Papaya Farm Vandalism

[rainyjim]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big_Island

I too would like to know why trolling is allowed in the anti-geo and anti gmo thread's and not allowed in others?

---

[TomK]

WTF is going on here?

[peteadams]

What seems to be going on here is that Rainyjim seems to be trying to assume the hall monitor role. Unfortunately he is cluttering up the thread with excess verbiage, which I'll admit is a redundant phrase before someone corrects me.

[Rob Tucker]

Rainyjim, I do not like it when people decide to play Punaweb cop. That's my job. Cut it out.

Assume the best and ask questions.

Punaweb moderator

[peteadams]

Back on topic, yes, pesticide in its dictionary definition encompasses any type of pest, plant or animal. In practical agricultural terms pesticide is entirely used for animals, mostly insects, and the herbicide term is used for plants.

As far as Roundup goes, the label states that "The product is considered relatively nontoxic to dogs and other domestic animals" but if they ingest it in quantity will result in gastrointestinal irritation, but no indication of long term effects, which is how I've always understood the hazard. So don't drink it. There is no such hazard warning for people but the GI irritation should be assumed. Toxicity can be more due to other materials added to enhance the effect of the chemical. Roundup contains a surfactant (a soap) to enhance its penetration into plant leaves which could be irritating (such as the diarrhea noted in the label) in its own right in larger quantities. Also note that the label indicates that mitigation for people is simply wearing long sleeved shirts, long pants and socks with your shoes. This is of course good advice for handling any chemical concentrate, including the ordinary household sort, but it is also very standard boilerplate and the lowest level of mitigation for ag labels. I've read a lot of them. I wouldn't expect the EPA to not include any warning and in this case it included a minimal one.

[microage97]

It has never had studies done on the health effect of breathing it as you spray it on......

[OpenD]

quote:

---

Originally posted by james weatherford And, in fact, a major application of GM technology has been and continues to be to facilitate the sale of a major pesticide -- glyphosate (commercially sold by Monsanto as 'Roundup'). This chemical is now 'off-patent', meaning the original patent no longer prevents other companies from manufacturing and selling glyphosate (but not under the name 'Roundup', which is trademarked). However, with the patent on the GM technology used in 'Roundup Ready' corn and soybeans, Monsanto does maintain considerable market power.

---

The two original glyphosate resistant soybean varieties Monsanto released are also off patent, so now they can be grown without license or royalties by seed-savers or customers of generic seed producers.

Patents expire. That's why the whole "Monsanto wants to patent everything" fear seems hugely overblown to me.

[seekir]

quote:

---

The largest use of GMO technology has been in 'corn' (maize) and soybeans for the purposes of allowing use of glyphosate...

---

This may be true. The assertion also tends to encourage the notion that GM and and pesticide application are always associated. They are not. Again blanket condemnation of the technology because of misuse or industry manipulation of agriculture by specific actors should be carefully considered in my view as an issue distinct from the value of the GM technique itself. The thread is a response to vandalism of papaya farms, not corn or soybeans, and so far I've heard little in the thread that suggests to me that this use of GM is detrimental in any way.