Posted on 11/04/2013 10:55:03 AM PST by KeyLargo
“Maybe you’d prefer farmers use 2,4-D?”
Already being developed due to weed resistance to glyphosate.
“2,4 D making comeback
While Monsanto pursues dicamba resistant soy beans, Dow AgroSciences is developing soy beans resistant to 2,4 D.”
I have never posted or suggested that glyphosate causes cancer, cite please?
That it binds the estrogen receptor is the subject of that particular paper. That it binds as an agonist was demonstrated.
I just have one very important question. Do you eat GMO food that contains glyphosate? Do you feed it to your children? Do you spray the sidewalk in front of your home with it? Please say yes to all these :) Please?
Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors.
LOL. Yeah, you're so nuanced. Just like algore.
That it binds as an agonist was demonstrated.
Except for the fact that it doesn't bind with human hormone receptors - just keep ignoring all of the inconvenient evidence to the contrary....but I'm sure these folks will attract enough money to study the "problem" further.
Why is it the least informed among us are always the first ones to throw up a bunch of links to studies they don't understand, and then expect others to accept it as proof of....well, something? You do that often, and it appears that most of the time your links have nothing to do with whatever spurious claim you happen to be making at the time.
But that's not what's really important.....I'm really hoping that you will please tell me that you have not, and will not, be producing any offspring. Please tell me it is so!
“LOL. Yeah, you’re so nuanced. Just like algore.”
I didn’t write the article or title it. I’m not sure why you’re criticizing me for the authors choice of titles?
I have another question. Do you work for Exponent inc?
Based on this thread, the only one with elevated levels of estrogen is you.
Nice.
Any scientific comeback then?
No?
Do you work for Exponent as well?
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
MARKETPLACE
Business
Some Food Companies Ditch ‘Natural’ Label
Amid Lawsuits Over the Claim, More Producers Drop the Word
By Mike Esterl
Updated Nov. 6, 2013 12:07 a.m. ET
Now you see them. Now you don’t. Food products labeled as “natural” are starting to disappear.
A growing number of food and drink companies are quietly removing “all natural” claims from packages amid lawsuits challenging the “naturalness” of everything. Mike Esterl reports on the News Hub. Photo: Naked Juice.
“Natural” Goldfish crackers will soon be just Goldfish. “All Natural” Naked juice is going stark Naked. “All Natural’’ Puffins cereal is turning into plain old Puffins.
A growing number of food and drink companies including PepsiCo Inc. and Campbell Soup Co. are quietly removing these claims from packages amid lawsuits challenging the “naturalness” of everything from potato chips to ice cream to granola bars.
Food labeled “natural’’ raked in more than $40 billion in U.S. retail sales over the past 12 months. That is second only to food claiming to be low in fat, according to Nielsen. A survey last year by Mintel, another market research company, found 51% of Americans seek out “all natural’’ when food shopping.
The problem is, “natural” has no clear meaning.
The Food and Drug Administration has no definition, says a spokeswoman, but rather a long-standing policy that it considers “natural’’ to mean that “nothing artificial or synthetic (including all color additives regardless of source) has been included in, or has been added to, a food that would not normally be expected to be in the food.’’ The agency’s website says it is “difficult to define a food product that is ‘natural’ because the food has probably been processed and is no longer the product of the earth.”
Snip[... “That year it launched Frito-Lay’s largest marketing campaign ever, “Seed to Shelf,’’ and emblazoned “all natural’’ on Lay’s potato chips, Tostitos tortilla chips, multigrain SunChips and Rold Gold pretzels. But by last year, several lawsuits against PepsiCo alleged the chips and pretzels contained GMOs and additives such as caramel color, citric acid and maltodextrin. The “all natural’’ labels have quietly disappeared and the litigation is pending.
A Frito-Lay spokesman said the snack maker is “constantly updating’’ its packaging and, like Kellogg and Beam, declined to comment on the lawsuits.
In 2009 PepsiCo acquired Naked Juice Co., which started out selling small batches from a backpack on Santa Monica Beach. At the time, PepsiCo said Naked juices were made from “the best bare-naked fruits’’ and represented its continuing expansion into “natural, healthy, good-for-you products.’’
But in July PepsiCo agreed to pay $9 million to settle a class action alleging the juices contained GMOs and chemically processed vitamins. Naked is made with “all-natural fruits and vegetables’’ but the wording is being removed “until there is more detailed regulatory guidance,’’ PepsiCo said.”
Snip...”Barbara’s Bakery Inc., the maker of Puffins cereal and Snackimal crackers, paid $4 million this summer to settle a suit accusing it of using some nonnatural ingredients. The company, a pioneer of the natural-foods movement, in recent weeks changed its logo to “Since 1971’’ instead of “All Natural Since 1971.’’
Barbara’s says it used to define natural as “no artificial preservatives, flavors, colors or ingredients’’ but that it now believes the term is “vague and confusing.’’ It instead plans to rely on terms such as “simple,’’ “wholesome,’’ “nutritious’’ and “minimally processed.’’ Barbara’s also says it began eliminating GMOs in 2011 and has secured non-GMO verification for nearly 80% of its products, which it touts on new packaging.”
Read today’s full Wall Street Journal report here:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304470504579163933732367084#printMode
My whole point in bringing up this incestuous relationship is to say that if you think government in general or the USDA in specific is there for the purpose of protecting you, you are very naive. They are there for the purpose of the acquisition of power by those who control them. Protecting you is their cover story when it is convenient for them to do so.
The whole part about "Our food must be safe because we are living longer now".... I think you may need to reevaluate that. If you control for deaths due to war, accidents caused by substandard living conditions and hazardous working conditions, basic sanitation improvements, advances in surgery, diagnostics and vaccinations; I would venture to bet we are currently living much shorter lifespans than ever before. Go take a stroll down any isle in Walmart and tell me that the people you see look like the pictures of health that you seem to think they are. Go look at pictures or video of people out in public from the 1920's, 1950's or even 1980's and compare and contrast them to the people you see in Walmart. Then tell me the food supply which is regulated by the USDA and provided by Big Ag is fine.
Go to your local pharmacy and see how much shelf space is dedicated to diabetes supplies. Maybe our rate of 27% of our seniors having diabetes compared to other countries who have 1/3 to 1/2 that rate is because our seniors are so much lazier....but I doubt that. Most seniors everywhere are pretty sedentary. Could it be that nearly everything our seniors eat contains GMO corn and soy?
It is clear to everyone, there has to be something wrong with the American food supply to cause us to veer so drastically off the normal course as compared to past generations and current world populations. What is your guess as to the problem, if not the ubiquitous presence of GMO soy, dairy, sugar beets and corn (in hfcs, starch, animal feed, cooking oil, etc...) The emergence of which happened to coincide with our veering off course? Not to mention the fact that many of these products receive subsidies so that they are produced in quantities that skew the free market demand for them.
The scientific consensus of the 1800's was that bleeding patients was helpful, not washing hands was fine and people got sick from "bad air". This was the infancy of modern medicine and those who had unprovable "feelings" that doctors didn't know what the hell they were doing were ultimately better off. My "feelings" tell me that you have absolutely no idea exactly how harmful GMO food is despite all of your assurances.
Because this is only a "feeling" as you say and not concrete fact, I am not calling for a ban, tax, prohibition, regulation, license, fee or anything else. Much like the way we treat allergenic ingredients (peanuts,shellfish,etc..), I just simply want a label. If I am wrong then, Oh Well. I am the dummy that paid more for non-GMO products for no reason. I am not forcing anyone else to do the same.
“Farm Bill Coming Soon
In the next few weeks, Congress will start talking about a “Farm Bill” again. The bad part is: it’s a pork filled corporate hand out, and it may pass.
Grassroots activists already beat the DC Establishment’s Farm Bill once this year. But DC Insiders hope to catch the rest of the country off-guard.
For decades Establishment Republicans and Democrats have worked to ensure the Farm Bill passes. Their corporate cronies spend millions of dollars lobbying for special subsidies, leaving family farms struggling to compete.”
“Farm Bill: Good for Politicians and Lobbyists – Bad for America
How does Congress enormously expand food stamps? Now called SNAP - Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
Answer: Don’t mention food stamps or SNAP. Talk only of the euphemistic Farm Bill and hide the fact that 80% of the trillion dollar Farm Bill is for food stamps.
The Washington Post aptly explains the politics –er...log rolling. Politician’s from the cities acquire more food stamps while rural politicians receive more in farm subsidies.
Every five years Congress passed a farm bill that represented a deal between urban and rural states. The city folk got food stamps to help the urban poor (and the grocery chains that sell to them) and the rural folk got subsidies for commodity producers, as well as the boost in demand from food stamps.
Thus, city-Democrats and rural-Republicans both support the Farm Bill, but, again, don’t mention food stamps. Read the recent words of Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich.:
“Because the Agriculture Committee worked across party lines to cut unnecessary programs and streamline others, we were able to reduce the deficit while strengthening initiatives that boost exports, help family farmers sell locally and spur innovations in new bio-manufacturing and bio-energy industries.”
Again, no mention of food stamps. But how did bio-manufacturing and bio-energy get included? More log-rolling. Knowing the Farm Bill easily passes, every interest group attempts to become part of the log-rolling. Hence, the Farm Bill includes subsidies, conservation, trade, rural development, research, energy, forestry and much more.
Harmfully, America has more and more politicians with zillions of pet projects supporting the Farm Bill. Food stamps and the myriad of collateral programs expand without a serious debate on the efficacy and cost of these projects.
Will there be resistance by any political group? The Republicans? Probably not.”
http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/teda/farm-bill-good-for-politicians-and-lobbyists-%E2%80%93-bad
The secret, dirty cost of Obama’s green power push
By Associated Press
November 12, 2013 | 8:58am
CORYDON, Iowa — The hills of southern Iowa bear the scars of America’s push for green energy: The brown gashes where rain has washed away the soil. The polluted streams that dump fertilizer into the water supply.
Even the cemetery that disappeared like an apparition into a cornfield.
It wasn’t supposed to be this way.
With the Iowa political caucuses on the horizon in 2007, presidential candidate Barack Obama made homegrown corn a centerpiece of his plan to slow global warming. And when President George W. Bush signed a law that year requiring oil companies to add billions of gallons of ethanol to their gasoline each year, Bush predicted it would make the country “stronger, cleaner and more secure.”
But the ethanol era has proven far more damaging to the environment than politicians promised and much worse than the government admits today.
As farmers rushed to find new places to plant corn, they wiped out millions of acres of conservation land, destroyed habitat and polluted water supplies, an Associated Press investigation found.
Five million acres of land set aside for conservation — more than Yellowstone, Everglades and Yosemite National Parks combined — have vanished on Obama’s watch.
Modal Trigger
Landowners filled in wetlands. They plowed into pristine prairies, releasing carbon dioxide that had been locked in the soil.
Sprayers pumped out billions of pounds of fertilizer, some of which seeped into drinking water, contaminated rivers and worsened the huge dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico where marine life can’t survive.
The consequences are so severe that environmentalists and many scientists have now rejected corn-based ethanol as bad environmental policy. But the Obama administration stands by it, highlighting its benefits to the farming industry rather than any negative impact.
Farmers planted 15 million more acres of corn last year than before the ethanol boom, and the effects are visible in places like south central Iowa.
Read at:
http://nypost.com/2013/11/12/the-secret-dirty-cost-of-obamas-green-power-push/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.