Rounding up more monsantoinsanity

"I believe the threat we are facing from this pathogen is unique and of a high risk status," Huber wrote. "In layman's terms, it should be treated as an emergency."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/24/us-monsanto-roundup-idUSTRE71N4XN20110224

What on earth is an "electron microscopic pathogen" supposed to be?  Is it something he found with an electron microscope? can you find his paper or press release? It seems to me like SEM or TEM data is cutting edge from 20 years ago, but now the thing to do would be to release sequencing data or proteomic analysis. Heck he doesn't even say if it's a bacteria, an archaea, a eukaryote, or a virus.

http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/may10/consequenceso_widespread_glyphosate_use.php

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2011/02/20/scientists-warn-of-link-between-dangerou

Can't tell if his most recent research is published at this time.    Appears that he has spent 20 years studying it.

I looked him up but I only found things he researched on micronutrients (he was blaming glyphosate for chelating them, which doesn't seem like a likely mechanism of action) but he doesn't seem to have published much in journals lately, mostly just extension service pamphlets, which are telling not showing.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/newPathogenInRoundupReadyGMCrops.php

Unique Physical Properties
This previously unknown organism is only visible under an electron microscope (36,000X), with an approximate size range equal to a medium size virus. It is able to reproduce and appears to be a micro-fungal-like organism. If so, it would be the first such micro-fungus ever identified. There is strong evidence that this infectious agent promotes diseases of both plants and mammals, which is very rare.

Here's another, this one is revealing.
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/225030-Monsanto-Shifts-ALL-Liability-to-Farmers

Time to break out the tinfoil hats...

This guy is doing science by press release, he is making lots of claims but doing very little to back them up. Since these crops have been around for about 20 years now I doubt seriously that it is such an emergency that we cannot wait to learn more about this impossible organism, a fungus that is about 1/20th the size of a fungus, and can infect corn, soy, and cows and pigs. I'm reminded of Oscillococcium, the mythical bacteria that was associated with all illness, but only ever seen by one scientist through oil immersion microscopes he had never been trained to use, while everyone else saw Brownian motion on oil droplet artifacts.

a friend posted this yesterday `

First genetically engineered crop ordered to be destroyed  by court

http://www.examiner.com/holistic-health-in-atlanta/first-genetically-engineered-crop-ordered-to-be-destroyed

found this one  a little more detailed(just a little)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/12/01/us-monsanto-sugarbeets-ruling-idUSTRE6B00Y520101201

Here is a closer look at the claims made http://www.biofortified.org/2011/02/purdue-extension-comments-on-recent-glyphosate-stories/

no worries our saviors at monsatan co. have already avoided the unjust order to destroy their world hunger preventing sugar beet crop
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/25/monsanto-ruling-idUSN2514326820110225

all bow to monsatan

Emerson White wrote:
Here is a closer look at the claims made http://www.biofortified.org/2011/02/purdue-extension-comments-on-recent-glyphosate-stories/

OK Emerson, I know you know a lot more about this than I do by your posts over the last year. (man, I really want to use the word "but" right now)    I've quoted part of the article that to me kills their argument.

Despite the potential for herbicides to increase disease levels in certain plants, plant pathologists have NOT observed a widespread increase in susceptibility to plant diseases in glyphosate-resistant corn and soybean….

…Although some research indicates there is an increase in disease severity on plants in the presence of glyphosate, it does NOT necessarily mean that there is an impact on yield. The most important point to make about the majority of research available on glyphosate-disease interactions is that the research does not always quantify the effect of glyphosate-influenced disease development on yield. Despite claims linking glyphosate use to increases in yield-limiting diseases such as Goss’s wilt of corn, or sudden death syndrome (SDS) of soybean, we are not aware of published research that fully examines the impact of glyphosate on disease development and yield under disease pressure.

The words "Despite the potential" and "we are not aware of published research" means to me that its possible and no one has done the research!

Also, why would I want "increase in disease severity on plants in the presence of glyphosate" in my food chain?

I think that (A) you can probably say but to me about this issue, I think Paul would forgive you and (B) that was my impression too, but I don't think the fact that no one has does the research chases out to a meaningful conclusion. Disease doesn't always mean low yield, sometimes it means higher yields, as a plant shunts around resources in order to give the seeds a better chance. If you listen to the podcast you doubtlessly heard Paul discuss raspberries and water, and how a little water stress can mean better berries. It is a very large inductive leap to go from increased disease severity to magic virus fungi however.

      Actually the research has not fully been done on this specific topic of interaction with disease. not widespread anyway, heck we just now found a possible indication there may be issues. My guess is that this is something naturally all ready around, but due to the roundup throwing whatever kept this stuff in check out of whack its growing better... just a guess the research doesnt appear to have been done in a complete way yet.


        as far as disease in general, theres some work going on in the industry for that. theres many unniversites, and amateurs doing it with different things. I think if permaculture ever fully encompasses  the power of breeding though that the best way forward with disease is to have wider genetic bases, and continue to incorporate new genetics, the use of landraces and similar ideas.

        because besides being able to resist a disease, there is also another angle. If theres a wider range of genetics to start less disease will form to begin with.

        Our current breeding for many dominate crops focuses on some very slim ranges of genetics, with the full range of things including animals. thats a breeding ground for disease. with or without round up.

         

Emerson White wrote:
Time to break out the tinfoil hats...

This guy is doing science by press release, he is making lots of claims but doing very little to back them up. Since these crops have been around for about 20 years now I doubt seriously that it is such an emergency that we cannot wait to learn more about this impossible organism, a fungus that is about 1/20th the size of a fungus, and can infect corn, soy, and cows and pigs. I'm reminded of Oscillococcium, the mythical bacteria that was associated with all illness, but only ever seen by one scientist through oil immersion microscopes he had never been trained to use, while everyone else saw Brownian motion on oil droplet artifacts.

well if you dont look for something you might not find it. GMOs are not labeled. Weve got many examples of them more then appearing not to be safe. Many small studies indicating this also. Yet the stuff isnt labeled. So how would we know?

many types of issues are on the rise. Could they be related to food? We know diet plays a crucial role in the health of an organism no matter what type. So which ARE related to food? weve got many others toxins around us these days also, so no jumping to conclusions needs to happen. heck there are a few thousand checmicals that its legal to use in processing and packaging that they dont have to mention. Theres literally NO way to look at the population and wonder what potential side effects there are.

We really should step back and have these things prove themselves BEFORE they are readily used, instead of put them out there after small or no studies, and then essentially hide the effects since if one of many things is the trigger it wouldnt stick out in a cocktail of other things. Just common sense really. none of those uses are SO needed we should subvert our own safety over it.

I do not feel like your last two posts were on subject. Studies are good, but haven't been done really, but that position of ignorance isn't really a powerful position to make an argument from. Why would someone release a story with a whole lot of fright in it, based on a find that is six kinds of impossible on an instrument that they aren't trained to use?

I don't see how anything you said rescues this news item from the fact that he doesn't seem to know what he is talking about, and went a route that insulated his claims from scrutiny instead of exposing them to scrutiny.

Emerson White wrote:
I do not feel like your last two posts were on subject. Studies are good, but haven't been done really, but that position of ignorance isn't really a powerful position to make an argument from. Why would someone release a story with a whole lot of fright in it, based on a find that is six kinds of impossible on an instrument that they aren't trained to use?

I don't see how anything you said rescues this news item from the fact that he doesn't seem to know what he is talking about, and went a route that insulated his claims from scrutiny instead of exposing them to scrutiny.

which is why I went broader with what i wrote. they are real issues. People need fuller perspectives of them. We shouldnt be using these things will nilly without fully proving safety first. disease nature shows us is best fought by diversity of genetics within a plant species. we can grow and evovlve our plants with us...

It is true that we know in relation to disease these large companies are setting us up poorly. having relied on to narrow a band of genetics if nothing else. Disease and these big companies are the topic of the thread.

I also dont think its off topic to mention that we have hordes of things that we havent truly studied yet in regards to our food directly and its processing and packaging. all of these relate back into the base topics of the thread. Atleast in my eyes.

The thing that I really dislike is that this story, that clearly is not evidence of anything broader than incompetence, is being wrapped in to a larger argument. In 5 years I will still be explaining to people that there is no nanofungus, and that it was just the result of someone using an instrument that they didn't understand.  This argument shouldn't be used at all for anything, but it's getting lashed into a larger argument and I really think that all that does is stand between us and reality.

Emerson White wrote:
The thing that I really dislike is that this story, that clearly is not evidence of anything broader than incompetence, is being wrapped in to a larger argument. In 5 years I will still be explaining to people that there is no nanofungus, and that it was just the result of someone using an instrument that they didn't understand.  This argument shouldn't be used at all for anything, but it's getting lashed into a larger argument and I really think that all that does is stand between us and reality.

that may very well turn out to be true. it has on many issues. to early to make a judgment call imo, but we will see. Its also the reason i wanted to lay out a bit about related issues.

Don't you see you've already made a judgement call, you and a whole bunch of people are already wrapping this into the bigger picture. I think that it is too early to make a judgement call on glyphoisate and crop disease, that's what the blog I linked too said too, but this news story flying around does precisely that.

Emerson White wrote:
Don't you see you've already made a judgement call, you and a whole bunch of people are already wrapping this into the bigger picture. I think that it is too early to make a judgement call on glyphoisate and crop disease, that's what the blog I linked too said too, but this news story flying around does precisely that.

Actually I made no calls on this specific issue, not a one. Besides that it wouldnt surprise me if true, and that the stuff isnt safe with or without this aspect being true, also I directly agreed with you that we do not know on this specific issue yet.  Although its well established there are major issues with roundup well before this. this is simply the newest one.

I doubt very many here use the stuff anyway, so it doesnt matter much. But there are many aspects that we KNOW the stuff isn't good.

Here we go again..

M. Edwards (fiveandahalffarm) wrote:
Here we go again..

Oops!  I started this thread.  When I first started posting on forums it seemed like I killed threads with a single post (and without trying).    Seem to have lost my power. 

Since I first started this thread I have found many many more places on the internet to research and discuss glyphosate.

So lets drop it here and go there. 

gary gregory wrote:
Oops!  I started this thread.   When I first started posting on forums it seemed like I killed threads with a single post (and without trying).     Seem to have lost my power.   

Since I first started this thread I have found many many more places on the internet to research and discuss glyphosate.

So lets drop it here and go there. 

I support dropping this thread and starting a new one.