Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not at all surprised. I posted the following link earlier, but will repost because it's relevant to the usa today story above. What they do is kill the plant with glyphosate a couple of weeks before harvest.
"Charles Benbrook, Ph.D., who published the paper on the mounting use of glyphosate, says the practice of spraying glyphosate on wheat prior to harvest, known as desiccating, began in Scotland in the 1980s. “Farmers there often had trouble getting wheat and barley to dry evenly so they can start harvesting. So they came up with the idea to kill the crop (with glyphosate) one to two weeks before harvest to accelerate the drying down of the grain,” he says."
"Glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup® herbicide, is recognized as the world’s most widely used weed killer. What is not so well known is that farmers also use glyphosate on crops such as wheat, oats, edible beans, and other crops right before harvest, raising concerns that the herbicide could get into food products."
"Along with wheat and oats, glyphosate is used to desiccate a wide range of other crops including lentils, peas, non-GMO soybeans, corn, flax, rye, triticale, buckwheat, millet, canola, sugar beets, and potatoes. Sunflowers may also be treated pre-harvest with glyphosate, according to the National Sunflower Association. Benbrook says that a large portion of edible beans grown in Washington and Idaho are desiccated with glyphosate."
EPA has set tolerance limits for glyphosate levels in our food. (Table 1 in the article from OSU)
"Studies investigating glyphosate residues on wheat as soon as three days after the application, recovered 20 times LESS glyphosate than the EPA allowable tolerance on a food (sweet corn) commonly eaten."
Note Table 2-- LD50 is the lethal dose that will kill half the population when ingested. Table salt is almost twice as deadly as glyphosate on a mg basis and 500x less deadly than nicotine.
EPA has set tolerance limits for glyphosate levels in our food. (Table 1 in the article from OSU)
"Studies investigating glyphosate residues on wheat as soon as three days after the application, recovered 20 times LESS glyphosate than the EPA allowable tolerance on a food (sweet corn) commonly eaten."
Note Table 2-- LD50 is the lethal dose that will kill half the population when ingested. Table salt is almost twice as deadly as glyphosate on a mg basis and 500x less deadly than nicotine.
Well bless your heart . You go right ahead, and have double helpings then. You can have my portion as well.
EPA has set tolerance limits for glyphosate levels in our food. (Table 1 in the article from OSU)
"Studies investigating glyphosate residues on wheat as soon as three days after the application, recovered 20 times LESS glyphosate than the EPA allowable tolerance on a food (sweet corn) commonly eaten."
Note Table 2-- LD50 is the lethal dose that will kill half the population when ingested. Table salt is almost twice as deadly as glyphosate on a mg basis and 500x less deadly than nicotine.
the EWG - who did the cereal study - made up their very own special 'lower-than-low' safety levels.
very convenient.
and somehow lost in all that is the fact that even the EWG claimed these are levels for children not adults.
the EWG - who did the cereal study - made up their very own special 'lower-than-low' safety levels.
very convenient.
and somehow lost in all that is the fact that even the EWG claimed these are levels for children not adults.
Give a source that proves your claim that they "made up their very own special lower-than-low safety levels."
And yes, children are smaller than adults. They should have a lower level. That is only logical. And children are big eaters of all kinds of cereal. That is why much of it is marketed to them especially the overly sweetened ones. Everyone knows that.
The article says that the EPA set the safety level.
"The World Health Organization has determined that glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic to humans" and the Environmental Protection Agency has set a safety level for the potentially dangerous chemical."
"The products tested by the EWG showed levels dramatically lower than current EPA standard for glyphosate.
For example, the amount allowed in grains is 30 parts per million. Most of the products tested by the EWA showed glyphosate levels that measured in parts per billion.
Yet California, which is known for its robust cancer warnings, has determined there is a one in 100,000 risk of cancer from glyphosate when more than 1.1 milligrams is consumed per day. EWG says it has calculated a one in one million risk if more than 0.1 milligrams is consumed and a similar risk for children if even 0.01 milligrams is consumed daily."
The worst offenders were Quaker oat products, which regularly clocked in at 400 or more glyphosate parts per billion — meaning they would be dangerous for children if even 27.5 grams were consumed daily. A single packet of Quaker's dinosaur eggs instant oatmeal contains more than three times EWG's daily safe limit for children."
Now who's to say that these limits are incorrect just because you disagree with them.
And yes, children are smaller than adults. They should have a lower level. That is only logical. And children are big eaters of all kinds of cereal. That is why much of it is marketed to them especially the overly sweetened ones. Everyone knows that.
everybody?
show us the research indicating children being supposedly more susceptible from the hypothetical ill effects of glyphosate consumption than adults.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlulu23
The article says that the EPA set the safety level.
yes. the article you just posted demonstrates that EWG set their very own lower limits - based on what, exactly, they don't say. so i'm puzzled why you asked for a link above, as you provided your own.
"The World Health Organization has determined that glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic to humans" and the Environmental Protection Agency has set a safety level for the potentially dangerous chemical."
"The products tested by the EWG showed levels dramatically lower than current EPA standard for glyphosate.
For example, the amount allowed in grains is 30 parts per million. Most of the products tested by the EWA showed glyphosate levels that measured in parts per billion.
Yet California, which is known for its robust cancer warnings, has determined there is a one in 100,000 risk of cancer from glyphosate when more than 1.1 milligrams is consumed per day. EWG says it has calculated a one in one million risk if more than 0.1 milligrams is consumed and a similar risk for children if even 0.01 milligrams is consumed daily."
The worst offenders were Quaker oat products, which regularly clocked in at 400 or more glyphosate parts per billion — meaning they would be dangerous for children if even 27.5 grams were consumed daily. A single packet of Quaker's dinosaur eggs instant oatmeal contains more than three times EWG's daily safe limit for children."
Now who's to say that these limits are incorrect just because you disagree with them.
who is to say they're right just because you do agree with them?
from EWG website:
Quote:
EWG’s position is that chemicals linked to cancer do not belong in children’s food.
this is wacky. thousands of chemical compounds are 'linked' to cancer. the above is simplistic silliness.
Quote:
A classic study, from 1990, illustrated this well. Dr. Bruce Ames and colleagues found that 99.99% by weight of the “pesticides”—the chemicals that kill pests—that they found in foods were made by the foods themselves. For instance, cabbage, good old cabbage, contains terpenes (isomenthol, carvone), cyanides (1-cyano-2,3-epithiopropane), and phenols (3-cafffoylquinic acid.) Tasty! All of these, and far more (listed in table 1 of that link and pasted below), are naturally made by cabbage. So the cabbage can survive.
Adding up the measured quantities of residual synthetic pesticides and related chemicals, Dr. Ames’ team found that the quantity of naturally-occurring pesticides outweighed those added by farmers by 10,000 times. https://pediatricinsider.wordpress.c...d-with-toxins/
Here is what a Monsanto scientist said in an internal email that was accidentally obtained during the lawsuit
“If somebody came to me and said they wanted to test Roundup I know how I would react — with serious concern,” one Monsanto scientist wrote in an internal email in 2001.
Also, Monsantos use of journalism to get their message or propaganda out to the masses. This writer was fired because he failed to disclose the relationship.
Mr. Miller’s 2015 article on Forbes’s website was an attack on the findings of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a branch of the World Health Organization that had labeled glyphosate a probable carcinogen, a finding disputed by other regulatory bodies. In the email traffic, Monsanto asked Mr. Miller if he would be interested in writing an article on the topic, and he said, “I would be if I could start from a high-quality draft.”
even some of Monsanto executives knew you could not claim it did not cause cancer.
In a 2003 email, a different Monsanto executive tells others, “You cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen … we have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement.”
Another practice was killing research by having ringers in the some of the journals that were in the same field.
The documents also show that A. Wallace Hayes, the former editor of a journal, Food and Chemical Toxicology, has had a contractual relationship with Monsanto. In 2013, while he was still editor, Mr. Hayes retracted a key study damaging to Monsanto that found that Roundup, and genetically modified corn, could cause cancer and early death in rats.
The great thing about the lawsuit was the information dump of the internal emails that reveal the dirty tricks such as ghost writing and killing research on the safety of Roundup. Some of the posters have made a point how "dumb" the jury must have been to make their award to the plaintiff, but after being shown these internal emails, the notion that it will be easily overturned is a bit of a stretch (I do think the amount will go down though). There is more that was revealed in the emails and I'll get to that in a future post when I have more time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. You go right ahead, and have double helpings then. You can have my portion as well.
