PROPOSITION 37 - Look Who Is Fighting It!!! (Davis, Brea: sale, purchase)

[KC6ZLV]

Originally Posted by steven_h

FACT: The amount of Roundup used by farmers has to be increased 20% every year because the bugs it kills are becoming immune to it. There is so much Roundup being used that it is found in measurable quantities in rivers and rain water now.

Roundup isn't used to kill bugs and it isn't found in rainwater. Roundup found in rivers has little to do with Roundup and everything to do with misapplication. If you take the time to read the label it clearly states not to use it where it can get into water (don't apply it when the wind can blow it directly into water). When applied properly it doesn't get into the water.

[Think4Yourself]

It looks like it lost which is sad as I always want consumers to have more information.

[TrueTimbers]

Originally Posted by KC6ZLV

Roundup isn't used to kill bugs and it isn't found in rainwater. Roundup found in rivers has little to do with Roundup and everything to do with misapplication. If you take the time to read the label it clearly states not to use it where it can get into water (don't apply it when the wind can blow it directly into water). When applied properly it doesn't get into the water.

What Monsanto told us may not be true... Imagine that.. ! THey told us DDT and Agent orange were safe , why would the be wrong about Roundup>?

Anyway, looks like Roundup is increasingly linked to reproductive problems..

Roundup Kills More Than Weeds

[steven_h]

Originally Posted by Think4Yourself

It looks like it lost which is sad as I always want consumers to have more information.

I went to bed with it winning 58-42 and wake up to it losing 53-47...amazing!

Californians proved they are firmly a social welfare state last night:

Approved 30 $5B more taxes
Approved an extention of the temporary sales tax hike. Why do they bother calling them "temporary" if they're never returned to original levels?
Decided they don't really care if they ingest toxic food. Now Monsanto and DuPont can really create some nasty franken foods.

All this sunshine has made the citizens loopy!

[steven_h]

Originally Posted by KC6ZLV

Roundup isn't used to kill bugs and it isn't found in rainwater. Roundup found in rivers has little to do with Roundup and everything to do with misapplication. If you take the time to read the label it clearly states not to use it where it can get into water (don't apply it when the wind can blow it directly into water). When applied properly it doesn't get into the water.

You are right, as it is an herbicide (glyphosate), so I should have said weeds. The GMO crops are modified with the genes from bugs.

We aren't talking about household use of roundup, we are talking about commercial use.

http://www.chelseagreen.com/content/...an-people-too/


Are you actually implying that farmers don't use water?

[KC6ZLV]

Originally Posted by TrueTimbers

What Monsanto told us may not be true... Imagine that.. ! THey told us DDT and Agent orange were safe , why would the be wrong about Roundup>?

Anyway, looks like Roundup is increasingly linked to reproductive problems..

Roundup Kills More Than Weeds

I never said Monsanto was honest. I don't think a lot of other sources of information are accurate either, and that includes a lot of those never heard of organizations Mother Earth News cites as sources of information (where are the peer reviews?).

I said when it is applied according to the label it is safe. It degrades in the soil quite rapidly in most climates. That doesn't mean you can drench the soil with it, which is probably what a lot of people do when they use it in their backyards before it rains. It is kind of like the pollution from petroleum products. Petroleum residue is all over the environment because people dump used motor oil down storm drains, continue to drive their cars when the oil pans gasket is leaking, insist upon topping off their gas tanks, spilling gas on the driveway in the process, and so on.

I don't think it is safe to eat, which is likely what happens when it is applied to glyphosate-resistant GMO crops, and that is a good reason to label GMO foods.

[boreatwork]

What world do we live in where we have to debate whether or not we should have the option to label chemically induced food. Fundamentally why would you want a chemical company who makes pesticides to produce the food you eat?! . Come on now. If you know most businesses are all about the profit motive then why side with big business? Californians should have blew this out the water but hey the votes could've been manipulated especially when you have $46 million to contribute to your "cause". Gmo is only a fraction of real issues facing this world but I guess people are scared of "truth".

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by boreatwork

What world do we live in where we have to debate whether or not we should have the option to label chemically induced food. Fundamentally why would you want a chemical company who makes pesticides to produce the food you eat?! . Come on now. If you know most businesses are all about the profit motive then why side with big business? Californians should have blew this out the water but hey the votes could've been manipulated especially when you have $46 million to contribute to your "cause". Gmo is only a fraction of real issues facing this world but I guess people are scared of "truth".

Some of us, apparently the majority based on the outcome of Prop 37, believe that GMO is a non-issue. The flip side of your comment is why should I pay more at the supermarket for labeling that likely is irrelevant to health outcomes?

Per the recent Stanford released food study:

“There isn’t much difference between organic and conventional foods, if you’re an adult and making a decision based solely on your health,” said Dena Bravata, MD, MS, the senior author of a paper comparing the nutrition of organic and non-organic foods, published in the Sept. 4 issue of Annals of Internal Medicine.

Little evidence of health benefits from organic foods, Stanford study finds - Office of Communications & Public Affairs - Stanford University School of Medicine

[boreatwork]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

Some of us, apparently the majority based on the outcome of Prop 37, believe that GMO is a non-issue. The flip side of your comment is why should I pay more at the supermarket for labeling that likely is irrelevant to health outcomes?

Per the recent Stanford released food study:

[b]“There isn’t much difference between organic and conventional foods, if you’re an adult and making a decision based solely on your health,” saidDena Bravata, MD, MS, the senior author of a paper comparing the nutrition of organic and non-organic foods, published in the Sept. 4 issue of Annals of Internal Medicine
Little evidence of health benefits from organic foods, Stanford study finds - Office of Communications & Public Affairs - Stanford University School of Medicine

You don't get it. So since this person said something about the matter her voice is supreme? The world also used to be flat also. This is the same thing as pink slime being labeled safe. Come on guy use your common sense. Chemical companies aren't food companies sir. Millions of dollars can buy alot of information whether its factual or not. Why would you want to consume Gmo when regular food is just that...... regular r food! What added benefit is there to gmo please tell me. You know why big corp gets away with what they do is because We are very naive and gullible. You're concerned about food going up due to irrelevance health outcomes."..... wth.... Good night

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by boreatwork

You don't get it. So since this person said something about the matter her voice is supreme? The world also used to be flat also. This is the same thing as pink slime being labeled safe. Come on guy use your common sense. Chemical companies aren't food companies sir. Millions of dollars can buy alot of information whether its factual or not. Why would you want to consume Gmo when regular food is just that...... regular r food! What added benefit is there to gmo please tell me. You know why big corp gets away with what they do is because We are very naive and gullible. You're concerned about food going up due to irrelevance health outcomes."..... wth.... Good night

Well, unlike you I actually took the time to read the study results itself. It was published by the Stanford University School of Medicine, not exactly a "blog":

A team led by Bravata, a senior affiliate with Stanford’s Center for Health Policy, and Crystal Smith-Spangler, MD, MS, an instructor in the school’s Division of General Medical Disciplines and a physician-investigator at VA Palo Alto Health Care System, did the most comprehensive meta-analysis to date of existing studies comparing organic and conventional foods. They did not find strong evidence that organic foods are more nutritious or carry fewer health risks than conventional alternatives.

So a "meta-analysis" is a lot more than a "person said something about the matter".

the researchers sifted through thousands of papers and identified 237 of the most relevant to analyze. Those included 17 studies (six of which were randomized clinical trials) of populations consuming organic and conventional diets, and 223 studies that compared either the nutrient levels or the bacterial, fungal or pesticide contamination of various products grown organically and conventionally.

Often, I've found that detailed scientific studies produce results different than what would be assumed by the general public. The results are the results, even if you disagree with them.