"Plagued by a growing army of Roundup-resistant superweeds and Bt-resistant superpests spreading across the country, a full 49 percent of American farmers are now frantically trying to kill these superweeds and pests with ever-larger quantities of toxic pesticides, herbicides and fungicides including glyphosate (Roundup), glufosinate, 2,4D (“Agent Orange’), dicamba, and neonicotinoids (insecticides linked to massive deaths of honey bees)."

They really need to stop that 2,4-D = "Agent Orange" thing if they expect to be taken seriously. It's just ignorant as all hell. Seriously, they know better...they just choose to bait their audience with this to mobilize rather than feeding them useful information to those that wish to communicate with leaders, industry, farmers, and regulators. It's extremely selfish of them.

There's also not a "frantic" farmer response to superweeds out there. While they're found on almost 50% of all farm lands, there's a very small fraction of the weeds actually in the field...it's not like it's 50-100% of all the weeds in the fields, it's closer to 1-2% in all but the worst areas. The solution...use 2,4-D...or something other other RoundUp for those not swept up on the initial RU application. It's rather simple...not a point of panic.

Your pro industry bias is very evident, NC.

A fact is a fact.

Go ahead...talk to a farmer about how 2,4-D is Agent Orange and see how far that gets you before they politely correct you or ignore you and walk away...then scale that up to a regulatory or government level and trying to sway policy.

If I wanted to skew the discussion pro-industry, I would let activists continue to be fed things that weaken their argument. Think about that one for a second.

If an activist is armed with crap tools to fight with...they're not going to fight a good fight. If 2,4-D GMO crops (which are on the horizon) is something someone really wants to fight against...they will GET NOWHERE with a 2,4-D = Agent Orange argument and furthermore it will weaken the stance of whether they should even be trying to make an argument for it in the first place. Do you not see the danger from this...from bad activism? Seriously? You can't see how this could go wrong for an activist base?

No amount of wishing, wanting, or reality makes 2,4-D "Agent Orange" any more than any ingredient in a soda other than sugar makes it fattening.

Just because a source you want to believe keeps saying it doesn't make it true...it's not even a partial truth.

Seriously, go talk to a farmer about 2,4-D...just do it...it might be eye opening.

There's a lot of Vietnam veterans out there farming that might not appreciate you trying to call 2,4-D "Agent Orange" though, so pick carefully if you choose that for an opener.

It is easier to influence many people with hysteria and propaganda as opposed to logic and reason.

I pretty well lost all interest when I got to the 'make a donation' link.

Lloyd

...on the "Superweeds" thing...

...you know who really hates superweeds in relation to GMOs? Farmers that use glyphosate.

They find that they have to use other herbicides rather than their go-to, glyphosate (usually 2,4-D not coincidentally...because they're both cheap and don't need tilling in).

The main complaint is having to drag their machinery through a field more than once to apply multiple herbicides, not being able to grow GMO RU-resistant crops every single season anymore...or paying a manual laborer to hand-paint resistant weeds with 2,4-D (or another herbicide) after the glyphosate doesn't take care of them.

Very few fields...very very very few fields...are so overrun with glyphosate resistant weeds that it's no longer an option. In fact, most of these weeds are found on land barriers, ditches, banks, etc outside the fields and on small parts of the inner margin. It's not some "OMG, MY LAND IS FULL OF WEEDS I CAN'T KILL!" thing...not even close.

The "superweeds" are resistant to glyphosate...other herbicides kill them just fine.

Any herbicide, when overused to the extent glyphosate has been overused, will develop resistant colonies. That's just how evolution works (whether one chooses to believe in evolution or not). The issue with most people (farmers) complaining about superweeds right now is directly laid on glyphosate for the most part. There are other superweeds out there resistant to other herbicides, but the glyphosate superweeds are the ones that are most of the concern to farmers.

So you see...the whole "superweed" issue as it stands right now...is really a "glyphosate isn't working" issue, not a "herbicides are bad and we're going to phase them out because nothing works" issue.

If anything, "superweeds" could be severely declined with coming glyphosate and 2,4-D GMO rotations...but that sure as hell won't make anyone that's anti-GMO happy even if it does solve that suddenly-important-for-some-reason issue.

I understand why farmers care about superweeds...I have very little clue why people who don't even use glyphosate care, though.

I think the main issue is that some people don't understand the issue.

Farmers are kinda pissed about the loss of effectiveness of glyphosate...it's a very cheap, fast acting, easily applied, no-till herbicide who's alternatives tend to cost more. Most of the current complaints about "superweeds" is not being able to use glyphosate...not that they have weeds in their fields that nothing can kill.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Sun, Jul 21, 13 at 7:41

I'm more interested in the effect of glyphosate on soil health than its effect on weeds.

"I'm more interested in the effect of glyphosate on soil health than its effect on weeds."

Same...

I didn't pick apart every single thing in that article...or even 1/2...or 10%...

I picked 2 points...one in particular that I'm tired of seeing (the 2,4-D = Agent Orange thing) coming from groups that know better...and laid out some reality on those issues.

The 2,4-D = Agent Orange is especially toxic for an activist base. It is going to be really hard to get any activism done from an activist base if any activist goes around spouting this. This kind of misinformation takes a person who is potentially a warrior for the cause and turns them into a weak warrior...and coming from an organization that knows better, it's extremely irresponsible for them to keep pushing this point.

This same organization used a 2,4-D = Agent Orange "call to action" bulletin to have people sign a petition a while back. If one reads the actual petition, absolutely no where in it do they dare state anything close to an asinine statement such as 2,4-D = Agent Orange...unlike their "call to action" bulletin asking people to sign the petition where it's mentioned many times (including the header/title).

For some reason, someone in their group decided it's good practice for them to feed this to people to scare them into signing their piece of activism even if it weakens the information base of the people signing it. That is really bad activism and is extremely self serving from a group of people who know better.

http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50865/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=8850

Read their "call to action" bulletin...

...then read the actual letter they're sending.

The "call to action" is pure fear, even including a fear based video on the side...

...the letter, though some would argue some of the claims, is logical and sane.

This is an abuse of an activist community...pure and simple.

That's the thing about discussing this topic, many people come into any discussion so previously set in their thinking, i.e. 'bad for environment' vs. 'we need this, no harmful effects' that there seems to be little middle ground or room for discussion.

Scientific studies that find evidence of possible deleterious effects of herbicide use are vehemently dismissed by the Roundup bandwagon as invalid, flawed, or irrelevant.

According to wikipedia, 2,4-D is MOST CERTAINLY a major component of agent orange. It was developed purely for war efforts and was discovered quite accidentally to also kill broadleaf weeds. I'm typing this from memory, so I invite you to find the article and read it yourself for exact details. It's being used more often now due to the increase in glyphosate -resistant weeds. The effects on human health from consuming GMO foods which have been specifically developed to withstand massive spraying of these chemicals is unknown, but from evidence derived from the few private studies that have been done, it is nothing good. Tumors, cancer, and sterility by the third generation are a few consequences that have been observed in animal studies. Exposure to 2,4-D alone has shown an increased risk for NHL (non-hodgkins lymphoma) and ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) diseases, with conflicting data on an increased cancer risk.
nc-crn: This is an ORGANIC GARDENING forum. You are presenting flat-out incorrect information regarding what 2,4-D really is. Many of us strongly believe these chemicals and GMOs are corrupting our natural food supply, and probably our health, at an alarming rate. Some of us, thankfully an increasing number of us, are loudly saying NO THANKS. It simply isn't worth the risk.

"nc-crn: This is an ORGANIC GARDENING forum. You are presenting flat-out incorrect information regarding what 2,4-D really is."

1- I'm not even talking about what 2,4-D is besides the fact it's not Agent Orange...not even close. Hydrochloric acid is can be used to make meth, but snorting hydrochloric acid won't make you a meth addict...though it will probably be the last thing you snort.

2- 2,4-D is still not Agent Orange...it never will be. It's been in use since the late 40s, is the #1 herbicide of choice for farmers all over the world, and is one of the top used herbicides in the US.

This whole thing is about bad activism, not the pros/cons of 2,4-D. 2,4-D is NOT Agent Orange...this is before we get into the issue of dioxin impurities and the now banned chemical that make up the "bad" parts of what Agent Orange actually is. Just because soda is 70%+ H2O, that doesn't mean water is obviously part of what makes soda fattening.

'A 50:50 mixture of 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D, it was manufactured for the U.S. Department of Defense primarily by Monsanto Corporation and Dow Chemical. The 2,4,5-T used to produce Agent Orange was contaminated with 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD), an extremely toxic dioxin compound. It was given its name from the color of the orange-striped 55 US gallon (208 l) barrels in which it was shipped, and was by far the most widely used of the so-called 'Rainbow Herbicides'.'

Here is a link that might be useful: Agent Orange (Wikipedia)

Apparently 2,4-D is off patent. Looks like dioxin is back from a Chinese source.

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

Thanks for posting the interesting Agent Orange link and also the timely link above, which refers to the recently discovered presence of dioxin in 2,4-D. I will post the link to the wikipedia article I mentioned earlier regarding 2,4-D in case anyone wants to look at it, too. The TRUTH is, 2,4-D was a major component of Agent Orange and though it may not have been responsible for the dioxin poisonings years ago, it carries enough health risks in its own right to make it unwelcome in any organic garden. (Regarding dioxin and 2,4-D, see the link above and also "Manufacturing Processes" in the link below. 2,4-D is no longer innocent in this regard as the last poster correctly pointed out.) Also, the newer classes of GMOs are being developed specifically for 2,4-D resistance. NO THANKS to all of it!

Here is a link that might be useful: 2,4-D - Wikipedia

What many of the proponents of these synthetic poisons fail to grasp is that this world we live in is the only world we have and its ability to repair the damage we do is finite.
All of the water we have here now was here at the beginning and is all we will every have since no more is being made. All of the air we breath today evolved over time (oxygen was originally a poison) to provide the environment we can live in and no more is being produced, we are recycling what we have. Plants take in air, remove the CO2, and send back out air with the right mix of O2 for us to breath.
The research people at Iowa State University found evidence that plants were developing immunities to the glyphosates early on and evidence that these poisons did harmful things to lower life orders that could indicate problems for us. Too many people do not want to look at that research and seem to feel that if I don't know about it the problem does not exist.

The only way to not have a glyphosate resistant weed is to never use it. The only way to depress populations or not have resistance become an issue is to use herbicide rotations (or none at all...which isn't going to happen for most of the world's farmers).

RR-resistant crops have been grossly overused and it's sped up the evolution of resistant weeds. GMOs are the catalyst of this. Glyphosate has been in use since the 70s, has been the "main dog" herbicide since the 80s, but it's only been since the 2000s that RR-resistant weeds have undergone their strongest evolution and spread.

Even now, there's very few fields infested with RR-Resistant weeds, though they're spotted in over 1/2 the farm lands all over the nation...it's a small amount found in a large number of fields.

Farmers have made a choice to put RR-resistant crop after RR-resistant crop into their fields. Farmers have chosen to not rotate non-RR-resistant crops following RR-resistant crops year after year. This is catching up to some farmers in some areas...but for the most part the issue still isn't enough of an economic hit to switch to a rotation and they keep putting RR-crops in their fields doing a double-hit with another herbicide in their fields or spot-applying other herbicides to take care of what the glyphosate doesn't touch. The economics of farming and regulation over approved substances drives all of this.

It is an in-your-face simple fact that if glyphosate isn't going to kill a farmer's weeds...they're not going to use RR-ready seeds or a crop a field of it...it defeats the entire purpose of it in the first place...and non-RR seed is cheaper. The only industry experiencing a shortage of non-RR seed is the sugar beet industry...and a lot of that has to do with nearly 90% of sugar beet farmers going GMO the first year it rolled out and 95+% by the second year.

For what it's worth, 2,4-D has been in heavy use since the 1940s and waterhemp (a type of Amaranth/pigweed) is the only 2,4-D resistant problem weed out there currently...and it's not much of an issue. "Superweeds" don't tend to stack multiple-resistance in the same breeding line because it's really really really hard to survive multiple herbicides being thrown at the genetics...they tend to be herbicide-specific.

To say people aren't "paying attention" isn't true. That's why 2,4-D and Dicamba (as well as other) herbicide resistant GMOs are being produced and have been in the pipeline for over a decade. This will give GMO farmers something they had before the GMO revolution...a greater option for herbicide rotations in order to cut off the evolution of superweed issues.

Now, this won't make some of you happy, but that's what's going on. Unless you want to be a quality activist and try to stop it...it's going to happen. Longterm resistant management plans are at the mercy of farmers or government regulation...approved GMOs are at the mercy of government regulation...what goes into the fields is at the mercy of farmer choice once the previous 2 points have been addressed.

To summarize...this isn't me pushing something...this is actually what's happening. I don't like some of it, personally, but this isn't about me. I'm just trying to paint a picture here. On a personal tip, I think non-RR-ready rotations should be required in some problem areas as a containment method (like some extra methods are required for some disease containment areas), but local/state/federal government isn't stopping farmers from doing what they want to do with their land and their crops...and most of these farmers wouldn't welcome the extra regulation.

If you don't like it...it's up to you to mobilize and do something about it whether it be direct action, mobilized action, or using your purchasing power to prop up alternative markets outside of the industry. Once again, this isn't opinion...this is just what's going on. I don't control this...I don't own 10,000 acres in Nebraska...I don't run any government agencies...and whoever I may be employed by will march right along if I quit my job tomorrow.

nc-crn: That last sentence was interesting: "Whoever I may be employed by will march right along if I quit my job tomorrow." Regarding your advice about mobilizing if we don't like the situation, surely you know that there is a very active movement to rid the planet of these untested, non-food GMOs. Many countries forbid them. The fact that a law was recently passed in the USA that states that even judges cannot stop the planting of them here is chilling to me, as I have never before seen a company have such virtual control over our government and even our courts! And you must know that the manufacturers of these pesticides and GMOs (and companies with ties to them) spent millions of dollars to stop the labelling of GMOs in California last year, and through lies and scare tactics they narrowly succeeded, despite the efforts of hundreds of thousands of concerned citizens. Why don't they want us to know what we are eating if GMOs are so benign and wonderful? And the main reason these "foods" are being developed is to withstand massive doses of pesticides, which pollute our planet and our bodies. Let us not forget that GMO seeds are also patented, allowing these companies to virtually control the majority of the food supply! Truly the love of money is the root of all evil.

To kimmsr: Well said! We only have one planet and one continually recycled water supply. We need to protect and nurture our planet, water, trees, and crops for future generations. I pray people will wake up before it really is too late.

I support labeling...my industry does not. We don't see eye-to-eye on everything.

As far as why they don't support labeling...it's $$ and market share. Whether they loose 0.5% or 5% of market share because of it...they don't want to lose 0.0005% to begin with so that's where that lies.

As far as GMO monopolies...there's 6 major corporations and a slew of minor companies producing them. As long as you can bring a patentable product to market, it's wide open and competitive.

I understand there is a strong anti-GMO movement...I just feel like there needs to be better leadership and better information given to the "soldiers" from the leadership. It does nothing for the people on the ground if they're bringing arguments like "2,4-D = Agent Orange." You don't even need a science degree to realize that's crap. Even a non-GMO farmer knows what's up with that and how it's not relevant. If one has information that can't sway a farmer...it's going to be harder to sway corporate/government/policy. An activist doesn't need weak tools of battle if they want to fight. There's so many reasons to legitimately not want 2,4-D GMO crops without going to an argument that weakens your point because it's not true and won't sway anyone who actually uses it or is in charge of developing/regulating it.

All that is as maybe, but on one simple matter I cannot imagine why any rational being would object to labeling GMO produce and products. A truly free market is an informed market; let the buyers choose says I. Regards, Peter.

Agent Orange results from a mixture of several pesticides and apparently many people are not aware of that. Some years back the county road commission was planning on spraying the roadsides with some herbicide mixture so I asked what was in that and, eventually, received a list of the various herbicides that would be in the mix. A little research gave me a list of herbicides that went into the Agent Orange mix that I sent on to the Road Commission people who then decided to not spray. Apparently, even though some members of the road commission were Viet Nam veterans it never occurred to them to question what was going on.
The industries that produce these poisons are causing great harm to the world we live in.

kimmsr, there you have a perfect example of what one concerned person can accomplish! Thank you for your efforts in ending at least one toxic spraying in your community.
I just wanted to say I learned a lot from this thread. I have a better understanding and more accurate information about the perceived benefits and risks regarding a well-known pesticide. The point that nc-crn made about making incorrect generalizations regarding 2,4-D is well-taken. It weakens our argument and makes those who do it appear uninformed. The original link that was posted was actually a very good one by the Organic Consumers Association, except for this one point regarding 2,4-D, which was quite brief and not the main focus of the article. It was interesting to see what these diabolical companies have up their sleeves next in their quest to own, control, and quite possibly destroy the world's natural food supply.

The following was stated: "The point that nc-crn made about making incorrect generalizations regarding 2,4-D is well-taken."

H.Kuska comment. Which important generalizations are incorrect?

Please note the following: "Today, Agent Orange refers generally to all the phenoxy herbicides sprayed at the time."

Link for above:
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/intheworkplace/agent-orange-and-cancer

Another link with reference for the same definition:
http://voteview.com/Agent_Orange_and_Cancer.pdf

Here is a link that might be useful: cancer link given above

"Agent Orange" is a politically and emotionally charged label that evokes a certain perception and reaction...let's not pretend otherwise....especially when it's being clearly presented one way by the organization in question, directly linked to dioxin tainted 2,4-D + 2,4,5-T mixtures used during the Vietnam War while pointing to 2,4-D, alone.

http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50865/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=8850

2,4-D is the most widely used herbicide in the entire world. It's still for sell in almost every country, unlike 2,4,5-T which has been banned in almost every country for 20-30 years now.

...as well as the fact that if you look up many definitions of Agent Orange they'll apply it to the mixture used that gained it's name to begin with. If you're going to count all IAA synthetic phenoxy auxins as "Agent Orange" then many people use it on a daily basis with absolutely no protection to root cuttings....especially tomatoes and peppers.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Sat, Jul 27, 13 at 22:36

The following was stated: "If you're going to count all IAA synthetic phenoxy auxins as "Agent Orange" then many people use it on a daily basis with absolutely no protection to root cuttings....especially tomatoes and peppers."

H.Kuska comment: please read the actual paragraph and put the quote in context. They are talking about "at the time" in a paragraph about the military during the Vietnam War.

---------------------------------------------------
The link you gave in the last post states: "And 2,4-D is devastating to the environment. It’s currently the seventh largest source of dioxin pollution in the US."

Why are you not challenging this statement? If it is correct than the term Agent Orange appears accurate in the context that you state:

""Agent Orange" is a politically and emotionally charged label that evokes a certain perception and reaction."

You're going to believe what you want to believe. We've been down this road before. You're currently trying to redefine what "Agent Orange" is using a definition that happens to fit what you want it to fit while throwing out all others. Would you like me to paste...oh...10 or so definitions of what Agent Orange is from government websites, or the Veteran's Administration, or Wikipedia, or etc...or is that 1 definition you found that you want to be the de facto truth the one you want to be used because it's the one you found? Would it take 20 links? More?

I could repeat exactly what I wrote before this as a reply to what you just wrote...because it is exactly my reply to what you just wrote.

If you cannot use your power of logic and reading comprehension (and the link I gave) to piece together what's going on here then I cannot help you understand.

...as for why I'm not challenging "2,4-D is devastating to the environment. It's currently the seventh largest source of dioxin pollution in the US."...this is not an issue anymore. It is extremely rare for dioxin polluted 2,4-D to enter the market and it's only been found in Australia in the past 20 years coming from a very lax factory from a single brand (quite recently, fwiw). Of course, they seem to not want to add that to their piece, nor talk about modern 2,4-D production and it's lack of dioxin release. The manufacture of PVC plastics produces more dioxins. Cars/motors and incinerators of garbage are the source of most dioxin release. The quality of 2,4-D we use now is not the same quality of 2,4-D used in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s... Dioxins bio-accumulate and cycle through the environment if allowed to be released.

At this point I guess we can consider it challenged.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Sun, Jul 28, 13 at 0:09

Words in accepted dictionaries have accepted definite meanings. As far as I can tell Agent Orange is not in accepted dictionaries. The references that I gave tell how the meaning has evolved in a particular field. As a scientist I am familar with situations like that. One reader did not like the useage that he read and stated:

"They really need to stop that 2,4-D = "Agent Orange" thing if they expect to be taken seriously. It's just ignorant as all hell."

When I first read his comment, my thought was: is there more than one meaning? I did not consider it worth my time to look it up then as I did not consider it an important part of the thread. However, now that there was an additional post that felt it was important, I took the time and documented my findings.
-----------------------------

Now a statement:
"It's currently the seventh largest source of dioxin pollution in the US."...this is not an issue anymore. It is extremely rare for dioxin polluted 2,4-D to enter the market and it's only been found in Australia in the past 20 years coming from a very lax factory from a single brand (quite recently, fwiw). Of course, they seem to not want to add that to their piece, nor talk about modern 2,4-D production and it's lack of dioxin release. The manufacture of PVC plastics produces more dioxins. Cars/motors and incinerators of garbage are the source of most dioxin release. The quality of 2,4-D we use now is not the same quality of 2,4-D used in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s... Dioxins bio-accumulate and cycle through the environment if allowed to be released."

has been made with no documentation. I have looked up some information, but it is the responsibility of the person making a statement to provide documentation.

The statement in the original article was: "It's currently the seventh largest source of dioxin pollution in the US."

Notice, not Australia (in the U.S.). Please provide documentation of your position regarding that statement,

On the 1st part of your rant...you must have totally skipped over the entire 1st, 2nd, and 3rd paragraphs I wrote. Nice...just nice. You're intentionally choosing to "not get it" and run with it.

On the 2nd part of your rant...yes, once again you insist on documentation because once again you've chosen to insert yourself into a conservation about something you know little to nothing about except what you can gleen (and pick arguments with) based off of Google searches.

Here ya go...I've actually had to use this research a few years ago on a presentation of dioxins for a corporation I used to work for...

In the US...for those of us that work for agriculture chemicals on a research level...we know of these things that we call "EPA Inventories." They are essential to our work. Now, don't get bent out of shape that this isn't the official name...it's just what we call it. Just because I didn't call it by it's official name also doesn't mean you can toss all of this out the window and ignore it as if it doesn't exist or it isn't part of our lives. You're going to have to deal with that rather than playing "technicality wins on the internet."

If you didn't venture into yet another conversation with your analysis about a subject you knew little to nothing about we wouldn't be here, but here we are...

http://www.epa.gov/ncea/pdfs/dioxin/2k-update/

Chapter 8 is the chapter you're looking for...have fun reading.

I don't have any links to give you (so why am I typing this?) but the release of dioxins from total 2,4-D landmass release in monitoring years 1995, 2000, and 2005 were around or less than 1oz total...burning trash puts over 60x more into the environment...coal power plants put about 5x more (not including coal extraction)...diesel engines put 3x more. Hundreds of thousands of gallons of 2,4-D are used in this country every year and many companies make insanely pure stuff. It is not concentrated on a small area or just a few areas...it's spread all over the nation.

Accumulated 2,4-D levels based on historical use may be #7 overall in the nation...which you seem to want to accept without questioning or providing reference for some reason...but it's not been a top10 input since the 1980s. Now, why they get to make a claim without you calling it out or researching it...I don't know...but I'm assuming based on what I know that it has to be an accumulation level. Maybe you can dig up something on it...Google away.

Heck, if you want to be REALLY technical...they release NO dioxins...just chlorine chemicals that are considered dioxins by action and effect on organisms, not by pure definition. I'm not going to play the "technicality game" though...because this is how things work in the real world. Dioxin-like chemicals are considered dioxins.

I come off harsher every time I run into you into a thread. I have no idea why you have a radar on almost everything I post that has to do with agriculture chemicals or the GMO industry as if I'm the one that makes things happen...especially since you know so little about them and Google a few keywords then search into documents to find "your side" of whatever you're trying to prove at the moment. In the past you've supplied information you've misinterpreted, information that isn't relevant, and links to journals that are not only not respected but panned by legitimate researchers.

Do you do anything on the Organic Forum that actually helps organic gardeners or do you just post anti-agricultural-chemical/anti-GMO stuff?

Beyond all of this...the fact still remains that I made about no farmer, regulator, government agency, politician, or corporation taking seriously any claim that 2,4-D = Agent Orange. The fact that this, as a tool of activism, is a weak tool is what this was all about. Your technicality definition from your source (which is repeated word-for-word in your 2nd source) doesn't somehow trump the majority given usage/definition of what most people consider Agent Orange (including the government and the Veteran's Administration) except on a technicality.

If you want a technicality win over a stranger on the internet, congrats, you got it. If you want to strengthen the voice of activists when talking to farmers and regulators...you're not helping.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Sun, Jul 28, 13 at 2:30

Nc-crn, I try to avoid debates but I think you are outnumbered in this thread and also wrong despite your long-winded responses.

It's fine if you think I'm wrong...but if you think you'll get anywhere with a "2,4-D = Agent Orange" argument with a farmer, regulator, corporation, or government agency you're not going to get far.

If an activist chooses to cripple their argument for hell of it, well, it's a free country. They just won't get any further in getting where they're trying to go, though.

The organization in question will bait readers with 2,4-D = Agent Orange scare tactics, but KNOW better than to put anything resembling it in the letter/petition they actually wanted people to sign and send.

http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50865/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=8850

Think about that one for a second...

Is it more important to have a well informed army fighting the good fight...or rallying numbers with weak information weapons for one organization's goal to get as many people as possible around their cause even if it weakens the overall fight?

There is PLENTY to be said about 2,4-D without trying to rally people into thinking Vietnam 2.0 is going to break out in the farm fields. This organization chooses not to go that route...and the information they chose to give out has spread all over the activist base. It's rust in the armor.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Sun, Jul 28, 13 at 4:24

FYI...

I'm trying to do 3 things here...both in this thread and other threads...trying to strengthen some arguments, fight a bit of b/s, and generally just lay down some education where it's lacking or people have questions/concerns.

I never start any of these threads. I'm not in all of them (usually because what is said is spot on or not off mark).

Some people really don't like that I'm critical of the information dispersal and lack of leadership in the anti-chem/GMO movement, but there is a serious lack of leadership and information which is steady+quality.

There's also really horrible industry pulse watchers...

For instance...this 2,4-D corn thing. This has been a known issue since it was applied for...in a public filing...available for everyone to see...in December 2011. It took until April 2012 for the first "consumer advocate/protest/etc" groups to even notice. That's just a very small group of people, too...most activist groups didn't even realize it was going on until it was actually approved in Canada in October 2012. That is really hands-off industry watching, especially since talking to almost anyone in the industry knew this was in the development pipeline since the mid-2000s.

Syngenta + Bayer are working on GMO mesotrione herbicide resistant crops in their pipeline and it is the most promising non-RU-Ready GMO crop they have in their research development cycle. I don't see mention of this anywhere from so-called industry watchers or so-called leaders of the anti-GMO movement. This is "news" that many 1000s of people in the industry know about and isn't exactly some huge secret (since 2010, at least). Hell, Bayer has been working on it since 2007 under less known, but know, circumstances.

The information getting out to followers/warriors/protestors needs to get better (and quicker) and the leadership vacuum needs to be filled by real leaders who actually have a pulse on the industry.

I can't (rather, won't) do anything about the 2nd part of that equation...but I can help straighten out some misconceptions and give other information concerning the 1st part.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Sun, Jul 28, 13 at 5:46

The 2005 reference cited by nc-crn clearly states do not cite or quote. It does contain some interesting numbers. The numbers are important since dioxins bio-accumulate.

What I am interested is both the amount of impurity in the commercial product that is being used / and will be used if the gmo crops are approved in the U.S. (and of course the rest of the world) AND the amount of dioxin that is produced/will be produced as a by-product if the gmo crops are approved in the U.S. (and of course the rest of the world) and has to be put into secure (?) landfills both in the U.S. and in the rest of the world. I added a question mark to "secure" as one person's "secure" is another person's "ticking time bomb".

Here is a non-restricted reference:

"Combining this TEQ concentration with the activity level estimates for 1995 and 1987 indicates that 28.9g TEQDF-WHO98 (18.4 g I-TEQDF) were released in
1995 and 33.4 g TEQDF-WHO98 (21.3 g ITEQDF) in 1987."

Please notice grams not ounces.

http://www.epa.gov/espp/litstatus/effects/redleg-frog/2-4-d/appendix-e.pdf

Here is a link that might be useful: Google search of EPA dioxin and 2,2-D keywords

How many times has it been stated in this thread that Agent Orange does not equal 2,4-D? I did not know what Agent Orange was exactly so I looked it up. Wikipedia which may or may not be 100% correct says that Agent Orange is 50% 2,4-D and 50% 2,4,5-T with historical dioxin contamination.

Others have brought up the issue of dioxin contamination in 2,4-D herbicide including a recent news report. Nc-crn states in a reply that less than one ounce of dioxins are released from 2,4-D. How does one debate that? You keep repeating yourself in a somewhat condescending tone as if the rest of us are clueless because we do not work for a chemical company.

I think Kimmsr summed it up best, "Your pro industry bias is very evident, NC."

What I do agree with is that the practices we are discussing are likely to continue since this is the system that is currently in use and there is a clear profit motive. Change takes time and there has to be motivation, whether from consumers, producers, or elsewhere.

For example:

Option 1 - keep everything going as usual, implement new seed/herbicide rotations with the current system, continue to sell product and keep the wheels turning.

Option 2 - does not involve selling any product or generating an immediate profit for any one company or industry. Instead, involves education and implementing changes in land stewardship and sustainable agriculture practices that do not rely on continuous chemical input to sustain productivity. Requires time and effort, and fundamental changes to current practices.

Which do you think is more likely on a large scale?

-editing out the 1st part of this because it's another circle-running (aka useless) counterpoint to a point that will get me nowhere if recent history serves-

...and on the subject I'm trying to get across...about quality pro-active activism and it's lack of ahead-of-the-curve leadership/information...

GMO 2,4-D, dicamba, mesotrione, glufosinate and isoxaflutole crops are coming soon. 2,4-D and dicamba are close. Mesotrione, glufosinate and isoxaflutole crops have been applied for federal regulatory review (which no one in the activist community seems to have even noticed even though it's on the public record with the EPA for almost 3 months now). Isoxaflutole (which is used on 5% of corn crops in the US anyway) should concern some people...but the crap-level activism going on probably won't notice it's even happening for another year+ when it's up for approval or already approved.

Also, about my "industry bias"...if I was some shill for industry it would be in my best interest to let people have weak augments that get them nowhere and not share a lot of the information I'm sharing.

The paragraph before this one is giving you guys new information that the activist community isn't even touching yet. There's no reason the activist community shouldn't be ahead of the curve on these things...but they aren't. It took them almost a year to realize 2,4-D + dicamba was coming based on other's reports of public filings (which they evidently don't monitor or it would have come up back in December 2011...or in 2010 based on public trade publications...or 2007 if they had a hand on the industry...or years before that if they had an insider in the industry).

This post was edited by nc-crn on Sun, Jul 28, 13 at 19:34

nc-crn, you wrote:
"The information getting out to followers/warriors/protestors needs to get better (and quicker) and the leadership vacuum needs to be filled by real leaders who actually have a pulse on the industry.

I can't (rather, won't) do anything about the 2nd part of that equation...but I can help straighten out some misconceptions and give other information concerning the 1st part."

I couldn't agree more with what you wrote in that first paragraph. We do have some genuine leaders (such as Jeffrey M. Smith), but we need many more. I'm also sorry to read and understand what you wrote in the second paragraph. We who support organic farming and true sustainability on a local, national, and global level need people like yourself to help us in our fight. You may work for the other side, but from what you've written I do believe you share at least some of our concerns, if not many. Your input is from a unique perspective on this forum and I appreciate the information you've shared.

This post was edited by kassie2 on Mon, Jul 29, 13 at 0:33

"I'm also sorry to read and understand what you wrote in the second paragraph."

I work in the industry...so it would be kinda dangerous-to-employment to get involved...it's also why I've made a few "enemies" here who can't look past what I do to see the things I say (very few, thankfully).

I don't expect everyone to respect what I do, and I expect others to hate/disdain me for it...that's fine. I don't think it's unfair given how strong some people believe these issues are (and the fact this is an organic board). Almost everyone in my industry is used to being called all kinds of things. Even with the accusations of being an industry shill and a few other snide comments, no one has been utterly horrible towards me.

I just spent a lot time in the past watching threads and wanting to chime in, only to pass them by. I decided to get involved about 8-10 months ago and spread some views/information.

I do garden organically, myself, aside from a small amount of chemical fertilizers I use. I can make a box of Miracle Grow last about a decade (and most of it goes into container plants, not the in-ground garden). That, too, isn't looked upon nicely by all and some would be very irked that I even said I garden "organically except for..."

I also try to help others with their organic gardens on this board. I'm a certified permaculturalist (design+methods). In many greenhouses I've worked in (including in the chemical industry) we've had to use non-chemical-only means to control any weed/pest/disease outbreak because nothing can contaminate projects...which is kinda ironic even though it makes sense. Before I got involved in this industry I was a traditional plant breeder (raspberries/blackberries, cukes, melons/gourds). I'm a hobby sweet/mild pepper breeder. I probably won't stay in this industry forever, but right now it's what I do...and I have access to industry workings (from corporate, to research, to government, to farmers).

I'm not looking to get yelled at...I'm not above being challenged...and especially given the forum, I'm not going to take things personally if I do get yelled at, even if I feel it's unwarranted (especially over an emotional issue).

There's more than a few people that have thrown some harsh words around (including myself) and we've helped each other in other threads/forums.

One of the major concerns with dioxins is that they are subject to bio-accumulation. Is this only an academic (i.e. theoretical) problem or is it something that is happening now and will happen for generations to come (if present procedures are continued and especially if production of a product that produce dioxins as impurities and as landfill by-products is greatly increased.)?

The link below gives the abstract to a June 2013 reviewed, published scientific paper.

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

This post was edited by henry_kuska on Mon, Jul 29, 13 at 12:09

Dioxins are considered endocrine disruptors. The link below is to a full (not just the abstract) January 2013 reviewed, published scientific paper.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3553434/

If the reader is not familar with the field of endocrine disruptors, the following link may be useful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocrine_disruptor

Here is a link that might be useful: link for full January 2013 scientific paper

Dioxins don't tend to go anywhere fast and they persist. The biggest issue isn't direct human exposure, it's the animals that uptake dioxins (especially fish and birds). When we eat those fish and birds, we accumulate it. Fish are especially susceptible in more enclosed bodies like streams and rivers. Birds can pick it up via the atmosphere, scavaging for food (roadsides where diesel trucks roam, agriculture, eating fish, etc).

We've severely slashed dioxin exposure since the 70s and even more since the 80s (mostly through more pure chemical manufacture and especially with clean energy/incineration/engine controls). As it stands, the biggest contributor to dioxins right now are the people who can't stand to pay a waste management company to haul their trash or pay a landfill fee to haul their own so they burn it in the backyard (especially their plastics).

Ususally the people most effected are those who directly work out dioxin sources...plastic/chemical manufacture+application, incinerator workers, coal power plant workers, long distance truck drivers, etc. Their exposure levels have greatly lessened since the 50s-80s, though. Dioxins became a "kinda big deal" in the 70s and a lot has been done to minimize exposure while living with the products that contain them as a byproduct.

The following was stated (along with a lot of other undocumented statements): "Ususally the people most effected are those who directly work out dioxin sources..."

H.Kuska comment: as indicated in the contaminated fish scientific study, a major concern is/should be (in my opinion) bio-accumulation through the food chain now and in the future.

However, other sources such as dust, air, and water sources must also be considered. For a documentation of one example, I have used my crystal ball and looked at a reviewed, published, scientific research paper from the future (October 2013 to be exact). :"Dioxin-related compounds in house dust from New York State: Occurrence, in vitro toxic evaluation and implications for indoor exposure"

"Highlights

•First investigation of dioxin-like (DL) activities and PBDFs in American house dust.
•Large variations in the CALUX-TEQ levels and DRC concentrations in dust.
•Significant contribution of PBDFs to the total WHO-TEQ levels in dust.
•Unknown contaminants may contribute considerably to the DL activities in dust.
•Dust ingestion may increase the risk of dioxin-related adverse effects for children."

Here is a link that might be useful: scientific article from the future

I mentioned distribution in the air. Is this avenue of concern?

"Atmospheric Pathways and Sources of
Dioxin/Furans in Canadian and the Great
Lakes Environments ��" A Progress"

Report

Here is a link that might be useful: Atmospheric Pathways and Sources of

"I mentioned distribution in the air. Is this avenue of concern? "

It's not only a concern, it's not a localized concern.

It can persist in very high atmospheres and travel to different continents, finding it's way to the ground when it rains. It's generally not a huge concern for direct human contact, but it has a noticeable effect on waterways...and therefore an effect on the fish we eat out of rivers/streams/lakes (and the birds+animals that eat the stuff out of those rivers/streams)

What India and China do can effect US waterways via high atmosphere particle travel...especially in relation to tight waterways which act as sinks for these particles.

Localized levels have a more direct effect on the population, but it takes more than a single nation/area to severely lessen dioxin impact on whole to a point where it's barely noticeable background contamination if other countries are releasing a lot of dioxins into their atmosphere. Trash/waste management, power production, and engine cleanliness measures in other countries (especially China and India where a lot of manufacturing takes place) is extremely lax on environmental control of too many substances.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Mon, Jul 29, 13 at 21:10

Spreading misinformation as truths is an unforgivable offense. Unfortunately on the Internet it surrounds us. No one wants to be proven wrong.

This is a very important subject that needs to be discussed.

Remember, you learn nothing speaking only with people that agree with you.

" Unfortunately on the Internet it surrounds us."

Actually, IME, it surrounds us more impenetrably outside the internet.