Jump to content


Photo

Monsanto


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#1 Black Panther

Black Panther

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 4,068 posts

Posted 25 October 2017 - 10:54 AM

They were mentioned in another thread, and surprise i just read this:

 

http://www.spiegel.d...-a-1174233.html

 

Not my field at all so I'm not taking sides, just putting it out there.


  • 0
“If we don’t change our direction, we will end up where we are headed.”

 


#2 wheels

wheels

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 15,878 posts

Posted 25 October 2017 - 11:21 AM

Firstly, re Spiegel, I would not trust stories from them. I do not know if it is on purpose, or faults in interpretation between English and German, but Spiegel, or " Der Spiegel " has been the originator of many false stories of quite significant Headline importance. Which is a worry given that Der Spiegel is a majorly read media source.

As for the Roundup claims. This has been a story that has been around for many years. Originally the WHO had considered Glyphosate as a possible carcinogen simply because at the time of making the report, there was not enough evidence or study into the subject. However, an independent organisation did carry out research and came to the result that Glyphosate was perfectly safe.
Then the Conspiracy idiots went viral, because the WHO updated the info on their website and the theorists started making claims that the info was deleted and it was all a big cover up because Monsanto was so powerful, they could control WHO.


  • 0

#3 Willow

Willow

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,422 posts
  • LocationTauranga

Posted 25 October 2017 - 11:32 AM

Given the choice I would rather not have roundup on or in my food. Based on nothing more than an intense dislike of eating chemicals.

Sorry Wheels but big corporate have shown in the past that they cannot be trusted.


  • 0

Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure... than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat.

Theodore Roosevelt

 


#4 muzled

muzled

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts

Posted 25 October 2017 - 11:43 AM

Good to see papers like Der Spiegel printing articles like that, they ain't no News of the World click bait organisation.

 

I'm really not sure why anyone would believe a word the likes of Monsanto say, this sort of thing just confirms that further.  

 

"You cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen," Monsanto toxicologist Donna Farmer wrote in one of the emails. "We have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement."

 

Wheels, any thoughts?  Would you still trust Monsanto's 'science' after reading that article?  (and I've no issue whether you do or don't, just asking out of interest)


  • 0

#5 muzled

muzled

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts

Posted 25 October 2017 - 11:45 AM

Firstly, re Spiegel, I would not trust stories from them. I do not know if it is on purpose, or faults in interpretation between English and German, but Spiegel, or " Der Spiegel " has been the originator of many false stories of quite significant Headline importance. Which is a worry given that Der Spiegel is a majorly read media source.

As for the Roundup claims. This has been a story that has been around for many years. Originally the WHO had considered Glyphosate as a possible carcinogen simply because at the time of making the report, there was not enough evidence or study into the subject. However, an independent organisation did carry out research and came to the result that Glyphosate was perfectly safe.
Then the Conspiracy idiots went viral, because the WHO updated the info on their website and the theorists started making claims that the info was deleted and it was all a big cover up because Monsanto was so powerful, they could control WHO.

 

ok, you beat me to it.  

 

Interesting to see diametrically opposed views, guess that's what makes the world go round.


  • 0

#6 too_tall

too_tall

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 682 posts

Posted 25 October 2017 - 12:39 PM

Actually, Glyphosate ( not roundup  - that has morphed into a different product in many regards now, with a different formulation of glyphosate ) actually is proven to be potentialy carcinogenic. Food sprayed with a rate that equated to 750Kg of glyphosate/hectare ( as opposed to the normal rate of approximately 1.25Kg ) was not able to be proven to be non carcinogenic. Therefore must be listed as potentially.

 

There will be research for and against Glyphosate for many years to come. The simple outcome of banning it would be that growers would move back toward the more unpleasant, very toxic compounds such as Paraquat etc, which not only is highly toxic but also not anywhere near as useful.

 

Glyphosate use has enabled many environmentally more sound practices to be used than otherwise would be used. Direct planting of crops as opposed to cultivation, resulting in far less soil erosion ( and therefore phosphate leaching into waterways, silting of rivers etc ) far less carbon losses ( keeping the carbon in the soil as opposed to cultivaition which releases considerable carbon into the atomsphere ), retention of soil micro organisms ( resulting in far healthier soils, higher nutrient retention and lower moisture loss therefore higher yeilds with lower inputs ).

 

Wine is considered to be somewhat more carcinogenic than glyphosate....

 

From a toxicology perspective, Glyphosate has an LD50 of 5600mg/Kg ( leathal dose for 50% of subjects ). Caffine is only 190  mg/KG and Sodium Chloride - or table salt, is 3000mg/KG. I understand that the LD50 rating is that of an acute overdose, and does not take into perspective the potential of carcinogens. 

 

I am not saying that all research that tells us that Glyphosate is dangerous is flawed - nor am I saying that the research that tells us its as safe as water to drink is correct, but there have been many, many independent trials done which have all come to a similar conclusion - that Glyphosate is one of the safest options we have to achieve the result we desire.

 

P.S. Monsanto don't own the patent for Glyphosate anymore - it expired in 2000. Monsanto have actually moved on to different options ( including patenting glyphosate resistant cropping options to allow very simple broad spectrum weed control without the nastier chemicals often required to achieve selective control ) so I doubt that Monsanto would be spending a hell of a lot defending a product that no longer is the mother of all gold mines to them.


  • 0

#7 Black Panther

Black Panther

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 4,068 posts

Posted 25 October 2017 - 01:48 PM

TooTall - I'm a beginner - what is cultivation vs direct planting?


  • 0
“If we don’t change our direction, we will end up where we are headed.”

 


#8 wheels

wheels

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 15,878 posts

Posted 25 October 2017 - 05:30 PM

Thanks TT. Excellently written. You covered perfectly what I have been trying to say, obviously poorly, plus a lot more.

BP, Cultivation is when the Farmer "digs over" the Land using various implements pulled by Tractor, to prepare a seed bed for planting.
Direct Drilling (can also be called Over Sowing ) is planting the seed directly into the Soil with no cultivation. Thus either stubble from a previous crop is still present, or the previous Grass or similar crop has been sprayed to kill it off and then the seed drilled directly into the Soil.
It takes a very large Tractor to pull these very large heavy machines, as the tynes dropping the seed and fertilizer, literally have to rip into unprepared soil.
     There are many different makes and designs and of course, sizes of these things. Here is a modest sized one.


 

Attached Files


  • 0

#9 muzled

muzled

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts

Posted 25 October 2017 - 06:27 PM

Will be interesting to see what Europe does...  

 

https://www.theguard...sate-weedkiller

 

Given the power and money that those massive corporations wield it's a big step to even be considering it.  Also nice to see that Monsanto have been banned from attending the EU meeting on the matter because they refused to attend a parliamentary hearing into allegations of regulatory interference.  But such good corporate citizens they are....

 

Personally I think a good start would be stopping it being so widely available to us punters to spray the weeds around the house with that an hour or two of weedpulling could do the same job.  (weed pulling is pretty much my lowest priority in life but given the choice of spraying that sh*t it climbs up the list).

 

Also the councils spraying the living daylight out of verges, the sides of the motorways (using high pressure hoses) and parks.  Half the time they're doing it 20 knots and the sh*t is blowing everywhere.  But then I guess it's safe as churches so no big deal right?

 

Hell I might even pour myself a glass with dinner tonight and pretend it's a fine pinot...


  • 0

#10 wheels

wheels

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 15,878 posts

Posted 25 October 2017 - 08:26 PM

The European Food Safety Authority published an updated assessment report on glyphosate, concluding that "the substance is unlikely to be genotoxic or to pose a carcinogenic threat to humans.
Their study was on Glyphosate only. They acknowledged that some manufactures could add other chemicals to their own products that may or may not be a Health issue. 
The WHO and FAO Joint committee on pesticide residues, issued a report in 2016 confirming that the use of glyphosate formulations does not constitute a health risk and also gave admissible daily intake limits for chronic toxicity.
Glyphosate can be made in several different ways and gets it's name from the two key components, Glycin and Phosphonic Acid. 
Bare with me here. It's chemical formula is C3H8NO5P which depending on what school you went to, can be deciphered into several different names, all of which one, sound completely eye rollingly foreign. The one name that is helpful (hopefully) is 2-[(phosphonomethyl)amino]acetic acid. Note the Acetic Acid part. The Methyl ties the Phosphonic part to the Acetic part. Phosphonic acid is another name for Phosphorus acid (H3PO3) which is the same group Phosphoric Acid(H3PO4) is found.
This is an Amine.. And this is the key in how Glyphosate works on the plant. It inhibits the plant enzyme which happens to be a Phosphate relative, which allows for the creation of three important Amino acids in the Plant which control important growth functions. Basicaly the Plant stops growing.



 


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users