# Glyphosate In Food?



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

The FDA wants to know....

Regards, Mike

http://www.agweb.com/article/is-glyphosate-in-our-food-fda-wants-to-know-naa-sonja-begemann/


----------



## glasswrongsize (Sep 15, 2015)

This Prop 65 (and related battles) thing is gonna get nasty, ain't it!!

Even if the FDA finds residue, the claim of its possible harm has not been established by any other than the WHO.

Even if all the science gets "settled", this is the same gummint that has been the enforcement arm of Monsanto to the chagrin of many well-intended farmers. Now it appears that the worm has turned and the gummint hates Monsanto.

Anything out of the any gummint organization's mouth is worthless, as it is well documented that this administration will use the regulatory agencies to attack any party that it does not like. (IRS vs Conservatives and the NOAA thing immediately come to mind as examples).

Bottom line: this gummint has put itself in business of picking winners and losers, so THEY can't be trusted; Monsanto had been using the gummint's agencies against the farmers in nefarious ways, so THEY can't be trusted either.

73, Mark


----------



## NewBerlinBaler (May 30, 2011)

Another nail in Monsanto's coffin. As I posted recently, if you own any stock in this outfit - sell!

Gary


----------



## luke strawwalker (Jul 31, 2014)

I was discussing this very thing with my wife last night... We've entered the age of what's been identified in the space business decades ago and called "analysis paralysis"... We're basically drowning in data, and using all the data we get to scream for "more data"... it all heaps up to the point that it's gonna get to where nobody can get anything done because of it...

Case in point... I went to an extension program a few years ago where they gave probably THE most detailed presentation on mycotoxins (aflatoxin and many others) in grains and oilseeds that I've ever heard... had one weird post-grad type with coke-bottle glasses and bad hair come in and give a presentation on ammoniating grain to convert aflatoxin to protein, and showing how the chemical reaction works to do that, and how its REVERSIBLE and if the grain gets too hot (it gives off heat during ammoniation due to the chemical reaction, which then must be removed through aeration blowing cool air through the grain to remove the heat-- but if the grain gets hot in storage (due to being stored in hot bins in a hot climate, like Texas, the ammonia can chemically "break free" from the grain and the aflatoxin turns back into aflatoxin as gaseous ammonia escapes). Anyway, another part of the presentation was talking about some of the more exotic mycotoxins, and how they're tested down to parts per BILLION... which, he explained, is about like putting ONE DROP of food coloring in an Olympic size swimming pool...

During a break, I talked with the presenter... "I've seen all the pictures of healthy goose livers fed aflatoxin free grain, and withered white livers of geese fed only extremely high levels of aflatoxin-infected grain. Grandma asked me "what's the big deal with this aflatoxin?? We never even HEARD of that in the old days... we used to pick corn, store it in the crib, as a kid I'd have to go pull some ears out of the crib, shell it with the crank sheller, grind it up, and feed the cattle and horses and chickens and stuff, and we'd even fan some to clean it and grind it and bring it in the house and make cornbread and stuff, and we never got sick or died from it... (she lived to 92, so I guess the old timers did something right). Why NOW is it such a big deal??"

"Well", he said, "when I was in college, I worked in the lab... it took us a week using the full resources and equipment of the lab in very delicate procedures to test samples for aflatoxin, and only in parts per million. By the seventies, we had streamlined the process so that it could be done simply in any grain elevator, which is when they started testing the grain at delivery. Testing in parts per BILLION was still a complicated laboratory process, but now with new technology we're getting to the point where we can field test at points per billion, or will in a few years...

The simple answer is, we didn't have the technology to TEST FOR STUFF in a practical way decades ago... NOW WE CAN... because we can test for it, NOW IT'S A PROBLEM that we have to deal with..."

Of course, the converse of that is "how big a problem?" but that question never seems to get asked...

Thing is, EVERYTHING is a friggin' carcinogen at some level... and it's COMPLETELY subjective... some people are highly susceptible to having a problem from certain things, some aren't. That's why everything from radiation to chemical exposure is rated in "LD-50" (lethal dose-50, which is, the dose at which 50% of an exposed group will die from the exposure). Some people smoke a few cigarettes in high school and get lung cancer and die in their 20's or 30's... Some people, like my great aunt, dip snuff and spit in a diet Dr. Pepper can they keep under the ironing board, starting at 12 and never have a sick day in their life and die at 90... it just depends on the person's predisposal and sensitivity and exposure and predilection to get sick and die... It depends as much on the person as it does the environment and the material. Yes, some materials are proven to be highly carcinogenic (PCB's come to mind) even in vanishingly small amounts, but that's STILL *only* half the equation... susceptibility of the person plays a HUGE role...

I've read of guys who took a near instantly-fatal dose of radiation, (800-900 rads) and lived (though that's in the dose range >LD-90... IIRC the LD100 for ionizing radiation is 1000 rads) Of course they weren't in very good shape for awhile, and suffered long-term effects from it, and were virtually certain to develop cancer at some point from it if they didn't die of complications of other causes related to it, but the simple fact is it should have killed them within days, but they lived through it. It just depends on the individual... some folks have died from less than 200 rads, which is the point at which most folks start getting a solid case of radiation sickness, and almost nobody actually dies from...

Then there's the matter of contamination... it's been statistically proven that every human being on Earth carries at least ONE plutonium atom in their body from atomic testing and nuclear releases since the 40's... Plutonium is one of the most toxic substances on Earth... plus we all carry various actinides and radioisotopes, some naturally occurring and some manmade, from nuclear weapons testing and nuclear accidents and releases and just from the friggin' environment. The load of chemical based carcinogens we all carry in varying amounts is thousands of times more vast... again, some manmade, others naturally occurring...

Also, you cannot PROVE that a given person's cancer was SPECIFICALLY CAUSED by any one particular contaminant unless that person has an overwhelming dose... and even then it's conjectural. Doses of various things that never make one person even feel bad is enough to kill some other rare person. It's a matter of degrees... If a person has MASSIVE exposure to PCB's, which are incredibly carcinogenic, and they develop cancer, it's a pretty safe assumption that the PCB exposure is the cause. But, someone exposed to say Roundup, which *MAY* be carcinogenic AT SOME LEVEL, who happens to have a few molecules of it in their bloodstream, how do you *prove* that IT is the cause of their illness?? Maybe they cook their meat too long and got cancer from excessive carbon and various carcinogenic chemical compounds formed in food cooked too long at excessive temperatures... who knows, and who can say??

Yet, these sorts of tests have made it possible to detect a few molecules of a substance floating around inside a person's body, and the leap has been taken that gubmint should be making policy and regulatory decisions based on these "numbers", but not even the scientists can agree on what they actually mean...

It's like car wrecks... tens of thousands of people die every year in car wrecks, but nobody is seriously talking about outlawing automobiles... (a few nutters to be sure-- there always are the fringe nutcases in ANY human endeavor). It's a "calculated risk" where the individual weighs the risk/benefit relationship and makes their own decision.

It's like this manmade global warming stuff-- you can pull up all sorts of numbers, but they mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. To the treehuggers and nutters, it means "instant doom" and gives them the rallying cry to force everyone to become Luddites... To others its a symptom of an ever changing environment on a planet that has had radically different environments throughout its history, and which in fact the last 100,000 years has been particularly benign and more of an aberration than the "norm"...

It's really a mess, and all I see this sort of "analysis paralysis" doing is making the US continually less competitive and weakening our capability to produce in the future... and I can guarantee you one thing-- when these city slickers have to get their food from South America and places like that, you'll eat what they want to sell you or [email protected] well do without...

Everybody wants to regulate everything out of existence, but then they'll be the first ones to scream and whine and moan when the prices quadruple at the grocery store or the shelves are bare... (which incidentally is what they deserve-- stupidity comes with a price, and the idiots in this country have forgotten that over the last century).

Later! OL J R


----------



## Ray 54 (Aug 2, 2014)

The studies I saw that they were using to show Roundup causing cancer came from third world countries and the water had a high mineral or PH problem.The people using it in back pack sprayers with no thought to keeping it off themselfs or an safety equipment such as rubber gloves.But it must be someones fault we don't all live to 100.

Very much agree with JR in the testing to higher levels all the time.Back in 73 in a Ag econ 101 class had a professor say new technology always help the economy,I asked about the same as JR talked about going from parts per thousand to parts per million. He was taken aback that a freshman could say something to challenge him.He never said I was right but did give it some thought. I guess if your a big grain company and discounting grain for mycotoxins and not the farmer they are helping you.

The comments after the AG WEB story look like they came from people that would starve if they had to grow all there own food.


----------



## IHCman (Aug 27, 2011)

Luke, just wondering, how often do you replace your keyboard? you must wear out one a month.

Just teasin. I like reading your posts so keep it up.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

I need to be more careful with roundup. I've probably gotten more on my skin and inhaled a little more mist than I should have. 
Then again, I could be subjecting myself to greater danger from eating bacon.


----------



## deadmoose (Oct 30, 2011)

JD3430 said:


> I need to be more careful with roundup. I've probably gotten more on my skin and inhaled a little more mist than I should have.
> Then again, I could be subjecting myself to greater danger from eating bacon.


Don't be dissing bacon...


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

The PFOA's in my non stick frying pans cant be doing me much good, either.

BTW: I just bought my first PFOA free non-stick fry pan! Freakin thing's awesome!


----------



## deadmoose (Oct 30, 2011)

JD3430 said:


> The PFOA's in my non stick frying pans cant be doing me much good, either.
> BTW: I just bought my first PFOA free non-stick fry pan! Freakin thing's awesome!


Cast iron? Non stick and last longer than any of us will.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

deadmoose said:


> Cast iron? Non stick and last longer than any of us will.


Cast Iron non stick? Not for me! Wrecks my scrapple & eggs every time.

Gotta do the PAM. I don't like the PAM.

However, my "one that got away" was named PAM. Ooooooh my goodness.....dont get me started on Pam!


----------



## glasswrongsize (Sep 15, 2015)

JD3430 said:


> Cast Iron non stick? Not for me! Wrecks my scrapple & eggs every time.
> 
> Gotta do the PAM. I don't like the PAM.
> 
> However, my "one that got away" was named PAM. Ooooooh my goodness.....dont get me started on Pam!


No teflon OR aluminum pots/pans here. Conflicting stories say that aluminum may or may not have links to Alzheimer's. So I don't use aluminum pans (in case it does) and drink my loudmouth-stew out of a can (in case it don't).

Gotta get them cast skillets seasoned and they're pretty good. And you don't need PAM (not the Pam WITH the nice can, the Pam IN the can) for cooking in cast iron. When you butcher, save the hog's tail; that lump of fat on the end is what you grease ur skillet with. Get the skillet hot and rub it around in there a little to coat it. The tails work best from scalded hogs 'cause you scrape the hair off; I reckon you could just singe the hair off ifn you skin your hogs. That tail make a nice handle for that lump of fat at the stub.

73, Mark


----------



## luke strawwalker (Jul 31, 2014)

IHCman said:


> Luke, just wondering, how often do you replace your keyboard? you must wear out one a month.
> 
> Just teasin. I like reading your posts so keep it up.


You computer date long enough you too can type like a court reporter... LOL

Later! OL J R


----------

