GMO Wheat Found In Oregon Field

I’m very glad for the efforts of Kew Gardens in keeping natural seeds stored and safe:

http://www.kew.org/science-conservation/save-seed-prosper/millennium-seed-bank/index.htm

A damn good idea in the light of the GM debate.

Nothing to do with “GM” per-se, modern crops are highly engineered, again things like modern wheat require chemical reactivation of fertility. And the work is worldwide and involves far more than Kew!

Keep legacy seed for back-crosses is known to be beneficial.

While I am very pro genetic manipulation, and yet i have become very anti-Monsanto. As consumers we should be given a choice to see whether Roundup has been used on crops we eat, or not. I would like to consume food that was not sprayed with massive herbicides and it is my right as a consumer to know which corn or soy has been polluted with this stuff.

Monsanto is a very underhanded company who spend ridiculous amounts of money lobbying Washington so they can sue how/when they want, yet not be held responsible for any disasters they may cause. How can anyone not be upset with this?

Furthermore - the widespread use of roundup has caused a massive surge in weed resistance, greatly amplifying weeds normal evolutionary process. Any 7th grade kid taking biology is taught this nowadays so a mega corporation like Monsanto certainly shouldn’t be like, “oh we just are so surprised, we didn’t know that wod happen!”

If you want chemical laced food. Hey take your bets, and gobble it up. I’d prefer and try to extend my fragile life without Monsanto fucking it up for me. And as it is, it’s nearly impossible to get food that has not been tainted thanks to their obliteration of any real competition.

Let me reiterate… I’m all for intervention of placing genes for bug resistance etc from one vegetable into another. But that is WAY different than adding roundup resistance then spraying toxins all over my seed food.

And I never use the f word on forums, but this one stands. I’d love to see the CEO Of Monsanto drink gallons and gallons of supposedly inert roundup. In fact, i bet their entire board eats organic to stay away from their own stuff.

Um…there is, it’s called “organic”. Otherwise, you can basically guarantee the crop HAS been sprayed with pesticide.

Also, the surfactants in roundup sprays are significantly MORE toxic than the actual glyphosate, which is at best a very mild irritant. That’s…not the best argument, especially when many older pesticides are far more toxic to mammals!

Monsanto’s role versus other agrocorps is scaremongering…they’re not the worst (Bayer…ick, and Syngenta in India and child labour…). The problem is seed patents, not Monsanto!

They serve organic food in their cafeterias last I heard. I know a few facebook friends who loathe Monsanto and I recall that coming up at some point.

Technically “organic” can include GM food - it’s only organic association labelling rules which might object.

Apparently troll-food is optimized for yield in this thread. Guys, he’s a self-labeled troll, just stop.

I’m all for labeling GM food, not that I would necessarily avoid it. But even if I did, I wouldn’t be escaping chemicals in my food. There are plenty of pesticides on all your food, unless you are only buying organic. And I’m far more worried about ingesting pesticides, which often target the nervous system, than ingesting herbicides, which target leaves and other things I don’t have.

Organic produce does not mean that no pesticides were used. It only means that no synthetic pesticides were used. Generally speaking, natural pesticides can be used in an organic farm.

What kind of pesticides are natural?

They’re referred to as “biopesticides”

That’s the thing. “Organic” associations have already done the labelling legwork…

Whichever ones paid enough to be labelled as such.

Thanks for parodying yourself.

Well, this was the thread with the first hit for glyphosate:

I’m curious to read some more of the science.

California Jury

There isn’t any science on this man’s particular case. The FDA doesn’t list glyphosate as a carcinogen, the WHO lists it as “probably carcinogenic” which puts it in the same category as coffee (acrylamide) or processed meats (nitrates)

The science on the carcinogenic nature of glyphosate is so up in the air, I could understand a jury siding with the individual over the company as a “probable” carcinogen, I didn’t sit on the jury, or hear the arguments, but I would think it is important for this big companies to be held accountable for not doing their research, when human health is concerned.

This designation is applied when there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans as well as sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. In some cases, an agent may be classified in this group when there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans along with sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals and strong evidence that the carcinogenesis is mediated by a mechanism that also operates in humans. Exceptionally, an agent may be classified in this group solely on the basis of limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans.

Lots of stuff you use on there. Get ready to cash in when you get the big C. The WHO cancer agents list is not something you could base any evidence off of. It is more of a “watch list” where more study is needed.

Bring me the Starbucks barista with cancer to blame handling coffee beans, or the competitive eater with cancer blaming the hot-dogs.

One of the problems I’ve read is how they’ve done most of the testing. Much of the testing focused on glyphosate exclusively, something I think Monsanto did on purpose recognizing it’d probably come out safe for mammals. Just like testing drugs in a petri dish is no measure of drug effectiveness, neither is doing the bulk of your testing outside of how it’s actually used. Glyphosate in its final form complete with surfactants, the other ingredients, temperatures etc… taking that and testing it when inhaled into the lungs as a nebulized material. I’ve seen no research that went this far. For a property that is now sprayed at concentrations tests never dreamed would be utilized you’d think it would have been assessed.

I was involved with mice testing, and at least in our wonderful, temperature controlled, double-blind, sealed chambers where we did tests… well that never would have been a proper anaologue for testing human safety of herbicides.

I’d like to hear Round-up is 100% safe, but to this day you won’t see a Monsanto executive stand in a dusty field for a week while Round-up is sprayed around him in 100 degree heat.

I mean, that sounds pretty bad even if it doesn’t cause cancer.

hehe you made me re-read that. I meant to say, “to simulate the amount of time a worker would be out there.” Not literally be standing for a week straight. That actually qualifies as torture!

I vote that we have Monsanto executives stand outside for a week while we spray Round-Up all around them, what could possibly go wrong ;)