank attached

What volume tank?

4068ac1elhodqr · 11-08-2018 2:16pm

One of the best ways to remove spray residue from foods (apples, tomatoes)
- is a quick scrub, with a drop of Organic Cyder Vinegar.

Not possible with cereals such as corn flakes, crackers, unless it's certified organic and residue free.
Animals feed may have higher tolerances 400ppm (glyphosate), but then we eat the animals anyway.

Discodog · 11-08-2018 2:19pm

YFlyer wrote: »

Large quantities from a 50-gallon (about 3.8 litres) tank attached

What volume tank?

Good question but apparently a motorised vehicle so definitely more that 3.8 litres. I suspect that, as it's in the US, the gallons is correct.

Discodog · 11-08-2018 2:21pm

Messiah Limited Jackhammer wrote: »

One of the best ways to remove spray residue from foods (apples, tomatoes)
- is a quick scrub, with a drop of Organic Cyder Vinegar.

Not possible with cereals such as corn flakes, crackers, unless it's certified organic and residue free.
Animals feed may have higher tolerances 400ppm (glyphosate), but then we eat the animals anyway.

You don't spray Roundup near apples or tomatoes

4068ac1elhodqr · 11-08-2018 2:24pm

Discodog wrote: »

You don't spray Roundup near apples or tomatoes

A pesticide is a pesticide.

As part of its annual report, EFSA analyses the results of the EU-coordinated control programme (EUCP), under which reporting countries analyse samples from the same “basket” of food items and for the same pesticides.

For 2016 the products were apples, head cabbage, leek, lettuce, peaches, strawberries, tomatoes, rye, wine, cow’s milk and swine fat.

The lowest MRL exceedance rates were identified for rye (0.7%), followed by head cabbage (1.1%) and strawberries (1.8%). The highest exceedances were found for apples (2.7%) and tomatoes (2.6%).

Fakediamond · 11-08-2018 2:47pm

Discodog wrote: »

Because these are often the "Organic" people who use Vinegar, salt etc as alternatives because they see them as "natural" products & ignore the toxicity.

I’m interested to know the posters opinion Monsanto owning the rights to seeds thereby denying farmers the right to save a portion of their harvest for planting as next years crop. That is highly alarming, they are developing varieties that can only thrive using their products to control weed growth, blight etc. Is that not cause for concern. I find it chilling, to be honest, especially with our history of famine. My granny always said, don’t put all your eggs in one basket.

YFlyer · 11-08-2018 2:51pm

Discodog wrote: »

Good question but apparently a motorised vehicle so definitely more that 3.8 litres. I suspect that, as it's in the US, the gallons is correct.

I see now. 3.8 litres equal to 1 US gallon.

jh79 · 11-08-2018 3:03pm

Messiah Limited Jackhammer wrote: »

A pesticide is a pesticide.

As part of its annual report, EFSA analyses the results of the EU-coordinated control programme (EUCP), under which reporting countries analyse samples from the same “basket” of food items and for the same pesticides.

For 2016 the products were apples, head cabbage, leek, lettuce, peaches, strawberries, tomatoes, rye, wine, cow’s milk and swine fat.

The lowest MRL exceedance rates were identified for rye (0.7%), followed by head cabbage (1.1%) and strawberries (1.8%). The highest exceedances were found for apples (2.7%) and tomatoes (2.6%).

If the highest is only 2.7% above the mrl then that's pretty good.

4068ac1elhodqr · 11-08-2018 3:08pm

jh79 wrote: »

If the highest is only 2.7% above the mrl then that's pretty good.

An (cumulative) apple a day...

From the 1,143 samples in Ireland, there was still nearly 2% (1.7%) of items 'above MRL', Hope it's not your favourite snacks or daily food stables.

Discodog · 11-08-2018 3:12pm

Messiah Limited Jackhammer wrote: »

A pesticide is a pesticide.

As part of its annual report, EFSA analyses the results of the EU-coordinated control programme (EUCP), under which reporting countries analyse samples from the same “basket” of food items and for the same pesticides.

For 2016 the products were apples, head cabbage, leek, lettuce, peaches, strawberries, tomatoes, rye, wine, cow’s milk and swine fat.

The lowest MRL exceedance rates were identified for rye (0.7%), followed by head cabbage (1.1%) and strawberries (1.8%). The highest exceedances were found for apples (2.7%) and tomatoes (2.6%).

Hopefully they have questioned why. I can sort of see for tomatoes but weeds don't grow in trees.

Discodog · 11-08-2018 3:16pm

Fakediamond wrote: »

I’m interested to know the posters opinion Monsanto owning the rights to seeds thereby denying farmers the right to save a portion of their harvest for planting as next years crop. That is highly alarming, they are developing varieties that can only thrive using their products to control weed growth, blight etc. Is that not cause for concern. I find it chilling, to be honest, especially with our history of famine. My granny always said, don’t put all your eggs in one basket.

I don't know enough to express an opinion but in principle I would agree. But these companies have to recoup their costs & return healthy profits. The famine was caused by blight. Surely a blight resistant potato is a good thing.

GM, Chemicals, Companies & Profits aren't always bad.

jh79 · 11-08-2018 3:17pm

Messiah Limited Jackhammer wrote: »

An (cumulative) apple a day...

From the 1,143 samples in Ireland, there was still nearly 2% (1.7%) of items 'above MRL', Hope it's not your favourite snacks or daily food stables.

Is that 2% above the MRL or 2% of apples sampled?

Either way , it's the total intake that is important , any overage is canceled out by food that is below the MRL. When an item is consistently above the MRL a risk assesment is done to ensure total intake from diet is still safe.

4068ac1elhodqr · 11-08-2018 3:26pm

jh79 wrote: »

Is that 2% above the MRL or 2% of apples sampled?

Either way , it's the total intake that is important , any overage is canceled out by food that is below the MRL. When an item is consistently above the MRL a risk assesment is done to ensure total intake from diet is still safe.

Referred (by 'food/product'), across Europe.
The Ireland part refers to the 1.7% figure above limits (by country)
https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/interactive_pages/Pesticides_report_2016

The EFSA chart shows the worst items are all daily staples of:
Apples±, Tomatoes^, Milk, Tea, Baby Products, Wheat, SweetPeppers* & Olives.
*Highest: 4.5%, ^4%, ±3%.

For pesticides, so use may be for killing all 'pests' not just weeds.

A totally separate report ranked 'Cheerios' as the single highest product,
likely due to the 'multi/mixed-grain' aspect.

jace_da_face · 11-08-2018 3:27pm

freedominacup wrote: »

I don't consider roundup to be risk free but there's much more harmful sprays being used on food crops every day that never get a mention. Some of the research is laughable. I showed one particular paper to a relation of mine. She has a phd in an ag science field and would have a good understanding of the science involved. The paper showed a link between glyphosate and birth defects in laboratory rats. Her comment was that if they had administered folic acid to the rats in the same concentrations it would also have caused birth defects. Folic acid, you know the stuff women are advised to take if they are thinking of having a baby and in early pregnancy to prevent birth defects. I'm not an apologist for Monsanto or glyphosate but you'd have to wonder if it's almost a distraction from other more dubious products at this stage.

I think your post-grad relative might be a little on the naïve side. I am sure there are many nasty chemicals that could be administered to rats that could produce birth defects. Does that make glyphosate's effect any less harmful? I don't understand the logic.

"The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) classified glyphosate as causing serious eye damage and toxic to aquatic life" - source Wikipedia.

I am sure there are many household chemicals damaging to aquatic life. I wouldn't pour bleach into a pond for example. But I'm pretty sure we don't spray our fields with bleach or folic acid for that matter.

The WHO's position on this is that glyphosate is a 'probable human carcinogen'. This suggests they are satisfied that it is a carcinogen in animals.

As for the effects on bee populations: Link

But when the bees are all gone I am sure they will have a patent on seeds that do not require pollination.

Discodog · 11-08-2018 3:28pm

Messiah Limited Jackhammer wrote: »

Referred (by 'food/product'), across Europe.
The Ireland part refers to the 1.7% figure above limits (by country)
https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/interactive_pages/Pesticides_report_2016

The EFSA chart shows the worst items are all daily staples of:
Apples±, Tomatoes^, Milk, Tea, Baby Products, Wheat, SweetPeppers* & Olives.
*Highest: 4.5%, ^4%, ±3%.

For pesticides, so may use may be killing all 'pests' not just weeds.

Very relevant user name

4068ac1elhodqr · 11-08-2018 3:31pm

Discodog wrote: »

Very relevant user name

That's for my long-term novelty mixed e/w Accumulator bets.
Backed Trump and Brexit (naturally of course) during 2016.

Next longer-term novelty is Italy to leave the EU, followed by Denmark
(long story), circa 2025 & 2027 (or before!).

jh79 · 11-08-2018 3:41pm

Messiah Limited Jackhammer wrote: »

Referred (by 'food/product'), across Europe.
The Ireland part refers to the 1.7% figure above limits (by country)
https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/interactive_pages/Pesticides_report_2016

The EFSA chart shows the worst items are all daily staples of:
Apples±, Tomatoes^, Milk, Tea, Baby Products, Wheat, SweetPeppers* & Olives.
*Highest: 4.5%, ^4%, ±3%.

For pesticides, so use may be for killing all 'pests' not just weeds.

A totally separate report ranked 'Cheerios' as the single highest product,
likely due to the 'multi/mixed-grain' aspect.

Unless there is a report linking these levels to adverse effects i wouldn't be concerned.

4068ac1elhodqr · 11-08-2018 3:52pm

jh79 wrote: »

Unless there is a report linking these levels to adverse effects i wouldn't be concerned.

So maybe the European Commission that fixes MRLs of pesticide residue for all food and animal feed is wasting it's time, expense and effort by even compiling such data :rolleyes:

jh79 · 11-08-2018 3:56pm

Messiah Limited Jackhammer wrote: »

So maybe the European Commission that fixes MRLs of pesticide residue for all food and animal feed is wasting it's time, expense and effort by even compiling such data :rolleyes:

Didn't say that, the MRL are set so that the total consumed is of no risk to health.

Have you any evidence that these % above the MRL's are a health risk?

jh79 · 11-08-2018 4:14pm

Also, studies have shown less pesticides in "organic" food but no health benefits so no reason to be concerned with levels slightly above the MRL's.

Graces7 · 11-08-2018 4:37pm

toxic is toxic and as it can be avoided, better to do so. period..

Discodog · 11-08-2018 4:42pm

Graces7 wrote: »

toxic is toxic and as it can be avoided, better to do so. period..

How can it be avoided ? My clients want weed free driveways, patios etc.

mad muffin · 11-08-2018 4:44pm

So should I stop using round up?(have it in the shed. Use it once in a blue moon because I have a dog that likes to eat grass I don’t use it in the back yard).

And should we stop eating apples? We eat one every day :eek:

chite · 11-08-2018 4:57pm

To the people saying to use vinegar and salt for weeds, that's way worse than roundup. Salt accumulates in soil, and it'll make the soil inhospitable so no plant wouldn't grow where it's put and the vinegar is not biodegradable. Plus the fact that unless you're using it on tiny shoots, you'd probably need repeated applications so just adding to the problem.

I would rather weed manually, whether by hand or with a rotavator for larger areas when it's comes to a veg plot or garden (plus the clover method). Would be interested in how organic farming practices compare to conventional farms, One such farm is David Laughlin up in Colraine, Co. Derry and would be great if more farms were like this, however would people be prepared to pay more for their produce...

Herbicide use when it comes to tackling invasive plant species is ok IMO, provided it's carried out by a trained contractor while considering for designated sites (SAC etc.), protected species nearby, properties etc. If you were trying to manually remove Japanese knotweed, you wouldn't get far and you would be just causing it to spread more. It's controlled by stem injection applications over a number of years until there's no regrowth, so there's no spraying involved. Gunnera tinctoria is sprayed but the root is targeted so would regard it as safe provided ppe is used and used properly.

4068ac1elhodqr · 11-08-2018 4:58pm

Discodog wrote: »

How can it be avoided ? My clients want weed free driveways, patios etc.

A simple salt targeted solution (paved patios only where don't want anything else growing) will kill most, and can be put down on a windy day without any risk of health risk.

A standard 10 note weed burner will quickly clear a driveway for a good while too.

Some folks even use plain simple bleach root injections for Japanese knotweed as a last resort over roundup chemical concoctions and such.

chite · 11-08-2018 5:10pm

Messiah Limited Jackhammer wrote: »

A simple salt targeted solution (paved patios only where don't want anything else growing) will kill most, and can be put down on a windy day without any risk of health risk.

A standard 10 note weed burner will quickly clear a driveway for a good while too.

Some folks even use plain simple bleach root injections for Japanese knotweed as a last resort over roundup chemical concoctions and such.

This is seriously terrible advice, regarding the salt and bleach - there's much better and safer alternatives which are designed especially for use as herbicides. They're hazardous for soil and groundwater if it seeped in.

Discodog · 11-08-2018 7:05pm

chite wrote: »

This is seriously terrible advice, regarding the salt and bleach - there's much better and safer alternatives which are designed especially for use as herbicides. They're hazardous for soil and groundwater if it seeped in.

I agree & a burner isn't much use on tarmac

4068ac1elhodqr · 11-08-2018 7:34pm

Some folks specifically with Jap' knotweed (difficult to eradicate) said bleach injections was the only thing that worked.

Salt on the tarmac, Burner on the Patio.

Or in situations like this, ask what did mankind do over the many thousands of years or growing stuff do in the past?
I.e. put down the sprayer, pick up and tool and apply some elbow grease.

Graces7 · 11-08-2018 7:35pm

Discodog wrote: »

How can it be avoided ? My clients want weed free driveways, patios etc.

so?
People kept drives etc clear before toxic chemicals..sure harder work.

Also one thing not mentioned is the effect of roundup on bees.

http://www.glyphosate.news/2016-06-27-study-shows-honeybees-are-starving-because-of-roundup.html

Our pollinators are endangered already and the effects on crops will be dire

4068ac1elhodqr · 11-08-2018 7:51pm

Graces7 wrote: »

so?
People kept drives etc clear before toxic chemicals..sure harder work.

Also one thing not mentioned is the effect of roundup on bees.

http://www.glyphosate.news/2016-06-27-study-shows-honeybees-are-starving-because-of-roundup.html

Our pollinators are endangered already and the effects on crops will be dire

And the Brexiters (inc NI) may well find themselves outside of EU legislation and able to spray what they like until laws are updated and amended.

Short-term gainz, for long-term pains.

Discodog · 12-08-2018 4:22pm

Graces7 wrote: »

so?
People kept drives etc clear before toxic chemicals..sure harder work.

Also one thing not mentioned is the effect of roundup on bees.

http://www.glyphosate.news/2016-06-27-study-shows-honeybees-are-starving-because-of-roundup.html

Our pollinators are endangered already and the effects on crops will be dire

Probably because it's one study, on a small sample & doesn't appear to be repeated. There are lots of factors in the decline of honey bees. The study use feeding of the chemical. There needs to be a proper field study where bees forage on areas treated with chemical.

I must remember to tell my clients, some of them elderly, that they need to work harder or pay me more.

New Home · 12-08-2018 5:11pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Oh I wouldn't get too excited about Monsanto going down, such large corporations are almost invincible, they ll be grand

"Too big to fall"? Hmmm, somehow that reminds me of something...

Daniella Cold Dude wrote: »

Genetic modification can be positive or negative. Modifying vegetables to be more nutritious is usually good. Modifying crops to survive being doused in Roundup is bad because there are serious concerns about using or consuming Roundup.

I watched a documentary about Canadian wheat crops, a few months ago. Because of the weather, the wheat plants don't have enough time to dry naturally, so to speed things along the crops are doused with Roundup to kill the plants and "dry" them; that way the wheat grain can be harvested just a couple of days later. They also said that no tests were carried out to check what the weedkiller residue was on the actual grains, as that was not a requirement. It was also suggested that that could be an explanation as to why wheat and gluten intolerance has increased so much over the past few years.

I'll see if I can find a link later.

Monsanto ruled to have caused man’s cancer

Comments