My desire to avoid GMO that have been modified to resist glyphosate is not out of ignorance. I am also not against genetic modification. In fact, on Friday I toured a lab at MSU that was working on the genetic modification of many crops, including blueberries. The ways plants can be genetically modified is vast, but the ones on the market have been modified in very few ways, one primary one is to be resistant to glyphosate in order to facilitate more use of that herbicide. The lab I visited was working on the genetics of cold tolerance. The main obstacle to other types of genetic modification in plants is the cost of the basic research--who is going to pay for it? The blueberry industry does not have the vast resources of Monsanto. And Monsanto invested in all that money in genetic research they thought would be most likely to benefit their company. I have no problem with that either, but don't argue it was for the betterment of civilization or for the health of the human race. And if you've ever really delved into the scientific studies on some of these things, you will find that we don't know far more than we know. Certain questions are not asked and not studied because there is little funding to do so. DDT was deemed safe for many years. But then it was found that the long range effects of it were significant because it didn't break down and built up in the environment because it adhered to fat cells that accumulated in the tissues of animals, including humans. That was not extensively studied in advance. DDT is still used in some countries because they don't care if it does that, they feel the benefits outweigh the costs or else they don't have a choice. But pests developing resistance to herbicides and pesticides is well known and studied, it is the same process by which bacteria and viruses develop resistance to antibiotics. This is why integrated pest management is preferred and disease prevention is so important. Integrated means pest management is built into the way you do business. And planting thousands of acres of the same crop year after year is just inviting pest trouble, not a system that is designed to be unattractive to pests, just the opposite. So if you farm using this system, you are forever tied to chemical pest control. I'm not picking on farmers, they have a right to do business as they see fit, but I want foods labeled if they have been modified for resistance to glyphosate. There are many industrial uses of corn and soybeans that do no involve eating them, so they can grow their thousands of acres for that if they want, and for the folks who don't mind eating food that has been routinely sprayed with glyphosate. I am not even sure how much of the corn or soybean crop even goes into food. It's odd to me that folks lump all genetic modification together and then argue that "genetic modification" is safe, when actually we are talking about the widespread use of Bt toxin insecticide and glyphosate, not the genetic modification process itself, which as I started this note by saying, can be used to do a multitude of things, but currently is limited to resistance to a few types of pesticide, which then allows their widespread use. OK, don't label it as genetically modified then, label it as "modified to resist glyphosate" or "modified to contain Bt." So I want to be clear, I am not concerned about the process of genetic modification, which humans have been doing one way or the other for thousands of years, I am concerned about the specific modification that allows for resistance to glyphosate and also engineering Bt toxins into corn. That one is a problem because Bt is actually an organic pesticide because it breaks down readily in the environment. Using it in such a widespread manner, increases the danger that its effective lifespan will be shortened. I know organic farmers who are totally against this Bt corn because they fear it will eventually take one of their most effective tools out of the equation by speeding up resistance. I'm not even concerned about Bt or glyphosate, it is just the widespread use of them, or in the case of genetically modified corn and soybeans, the mandatory use of them.

Sally2, I went and checked my son's other allergies. Regarding the cobalt allergy, it's easy to avoid clothes that have rivets and metal zippers and when it's not avoidable you can cover the metal with clear nail polish. Toluene free, preferably. And I forgot to mention the BIG one that he's allergic too: Fragrance. Fragrance is not always listed as Fragrance, sometimes it is listed are Parfum. I don't know why the French spelling is in otherwise English language labelling, but there you are. As an aside, there are chemicals called Pthalates that are the carrier for the fragrances. Pthalates are bad for you, I think they are petrochemical based and carcinogenic too, you want to avoid them even if you aren't allergic. They are in most personal care and scented home products. For cleaning more often than not I used organic Dr. Bronner's with either the Peppermint or Tea Tree essential oil. You can even use this as a body wash and some people brush their teeth with it, it's that safe.

Harry Samuels said: "Well, the Round-Up lobbyist was the one who extended the offer in the first place. That is a slightly different case from a crayon (which no one is suggesting you would be safe 'eating')- because you're not 'exposed' to it in the same way that we are Round-Up" Here is the first bit of interview transcript from glib's link: "You can drink a whole quart of it and it won’t hurt you,” Moore insists. “You want to drink some?” the interviewer asks. “We have some here.” Seems to me the interviewer extended the offer first. Then the RU guy jokingly says: “I’d be happy to, actually,” Moore replies, adding, “Not really. But I know it wouldn’t hurt me." Obviously he wasn't being serious when he said he'd drink it. I honestly can't blame the guy for walking out of the interview when the interviewer was only interested in pushing him to drink RU. The link glib gave was specifically about ingesting RU, hence my crayon eating comment. Eating crayons and drinking RU would essentially expose the person to each substance the same way. The RU lobbyist never said someone should drink RU, only that if someone did they would be fine (I'm not saying that's true). I could give a hundred links saying that if someone eats a crayon they'd be fine. So I feel like my initial analogy was acceptable. Rodney P.S. And I just want to point out that I don't use roundup nor will I in the future.

I do know several small farmers who refuse to be certified as "organic" because they feel that is misleading as American standards allow the use of many . They will instead label their products as "pesticide free" or "produced in an organic manner" or something similar. They are always happy to tell anyone who asks about their growing methods. Most will employ biological controls, like predator insects, or mechanical devices like my "fake apples" brushed with a sticky substance that traps coddling moths. The bigger corporation farms will spray and dust more regularly, as they have the equipment to do so. Not all "natural pesticides" are harmless to humans, as once thought, and so things like rotenone, which is derived from plant sources like jicama vine has been found to kill fish and is "mildly" harmful to humans. Whatever that means, one would think it was harmful or not. However, if an item is labelled "organic", it will, at least at this point, be GMO free. Annie