Posts: 5,640
Threads: 101
Joined: Dec 2008
I'll type slowly so you can understand. If you succumb to the uneducated mob and put GMO on labels then what's to stop every special interest group from demanding that their fetish be put on the label as well. "Prepared by lefthanders", "Harvested on a Wednesday", "Touched by non-believers".
There isn't enough room. How about we stick to stuff that is actually useful.
Nothing stopping people from putting "GMO free!" on their labels if they want to. It's all about freedom of choice and not having others' opinions imposed on those who actually know what they're talking about.
Posts: 11,009
Threads: 749
Joined: Sep 2012
Can we all agree to accept reality and move on?
Yes.
If we buy organic, we will purchase a product that’s Round Up free, AND is not GMO as most GMO products are Round Up Ready. Killing two birds with one stone, without even using DDT (apocryphal).
So current labeling, Organic, will accomplish almost the same thing as banning Round Up or GMOs for people who wish to avoid Round Up and GMOs. In addition, you could also grow your own food for further control over what’s applied, including through your choice of seed, their providence, by using non-hybrid or heirloom varieties.
Also, if you don't use Round Up on your yard, you most likely won’t get cancer, as you don’t use it as on a regular, recurring basis as part of your job, making it impossible that you’ll have "two accidents in which he you was were doused with the product."
I now return you to your regularly scheduled...whatever it is we're doing here
I believe we were still waiting for someone to bring up the kitchen sink. Otherwise I think we've pretty much covered it.
“What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening.” - President Donald J. Trump, 7/25/18
"I'm at that stage in life where I stay out of discussions. Even if you say 1+1=5, you're right - have fun." - Keanu Reeves
Posts: 1,131
Threads: 39
Joined: Oct 2016
Actually, and factually, with DDT there are no long terms hazards or risks.
I love PW, there are almost as many armchair chemists as there are volcanologists here. A virtual laboratory filled with the finest and brightest. Sheesh we're doing way better than Trump on that score. His cabinet has nothing on our "board members." And hey, we don't have any dogs. Well, unless you count Merlin. And, we are all, to a man/woman reality show contestants!
From: https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pes...and-status
In 1972, EPA issued a cancellation order for DDT based on its adverse environmental effects, such as those to wildlife, as well as its potential human health risks. Since then, studies have continued, and a relationship between DDT exposure and reproductive effects in humans is suspected, based on studies in animals. In addition, some animals exposed to DDT in studies developed liver tumors. As a result, today, DDT is classified as a probable human carcinogen by U.S. and international authorities.
DDT is:
• known to be very persistent in the environment,
• will accumulate in fatty tissues, and
• can travel long distances in the upper atmosphere.
Yep folks, that just goes to show you.. Open-d knows a whole lot more about DDT than the EPA. Ain't that grand? Doesn't it make you want to say.. who needs the EPA when we have social media! And OMG what would we do without the assurances of such luminaries anyways?
Posts: 5,640
Threads: 101
Joined: Dec 2008
Speaking of people pretending to be volcanologists..
No, let's see instead what Bloomberg says about the ruling. The experts aren't particularly worried.
Good news for US soy farmers too.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...pesticides
Posts: 14,105
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
Open-d knows a whole lot more about DDT than the EPA. Ain't that grand?
Well, that was fast.
Posts: 5,640
Threads: 101
Joined: Dec 2008
So the FDA isn't to be trusted but the EPA is? I'm getting confused.
quote:
Originally posted by PaulW
I'll type slowly so you can understand. If you succumb to the uneducated mob and put GMO on labels then what's to stop every special interest group from demanding that their fetish be put on the label as well. "Prepared by lefthanders", "Harvested on a Wednesday", "Touched by non-believers".
There isn't enough room. How about we stick to stuff that is actually useful.
Nothing stopping people from putting "GMO free!" on their labels if they want to. It's all about freedom of choice and not having others' opinions imposed on those who actually know what they're talking about.
I agree. There is nothing wrong with GMO and it doesn't need to be labeled anymore than the variety of green bean, or tomato needs to be applied. It's just another political football in the hands of the left to further complicate society to the point where people start to check out. If a company wants to market their product as non-GMO, that's fine, but it's marketing flannel and nothing more.
quote:
Originally posted by kalakoa
Open-d knows a whole lot more about DDT than the EPA. Ain't that grand?
Well, that was fast.
Let me splain it. There was a legitimate scientific agency study done by the agency, after long study, it was shown and concluded that DDT was basically harmless.
Administration's changed, and a new director swept that aside and imposed his own will (he didn't like DDT), and literally millions (of PEOPLE, not birds) have died as a result. Millions more will die, and millions after that.
You probably don't care because they have brown (not blue) eyes, but some of us think it is a crime tantamount to mass murder. Innocent people were condemned to death by a member of the SWAMP in order to appease his agenda. I say once more, MILLIONS of PEOPLE are now skeletons, murdered in homage to a leftist nut case's agenda. But of course, since they have (or had) brown eyes, it's a shrugger for you.
And please, never ever again mischaracterize my position. I didn't say I knew more about it than the EPA. I said that the previous director of the agency knew more about it than the following "report" indicated. I merely pass on the facts to inform those still in the dark.
quote:
Originally posted by glinda
Actually, and factually, with DDT there are no long terms hazards or risks.
I love PW, there are almost as many armchair chemists as there are volcanologists here. A virtual laboratory filled with the finest and brightest. Sheesh we're doing way better than Trump on that score. His cabinet has nothing on our "board members." And hey, we don't have any dogs. Well, unless you count Merlin. And, we are all, to a man/woman reality show contestants!
From: https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pes...and-status
In 1972, EPA issued a cancellation order for DDT based on its adverse environmental effects, such as those to wildlife, as well as its potential human health risks. Since then, studies have continued, and a relationship between DDT exposure and reproductive effects in humans is suspected, based on studies in animals. In addition, some animals exposed to DDT in studies developed liver tumors. As a result, today, DDT is classified as a probable human carcinogen by U.S. and international authorities.
DDT is:
• known to be very persistent in the environment,
• will accumulate in fatty tissues, and
• can travel long distances in the upper atmosphere.
Yep folks, that just goes to show you.. Open-d knows a whole lot more about DDT than the EPA. Ain't that grand? Doesn't it make you want to say.. who needs the EPA when we have social media! And OMG what would we do without the assurances of such luminaries anyways?
And death from Malaria and other mossy-born pathogens isn't a maybe, isn't a tend to collect in fatty tissue, its genocide by disease that could easily be stopped by use of an insecticide. But since DDT may collect in some fatty tissue, they must DIE, by the millions. Does that not have any impact on you at all. Millions die from mossy-born disease? ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Perhaps they should classify death from malaria etc., as a probable risk to reproductive health. I mean really. Those people are DEAD, and they aren't coming back. And more will follow - but of course, as I said, their eyes are brown so its a ho-hummer.
Posts: 1,674
Threads: 81
Joined: Aug 2014
If you're saying we'll all die so it doesn't matter what type of life choices are made or what chemicals we ingest because everything is made of chemicals:
I say laughable. Might as well slam those speedballs, drink those 5ths and chainsmoke 3 packs of cigs a day under that logic.
If you're saying the label of our food is too small to print all the chemicals used during the lifetime of the food:
I say B.S. That isn't true. Make room. It could, and should be done.
If you're crying foul about the possibility of your precious Roundup being banned and that pseudo-scenario is infringing on your civil rights:
I say, there, there. Come closer and I'll pat your soggy back as I console you. I'm sure many farmers and golf-course managers and professional care takers whinged and puled and cried foul when their DDT got banned or agent orange or whatever.
I'm sure those gold-miners griped and yammered when the EPA made them limit the use of mercury in processing. I'm sure many a people in various industries bitched and moaned as their precious chemicals got regulated or banned or limited. So you follow a long line of bellyachers no worry you have their empathy too.
|
