As bad as it is, 2,4-D May be more highly volatile [revaporizes and spreads over longer distances]. I have spraying out in the fields around me, but I especially don't like this one.

Did it.

signed and passed it on.
Thanks for posting.
Imagine a world without 2, 4, D.

Remember, this is a petition about the corn, not the chemical.

2,4-D is the active ingredient in most of the popular broad-leaf herbicides on the market. By 'market', I don't just mean big agriculture. These weed killers fly off the garden center and big box shelves by the ton.

Yes, they want to put a chemical-tolerant gene in the corn so they can spray more chemicals on it. They want the corn to survive the spraying. That way they make money on the seeds and the spray.

Just in case nobody caught this part...

Farmers that sign up to use genetically-engineered 2,4-D-resistant corn will be required to spray down their fields with both 2,4-D and Roundup....

This is primarily why we keep getting rid of more & more grass to grow more food.

Did it.

I too just said NO and clicked the link to my facebook page asking others to go to the link to stop this insanity. These companies promoting theese toxic chemicals are out of control. I just put in a post yesterday titled GMO plants and CAFOs. Please take a look and tell others so we as citizens can come together as consumers and stop this.

Scott

Is 2,4-D harmful? If someone wants to discuss this question with you, I suggest that you cite the following study.

http://occupationalcancer.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Pesticides-workshop-report-Final.pdf

Please use you PDF Find command with the keyword 2,4-D to put their findings regarding 2,4-D into context.

Here is one as an example: "KEY FINDINGS
For non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the individual studies showed increased risks for several individual pesticides. More recently, data from all three NCI studies have been pooled to include approximately 1000 cases of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and 3000 controls. Many analyses have been conducted on the individual studies and on this large, pooled dataset to assess various hypotheses related to pesticides and the development of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The pooled studies have shown increased risks from exposure to several individual pesticides, including 2,4-D, lindane, malathion, carbaryl, and DDT, as well as from exposure to multiple pesticides."

Here is a link that might be useful: link for above

Did you really dig up a 20+ month old thread for this?

Really?

...really?

I mean...really?

nc-crn, Did you really count on all your fingers and toes, then imply it was strange for Henry to post this information.

My neighbor who had non-Hudkins Lymphoma will be getting a copy of Henry's info. Maybe he'll back off on all the chemicals he has sprayed inside and out.

Thanks, Henry. This is an ongoing battle.

He loves to talk about chemicals...that's not surprising.

Digging up a 20+ month old post to talk about chemicals is a new one.

That's kinda the point of that.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Sun, Jan 12, 14 at 17:07

2-4-D has been around for quite a while. I don't like it as I had damage from a spring weed burn-down in 2000 from re-voltilzation in the field adjacent to my garden.

Dicama herbicide is also in the works in this scenario....another one that has been bad for voltilizing. I at least hope they are getting a good grip on vapor drift on these two herbicides.

2,4-D isn't used much in parts of the South because of drift issues and dominate crops. Cotton, in particular, will kill itself if it as much as sees a 2,4-D label. Pretty much anyone who grows cotton (and their neighbors) avoid using it in cotton areas.

It's a touchy subject in wine country, too, because of grape sensitivity...even though some vineyards actually use it for weed control.

My biggest issue with 2,4-D is China/India manufacturing and exporting it. US companies are doing a great job (for forced and local pollution control issues) controlling dioxin content. They locked it down in the 1970s and again with more hardcore controls in the 1990s. Most Chinese and Indian companies are doing a great job, too...but the problem is it's "most" and not "all."

This post was edited by nc-crn on Sun, Jan 12, 14 at 17:19

Title: "Hypothyroidism and pesticide use among male private pesticide applicators in the agricultural health study"

Authors: Goldner WS, Sandler DP, Yu F, Shostrom V, Hoppin JA, Kamel F, and LeVan TD

Authors affiliation: From the Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism Division (Dr Goldner), Department of Internal Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha; Department of Biostatistics (Dr Yu and Ms Shostrom), College of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha; Pulmonary, Critical Care, Sleep, and Allergy Division (Dr LeVan), Departments of Internal Medicine and Epidemiology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha; Epidemiology Branch (Drs Sandler, Hoppin, and Kamel), National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC; and VA Nebraska-Western Iowa Health Care System Research Service (Dr LeVan), Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Omaha.

Published in: Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine / American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine [2013, 55(10):1171-1178]

"Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the association between thyroid disease and use of insecticides, herbicides, and fumigants/fungicides in male applicators in the Agricultural Health Study. METHODS: We examined the association between use of 50 specific pesticides and self-reported hypothyroidism, hyperthyroidism, and "other" thyroid disease among 22,246 male pesticide applicators. RESULTS: There was increased odds of hypothyroidism with ever use of the herbicides 2,4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid), 2,4,5-T (2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid), 2,4,5-TP (2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy-propionic acid), alachlor, dicamba, and petroleum oil. Hypothyroidism was also associated with ever use of eight insecticides: organochlorines chlordane, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), heptachlor, lindane, and toxaphene; organophosphates diazinon and malathion; and the carbamate carbofuran. Exposure-response analysis showed increasing odds with increasing level of exposure for the herbicides alachlor and 2,4-D and the insecticides aldrin, chlordane, DDT, lindane, and parathion. CONCLUSION: There is an association between hypothyroidism and specific herbicides and insecticides in male applicators, similar to previous results for spouses."

Here is a link that might be useful: link for above

"Farmers oppose 2,4-D seeds
A growing number of family farmers oppose Dow’s 2,4-D seeds. Fruit and vegetable growers in particular have been warning USDA that their crops are extremely vulnerable to damage from pesticide drift, specifically naming 2,4-D and its close cousin dicamba. (Monsanto has developed dicamba-resistant cotton and soybean varieties, also pending USDA approval. Like 2,4-D, dicamba easily drifts off-target and is highly toxic to many plants.)

Farmers have already lost thousands of acres of crops, and much more than that in dollars, due to 2,4-D and dicamba drift. In one incident in California, a single 2,4-D application resulted in the herbicide drifting over a hundred miles, destroying a pomegranate orchard and 15,000 acres of cotton.

Not only are organic farmers worried about direct crop damage from 2,4-D and dicamba drift, but they could also face loss of organic certification. And rural families are worried about their children’s health, as numerous health studies have established links between 2,4-D exposure and birth defects, hormone disruption and cancers like non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

While Dow claims it has developed a new formulation of 2,4-D that will not drift as easily as the cheaper older version, neither Dow nor USDA can ensure that farmers will actually buy and use the more expensive newer formulation. The drift problem remains a very real one."

Here is a link that might be useful: link for above quote

I am appalled at the prospects of having to farm in an environment swamped in 2,4-D and other herbicide relatives.

"Earlier this month, the USDA announced that, at the request of Dow Chemical, it would study allowing genetically engineered seeds on the market that can tolerate several herbicides at once��"including a controversial weed killer 2,4-D that several scientific studies have blamed for cancer and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, ALS, sometimes called Lou Gehrig's disease."

Here is a link that might be useful: link for above

...must...keep...20...month...old...chemical...agriculture...thread...

...dug...up...for...some...unknown...and...unexplained...reason...alive.

Welcome to Chemical Agriculture Hot Topics forum...formally the Organic Gardening forum.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Mon, Jan 13, 14 at 12:30

Rodale News supports sending your comments to the USDA. Please use your find command with the keyword organic if you are not aware as to why this is important to those who are organic gardeners.

"Stop 2,4-D in Its Tracks
Even without the GMO approval, which would drastically increase use of the chemical, 2,4-D drift is already responsible for more episodes of crop injury than any other herbicide. If you want to keep this volatile chemical out of the air, soil, water��"and your food��"make sure to submit your comments to USDA before Feb. 24, 2014. Sign Pesticide Action Network's petition to stop 2,4-D GMOs from going mainstream, or comment through the government's Regulations.gov website.
http://www.rodalenews.com/2-4-d "

Here is a link that might be useful: link to Rodale News article

From the USDA.

"Learn About the APHIS Virtual Meeting

APHIS will hold a virtual public meeting on January 29, 2014, from 5:00 - 8:00 EST to receive comments on a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for three petitions for nonregulated status. The DEIS analyzes the potential environmental impacts of one corn and two soybean varieties genetically engineered (GE) by Dow AgroSciences, LLC (Dow) to be resistant to the herbicide known as 2,4-D.

APHIS will consider all public comments made during the virtual meeting and through www.Regulations.gov before finalizing the DEIS and preliminary plant pest risk assessment, and making its final regulatory decision on the Dow petitions. The Agency made the DEIS available for public viewing on January 3, 2014, and opened a 45-day public comment period on January 10, 2014. This comment period will close February 24, 2014.

Interested parties may leave also written comments now through February 24, 2014, at www.Regulations.gov."

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/APHISVirtualMeetings/

Here is a link that might be useful: link for above

Posted by nc-crn 7b (My Page) on Mon, Jan 13, 14 at 12:23

'Welcome to Chemical Agriculture Hot Topics forum...formally the Organic Gardening forum."

Yeah REALLY. Its like, lets bash "chemicals" and display misled information,knowing no one is "allowed" to correct it because it is the "organic" forum.

This post was edited by TheMasterGardener1 on Wed, Jan 15, 14 at 13:00

I respect Henry's info. because he posts in a straight-forward way, plus he obtained his Ph.D. in chemistry when I was still in my diaper. Henry plays fair by posting his info., and doesn't attack others.

However, I don't respect people who mock and shoot others down. Being obnoxious doesn't win any respect, nor help others. It's more useful to post YOUR OWN info., rather than attacking others. Play fair, please, and no more throwing dirt, it's a big turn-off.

I agree to the petition, will pass on to others. Thank you.

Here's an excerpt from the link below: " Farmers who frequently use 2,4-D have a six-fold increase in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Scientists believe that the use of lawn chemicals such as 2,4-D has been a significant factor in the 50% rise in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma over the past 20 years in the American population. 2,4-D has also been linked to malignant lymphoma in dogs. Studies show that the risk of lymphomas doubled in dogs whose owners treated lawns four times a year. "

Here is a link that might be useful: Pesticides and cancer

This post was edited by Strawberryhill on Fri, Jan 17, 14 at 11:41

From eHow link below: "Scotts Weed and Feed uses a combination of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and 2-(2-Methyl-4-chlorophenoxy)propionic acid (mecoprop) for weed control. While 2,4-D breaks down relatively quickly, having a half-life of seven to 10 days, the slower-acting mecoprop may remain active for two months or more and is water soluble, making it a groundwater contamination risk, according to the Extension Toxicology Network"

http://www.ehow.com/list_7587788_ingredients-scotts-weed-feed.html#ixzz2qfvqknqx

More from eHow: "Dangerous for Health

One of the main ingredients of weed-and-feed, 2, 4-D is a neurotoxin once found in the product Agent Orange. The chemical 2, 4-D has been documented to cause neurological disorders, reproductive disorders, cancer and hormonal disruptions. This information was confirmed by the Extension Toxicology Network in 1996. These health risks are especially dangerous to children who are still growing and developing. Not Effective:

Weed-and-feed is one of the least effective forms of weed control available. Typical application of weed-and-feed is applied over the entire lawn. Since weeds generally occupy only a small percentage of the yard, the weed-and-feed is largely wasted."

More info. from the link below: "Pesticides in weed and feed also end up inside homes. A study found that the 2,4-D levels inside homes were about ten times higher after it was applied to the lawn than before application."

Here is a link that might be useful: Public Health and Social Services and Herbicides

This post was edited by Strawberryhill on Fri, Jan 17, 14 at 12:18

"I respect Henry's info. because he posts in a straight-forward way, plus he obtained his Ph.D. in chemistry when I was still in my diaper. Henry plays fair by posting his info., and doesn't attack others."

1- The problem with having a phD in chemistry is it doesn't make one a valid mouthpiece for biology/genetics any more than having a phD in mechanical engineering makes one a valid mouthpiece for biomedical engineering. Science is a shared field, but it isn't linear.

This is backed up by how many things he's Google searched for as "proof" of something and either misunderstood what he's reading because of a lack of understanding of the material or a lack of knowledge of how to tell a "good" source from a "bad/fake/discredited" source. This is before we get into the issue of him totally dismissing any information given to him from anyone who doesn't link him explicit sources and dismissing/ignoring those sources (usually with more Google searches or changing the subject) when they're provided. For some reason he can use Google for some things, but is totally handcuffed into ignorance if he needs to use Google for other things...it's weird how that works.

2- "Henry plays fair by posting his info., and doesn't attack others." - You probably missed some of his attacks. I know you and him are organic rose growing online buddies, but he's not innocent here. I'm not innocent either, but I'm tired of pretending to respect this wanna-be expert with more time to Google search his agenda rather than learn something about what he wants to be a mouthpiece for. Posting info does no good when it's not even pertinent to the issue, comes from a bad source, or the person giving the info has no idea what they're doing with it.

The following was stated: "1- The problem with having a phD in chemistry is it doesn't make one a valid mouthpiece for biology/genetics any more than having a phD in mechanical engineering makes one a valid mouthpiece for biomedical engineering. Science is a shared field, but it isn't linear."
----------------------------
H.Kuska comment. My Ph.D Chemistry speciality was Physical Chemistry. I also took for credit the 2 first year graduate biochemistry cources "General Biochemisry", course number 570, 3 credits grade A, and "General Biocheistry" course number 571, also 3 credits grade B as I anticipated that this field would be an important field in the future. When I arrived at the University of Akron, they did not have a biochem speciality. I pushed for hiring faculty in that area and was successful - I think we normally had at least 3 faculty with that speciality. This meant that we were exposed to a continual stream of graduate biochem seminars and visiting lectures plus of course serving on their graduate committies and just social scientific discussions with the biochem faculty. At the undergraduate level we had 2 junior physical chemistry series. One was for chemistry majors and one was for "others" which included biology, pre-med, and science education majors. During my time there, I taught one or the other most of the time. For the "others" series I sometimes used textbooks with titles like Physical Chemistry for the Biological Sciences.
-----------------------------
------------------------------
The following was stated: "This is backed up by how many things he's Google searched for as "proof" of something and either misunderstood what he's reading because of a lack of understanding of the material or a lack of knowledge of how to tell a "good" source from a "bad/fake/discredited" source."
-------------------------------
H.Kuska comment. In a forum anyone has the opportunity to challenge (hopefully with documentation) any statement made by other posters.
Regarding someone using an argument that the link provided by me is a ""bad/fake/discredited" source."
There are those that feel that scientific papers published that challenge the use of GMOs and/or pesticides in agriculture are subject to intense attacks by the industries with a financial interest, see:
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090902/full/461027a.html
http://forums2.gardenweb.com/forums/load/organic/msg121710233550.html
http://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/seralini-and-science-nk603-rat-study-roundup/
My general comment is that if a scientific paper is published by a journal that utilizes reviewers, I expect that critisms of the paper will follow the established route of submitting the critisms to the journal for consideration as a "comments" paper (the name changes from journal to journal - sometimes called Letter to the Editor or Communications). Normally the original authors are given the opportunity to reply.
If someone feels that a reference that I give is substandard, he/she has the opportunity to present documentation as to why. This is a Forum.
-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
The following was stated: ""Henry plays fair by posting his info., and doesn't attack others." - You probably missed some of his attacks. I know you and him are organic rose growing online buddies, but he's not innocent here."
-------------------------------
H.Kuska comment. Please provide quotes and links to what you consider are your basis for making the above "some of his attacks" statement.

Here is a link that might be useful: link to nature news link above

You listed your credentials...I trust they're in order. Moving on to the fact that you still have very little knowledge of what's going on and everything comes from Google searches cut/paste and newswire feeds into your email inbox...

You choose to negate my industry experience and my education as something not worth paying attention to at so many points. You neither care, nor want to acknowledge the fact that someone else around here actually has their hands in this subject that you want to be you "thing." Your Google searches are far better than someone who's spent 15+ years doing this across many industry points...in both educational and corporate research.

You don't take criticism of things you Google/cut/paste very well at all. When I state industry views and industry knowledge it goes right over your head into the "I'm not hearing it" pile. It's logical and good for you to post pseudo-science as long as you have a Google link to it, but an industry insider telling you how that information is viewed within the industry (and a huge majority of scientists)...well, that don't matter...because you have a Google link to pseudo-science. I can use this same logic to "prove my view" that 9/11 was done by the government, Global Warming is a hoax, and chemtrails are being used for mind control (I don't believe any of this, btw).

"In a forum anyone has the opportunity to challenge (hopefully with documentation) any statement made by other posters."

Yes, I realize this...it happens all the time. The problem is your lack of knowledge of the source material leads you to bad sources and too much improper use. You post a lot of "junk science" journal stuff and refuse to acknowledge what it is when it's pointed out. You get into Google search/cut/paste of stuff you don't understand and it leads to going off-subject while not realizing exactly what you're trying to work with.

You absolutely refuse to give an industry insider (me) any credit, respect, or acknowledgement that I might be giving you information you can use about something you want to be a spokesman for. I don't know if it's ego or you're just married to promoting 1-side at the expense of reasonable discourse, but you're not very interested in the full picture as much as you're interested in an agenda.

"Please provide quotes and links to what you consider are your basis for making the above "some of his attacks" statement. "

...well there's this gem recently, amongst other stuff the past year of your Chemical Agriculture Adventures on the Organic Gardening Forum...

"to expose what are "not documented anti organic facts" but propaganda from a special interest group. This does not mean that an anti organic poster (who refuses to document) is necessarly a member of a special interest group, it may just mean that that person has fallen for their propaganda and does not recognize the importance of documenting controversial issues in an open forum."

You...who don't work in the industry...who has never worked in the industry...who doesn't know much about the industry...or the chemicals in the industry...or the research...or much of anything you can't search for and cut/paste off Google...dismiss as "propaganda," "special interest group," and not being able to recognize the importance of your self-anointed role of cut/pasting stuff you don't understand in a public forum (especially being corrected about misconceptions of your cut/pastes or outright idiocy of some of it)... It really obvious you have 0 respect for what some others do/know/share if it's not what you want to hear. The ease of dismissing it as willful ignorance because of falling for propaganda is a serious cheap shot that ignores substance.

You're also incorrect about your "refuses to document" bit, too. It's your go-to "I'm not listening to you" point when a counter-point is raised and you notice there wasn't a some cut/paste to go along with it from Google. You also love to "argue" with the documentation when it is presented...it's a no-win battle that you must win that leads you deep into Google searches and down roads of material you don't understand. Need I remind you of THIS again...

http://forums2.gardenweb.com/forums/load/organic/msg0200521113706.html

You'll notice in that thread I'm -TRYING- to work with you and help you learn about something you claim to be passionate about (much like many threads that followed over many months), but you're refusing to actually take in anything you don't want to hear...totally dismissing information for the sake of trying to push your agenda even though YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE MATERIAL!

You love to pick these topics and argue to try to win. Just a few weeks ago you got into one of these "internet fight/matches" about the use of the word "zealous" and cut/pasted a bunch of links and definitions to support your use of it.

The competitiveness is insane...especially when it comes to stuff you have -0- training in. You still feel the need to burn Google up in order to prop up whatever your cause-du-jour is.

Are we done now?

This post was edited by nc-crn on Fri, Jan 17, 14 at 18:12

So the only "attack" that was produced is a quote from: http://forums2.gardenweb.com/forums/load/organic/msg1203305028528.html

H.Kuska comment: please notice the context for the quote. It was a general quote.

" I feel that important functions of the Organic Gardening Forum include the following: 1) To present and discuss what scientists consider as important considerations / possibilities / benefits of organic gardening, 2) to expose the dangers that scientists have reported that may result from non organic gardening (so that those interested can exercise the Precautionary Principle) and 3) to expose what are "not documented anti organic facts" but propaganda from a special interest group. This does not mean that an anti organic poster (who refuses to document) is necessarly a member of a special interest group, it may just mean that that person has fallen for their propaganda and does not recognize the importance of documenting controversial issues in an open forum."

H.Kuska comment. It is my experience and expectation that when scientists discuss controversal issues, they document their "facts".

The following thread http://forums2.gardenweb.com/forums/load/organic/msg1221484827263.html
should make it clear why documentation is important.
Posted by Henry Kuska. "The following was stated: "Glyphosate breakdown via heat produces mostly aminomethylphosphonic acid, carbon monoxide/dioxide, amino acids, and water/vapor...similar to microbe breakdown, but a lot faster. ."
H.Kuska comment. I am aware of the microbe breakdown products, but I am not aware of any references that state that the thermal breakdown is similar. The melting point of glyphosate is nearly 230 degrees C. That would be nearly 446 degrees F.

This is the main thermal paper that I have been able to find so far. Unfortunately it does not identify the glyphosate decomposition products. Howver, it appears to me that very little glyphosate would actually decompose in normal hosehold use.
The first observed decomposition product is: "By
analyzing the infrared spectrum of the sample which is
processed by rising temperature to 260 C at the
heating rate of 6 C min-1, the most possible group
loss in this stage may be methylene. Moreover, the
mass loss in the first stage by TGA is in accordance
with the mass loss of a group of methylene in the
molecular of glyphosate."
Then.
"With the temperature increased, the second stage
appeared the exothermic peak after a smaller main
endothermic peak, and the lost mass had continued,
which indicated that this stage might occur burning
phase, thus exothermic phenomenon occurred. By
analyzing the infrared spectrum of the sample which
is processed by rising temperature to 360 C at the
heating rate of 6 Cmin-1, the most possible group
loss in this stage may be the group of carbonyl.
Moreover, the mass loss in the second stage by TGA
is in accordance with the mass loss of a carbonyl in
the molecular of glyphosate."

Now Canola Oil has a smoke point of around 238 degrees C, so I doubt that the glyphosate is breaking down very much in normal Canola Oil use.

http://www.culinary-yours.com/frying_oil.html

Of course, if you can document your answer, I am willing to look at the reference."

End of quote from other thread.
------------------------------

Here is a link that might be useful: link that so called attack came from

"It is my experience and expectation that when scientists discuss controversal issues, they document their "facts"."

Yeah, your refusal to believe that anything I'm saying is a fact...or "facts" as you call them...is part of the problem.

Would you care to read this thread again?

http://forums2.gardenweb.com/forums/load/organic/msg0200521113706.html

Do you think this level of knowledge on the subject comes from out of thin air, a propaganda pamphlet I picked up, or from years of experience in research in the field making me a reasonable person to actually address concerns/questions about the issue?

Are you just simply going to ignore it because I'm not going to go search around Google for links? You couldn't even "keep up" in that thread (because it's out of your realm of study/knowledge), yet you chose to dismiss all of it because I didn't hunt down some Google links for you.

Heck, in that post you called what I was writing my "opinion" even though you don't have enough knowledge of the subject to arrive at that conclusion.

This is an on-going thing...it's tiring...and insulting more than a few times...especially coming from someone who's been digging up a lot of sketchy sources for argument-making because they know more about Google searching keywords than the science of the subject they want to discuss.

Condescension is close to condensation, the latter in great need out here in the arid West. The former not so much.

Condescension is occasionally earned by those who wave their own credentials around acting as a false prophet when those who actually follow the faith show up. How's that for a passive-aggressive insightful reply? =p

I assure you that Henry has made more than just a few threads leading to me calling him out for his approach to issues...from trying to break off more than he can understand via never-ending Google searches, to not knowing how to source good information from the bad, to changing subjects when he's backed into a wall with his lack of knowledge, to flat out dismissal of things(and people) he doesn't want to hear.

This didn't just happen over a single thread...or 2 threads...or 5 threads...

Who makes most of the chemical agriculture posts here in the organic forum? Henry. So yeah, we "run into each other" a lot here...talking about chemicals and genetic engineering...on the organic gardening forum.

If someone wants to talk about chemical agriculture...or GMOs...hey, ya know...it's what I do in the research field on the cutting edge of emerging products as well as existing use. I'll talk about it. Want to know about a certain chemical...a GMO process...genetics...pipeline products in the industry? I'll chime in.

I think it's silly to have these kinds of discussions in here, but I'm not the one making the threads. I've -never- made a GMO or chemical agriculture thread in this forum...it's not why I come here.

Some people actually want to learn about this chemical agriculture and GMO stuff. Some people just want to hear what they want to believe. I'm not the only source, nor the end-all-be-all, but I know BS from legitimacy.

Tiresome too. The principle reason I stopped visiting the Organic Gardening forum and the Soil and Compost forum was in reaction to a few know-it-alls who often challenged those that knew more than they did. As a professional "organic" farmer and former soil and ag researcher, I often find disagreements with what posters proclaim as the truth. Those posters were often "experts" in allied fields or just plain BS-sters. Hard to tell sometimes.

I sympathize more with Henry than NC because I caught the ethical disease induced by following the Precautionary Principle, having given up conventional risk assessment based on short-term goals.

When you devote so much time and chunk of your life to something...it's hard to sit on the sidelines when people have questions/concerns or confusing/misleading information. I've done more than work for "big agriculture"...but it's a huge chunk of professional career at this point. It's something not a lot of people have a "ground floor" access to. I not only work with what's "now"...I work with what's in the pipeline...and it's a weird industry where sharing is done a whole lot. There's not many "secret projects."

That said...it would suit me fine to never see another chemical agriculture, GMO, etc thread in here. I participate in a whole lot more than this stuff and I could live without it.

It seems it's not only here to stay, though...it's a popular subject with some people. If people want to talk about it...I'm probably going to keep chiming in when applicable.

This may be of interest to some here.

Here is a link that might be useful: More big companies

NC, I appreciate your contributions to such discussions; helps me understand "conventional" POV and somewhat the state of knowledge. But also you must appreciate skepticism arising from the culture of the gmo industry (not just the science). The major innovators and marketers limit access to and research on gmos by independent researchers. Fewer and fewer independent researchers are willing to risk their careers on publishing work criticizing the efficacy or safety of gmos.

So we are left with lots of propaganda from both sides, neither well supported by scientific inquiry. It is not enough for the biotech industry to assert all is well and trust us when too many people distrust the processes and products.

Here's my take. There are so many ambiguous unknowns in all the chemicals we face whether from farm or industry or elsewhere that some precautionary moves are wise. For myself, I try to fortify myself with some good supplements.

To be blunt....Henry's postings and style bores me. It seems somewhat redundant.....I do not "hear" much of what he is trying to tell. He probably is trying to share, but I suppose it tends to scare if we dig deeply and I do not want to live in fear.

nc who does seem to bring a lot of knowledge here tends to be on over-kill with replies.

No, these things do not drive me away.

The following was stated: "Are you just simply going to ignore it because I'm not going to go search around Google for links? You couldn't even "keep up" in that thread (because it's out of your realm of study/knowledge), yet you chose to dismiss all of it because I didn't hunt down some Google links for you."

H.Kuska comment. Yes, without scientific documentation, it is merely your opinion. Please note how the Podevin and du Jardin, 2012 paper was commented on in this very recent review reported in Google Scholar:

PDF][PDF] SCOPING REPORT
C Marris, C Jefferson - 2013 - kclpure.kcl.ac.uk
169 days ago - ... Document Version Preprint ��" the version submitted for publication Link to publication
record in King's Research Portal Citation for published version (APA): Marris, C., & Jefferson,
C. (2013). ... This report should be cited as: Marris, C. and Jefferson, C. (2013). ...

"One reason for the scepticism displayed by some actors in response to such declarations is that at the time when genetic engineering first merged, strong claims were also made by proponents of the field about the precision of the new techniques. Thus, molecular biologists in the 1980s emphasised the lack of sophistication of previous techniques to emphasise the enhanced predictability of the then new recombinant DNA (rDNA) techniques, as exemplified in the seminal OECD report of 1986 (OECD, 1986)11:"
H.Kuska comment, the following is a quote from the 1986 report. "While rDNA techniques may result in the production of organisms expressing a combination of traits that are not observed in nature, genetic changes from rDNA techniques will often have inherently greater predictability compared to traditional techniques, because of the greater precision that the rDNA technique affords to particular modifications. […] It is acknowledged that additional research and experience with rDNA micro-organisms, plants, and animals, should certainly increase our ability and precision to predict the outcome of introductions of rDNA organisms into the many varied ecosystems."

(H.Kuska comment, end of 1986 quote, now back to recent review quote.)
"Despite these claims of greater predictability and precision, studies have now found that unintended additional fragments of DNA are often present (Rang et al., 2005; Windels et al., 2001), and that unintended re-arrangements of sections of the host genome flanking the genetic insert were present in GM crops that have been placed on the market (Hernández et al., 2003; Windels et al., 2001). Also, a recent study by scientists from the European Food Safety Authority demonstrated that some long versions of the cauliflower mosaic virus 35S promoter, very commonly used in genetic constructs and present in a number of GM crops on the market, unexpectedly contain an overlapping viral open reading frame which, when expressed, might result in unintended phenotypic changes (Podevin and du Jardin, 2012). This demonstrates that even seemingly well-characterised and routinely used noncoding regulatory DNA sequences can produce unpredicted, unintended effects, yet such sequences are commonly assumed to present little risk when assessed within the EU regulatory framework, and “intergeneric microorganisms resulting only from the addition of well-characterized, non-coding regulatory regions” are excluded from the US Biotechnology Coordinated Framework. Opinions among scientists and other stakeholders are sharply divided about whether any future forms of genetic engineering, including synthetic biology, could ever result in the creation of organisms with
reliably predictable behaviours, especially when released into complex, diverse and variable natural ecosystems; and this is directly related to divergent evaluations of the prospects for GMMO products that would need to be released into the environment in order to perform their intended function"

H.Kuska comment. Please notice the use of the word "opinions" in the following: "Opinions among scientists and other stakeholders are sharply divided........"

i.e. it is my "opinion" that the public is being used as beta testers.
------------------------------------------

Here is a link that might be useful: link to above review

"But also you must appreciate skepticism arising from the culture of the gmo industry"

Oh yeah, especially here I expect it. I don't even expect people to have the same view that I do or convince everyone to change their views.

I can understand the concern of GMOs that uptake herbicides or express pesticides, though I'm not concerned about many applications of it.

I do not understand the concern of GMOs that express disease resistance thanks to the insertion of a dead protein coat humans aren't even sensitive to acting as a "vaccine" of sorts against crop ruining disease...such as the GMO papaya.

I really don't understand the concern of GMO cultured medications/vitamins...some of which have 30-ish years of history. The blood-based medicine industry, in particular, has benefited greatly...in safety of product, lowered cost of product, and better availability of product.

That said, I understand some people don't want any of it...no dividing lines...all bad.

I just think that "know your enemy" is VERY important to getting things done in activism as well as understanding where to set your personal level of fear/outrage. Going around telling a farmer or policy maker that 2,4-D = Agent Orange won't get you much of anywhere unless having someone roll their eyes at you is your desired outcome. It's a little abusive of activists that some organizations (such as the Organic Consumer's Association) are choosing to present this point to their activist base to scare them into action rather than giving them the many legit tools of argument they could have opted to use.

Yeah, Ronnie Cummins was always a hothead and has gathered around him quite a cadre of anti-gmo/biotech, anti-corporate agribusiness activists. I've made the mistake of challenging the official Anti-GMO sites on social media and thus been thrown in with meanies like you , NC. ;) There seems to be little middle ground, much like in national politics right now.