Did you know Roundup Ready sweet corn is now available?

[arrow]

$47 a loaf sounds a little steep,

If you think fluroridation doesn't prevent tooth decay, you should ask a dentist about it.

That price was for 2.5 loaves. I did not say fluoridation is not a decay preventative. It occurs naturally however in just about every well water. What I am saying is that the tooth decay thing came along for the ride and was used for justification to dump a by-product chemical in our water supplies. The real reason is that they had a slew of it and found an excellent way to not only get rid of a by product, but make money on the deal as well. Look at our diet in the 40's 50's and 60's. We were eating Drakes Cakes and Hostess cup cakes as part of the basic food triangle. We were drinking orange and grape soda as if they were part of a nutritious food group. Cigarettes were just the thing to have to make your day complete. This is corporate America with government ties we are talking about.If you think anybody there really cared for our teeth, there is a bridge I want to sell you.

 

[RickB]

That price was for 2.5 loaves. I did not say fluoridation is not a decay preventative. It occurs naturally however in just about every well water. What I am saying is that the tooth decay thing came along for the ride and was used for justification to dump a by-product chemical in our water supplies. The real reason is that they had a slew of it and found an excellent way to not only get rid of a by product, but make money on the deal as well. Look at our diet in the 40's 50's and 60's. We were eating Drakes Cakes and Hostess cup cakes as part of the basic food triangle. We were drinking orange and grape soda as if they were part of a nutritious food group. Cigarettes were just the thing to have to make your day complete. This is corporate America with government ties we are talking about.If you think anybody there really cared for our teeth, there is a bridge I want to sell you.

So your contention is that it would have been more ecologically sound to landfill this yet unnamed, undocumented flouride compound in concentrated areas rather than disperse it throughout the environment in a manner that provided documented health benefits? Maybe you could expand on that a little.

 

[DFB]

Interesting frozen food processing venture for growers in Maine to market locally grown produce in stores year round.

Economically viable on so many levels too...farmer, retailer, consumer, transportation, and food handler jobs.

The "buy local segment" just keeps on "growing"

New in the frozen food section | The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram

Mark Lapping, a distinguished university professor at the Muskie School of Public Service who is an expert in food-systems planning and policy, said this kind of arrangement where food processors share facilities has been happening a lot in Vermont. He says the idea of it happening here in Maine is "exciting."

John Shattuck, development director for the town of Topsham, who said he is "wicked excited" about MHC's potential to be a "significant economic development driver" in the community. Consumers are generally much more interested in food now than they used to be, and scary news stories about recalls have made them think more about where the products they put in their grocery baskets originated.

 

[arrow]

So your contention is that it would have been more ecologically sound to landfill this yet unnamed, undocumented flouride compound in concentrated areas rather than disperse it throughout the environment in a manner that provided documented health benefits? Maybe you could expand on that a little.

Ok I will. Fluoride is measured to be more toxic than lead and a bit less toxic than arsenic. We ban lead yet flouride abounds. Continental Europe has banned fluoride and so your contention is what? that it is perfectly ok for the government to mass medicate the populace with something more toxic than lead? Secondly, if indeed there is a benefit to fluoride in prevention of dental caries, I'd prefer it was up to me to choose to partake just like it is up to me to get a flu shot. How would you like it if you were forced or had no choice in getting this flu compound administered to your body? And now one last way. Just because a chemical compound is shown to be beneficial in small amounts for one malady that effects our population, it does not mean in the slightest that it does not effect us negatively in other ways. Have a nuclear stress test. You have a bit of radioactive material injected into your body. Certainly you would not want this radioactive compound spread all over the place. Do not forget: The tobacco industry fought tooth and nail that cigarettes did not cause lung cancer just like depending on the study you read, cell phones are perfectly fine for your brain. And finally, if you happen to swallow any toothpaste with fluoride more than used for brushing, why are you then instructed on the tube to contact your local poison control? You want fluoride? then go right ahead and buy it. Because you want it and think it perfectly safe, why should I have it if I think otherwise and yet that is the case.
My last question is: If you think anybody attached to big government really cared for your well being, why did they allow all the other stuff that causes tooth decay? What is the statistic? we each consume 32 lbs of sugar each year? I'll answer my own question: it has to do with "economics". Just like why fluoride is put into our water.

 

[dave1949]

Interesting frozen food processing venture for growers in Maine to market locally grown produce in stores year round.

Economically viable on so many levels too...farmer, retailer, consumer, transportation, and food handler jobs.

The "buy local segment" just keeps on "growing"

New in the frozen food section | The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram

Mark Lapping, a distinguished university professor at the Muskie School of Public Service who is an expert in food-systems planning and policy, said this kind of arrangement where food processors share facilities has been happening a lot in Vermont. He says the idea of it happening here in Maine is "exciting."

John Shattuck, development director for the town of Topsham, who said he is "wicked excited" about MHC's potential to be a "significant economic development driver" in the community. Consumers are generally much more interested in food now than they used to be, and scary news stories about recalls have made them think more about where the products they put in their grocery baskets originated.

Yep, that's is good news.

I read the info on Maine's SARE program grants. SARE projects in Maine / Maine / State Programs / Northeast SARE - SARE It's interesting to see what grants have been made in the past.

Just read about a farmer in Maine who has received funding to scale up his production of "hay logs." He takes poor hay and makes stove fuel logs out of it. Besides eating , we have to stay warm. :laughing:

 

[dave1949]

Does your (progressive) grocer need to take sides in high fructose corn syrup? There must be money in it.


Negative Hype Around HFCS Not Backed by Science: Report - Health, Beauty & Wellness - Supermarket Chain |Grocery Chain | Grocery Store Chain | Supermarket News
The idea that high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is responsible for the American obesity epidemic isn't backed by scientific evidence, concludes a new report published by the American Council on Science and Health.


Who or what is the American Council on Science and Health?
"ACSH is a national, non-profit, tax-exempt 501(c)(3) consumer health education and advocacy organization based in New York City."
Just another Super Pac where corporate wealth can shape public opinion, or outright lie for profit. And surprise! The Koch Bros. are right in there.

American Council on Science and Health - SourceWatch
To its credit, it has taken a strong public position against the dangers of tobacco, one of the leading preventable causes of death in today's society. However, it takes a generally apologetic stance regarding virtually every other health and environmental hazard produced by modern industry, accepting corporate funding from Coca-Cola, Kellogg, General Mills, Pepsico, and the American Beverage Association, among others.

 

[MuleMn]

We have been eating it for several years. The RR Sweet corn we plant is called Incredible. We also plant some G-90, but the Incredible is sweeter. As far as roundup goes, it is just as safe as any imported food. Most countries still allow the use of Paraquat. Look it up! If you buy groceries you are eating food that contains a lot worse than round up.:licking:

 

[DFB]

More and more new research seems to contradict the inertness and reinforces health concerns surrounding increasing glysophate useage in RR crops.

The latest study has just been released
Published April 18 2013 it is outlined in this 3 part article Glyphosate: Chronic Disease Degeneration

In the study conducted by Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff
Independent Scientist and Consultant, Deerfield, NH
Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, MIT, Cambridge, MA

Samsel & Seneff state...

"An insidious issue with glyphosate is that its toxic effects on mammals take considerable time to be overtly manifested."

Full pdf of the published text can be found here

Glyphosate Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases.
Entropy 2013

 

[daugen]

how safe is it to spray the weeds around the edges of a garden, in our case those under the deer fence, which does not like our powerful string trimmer at all. I can mix up a batch of organic stuff, but the application of this weedkiller is at least six to ten feet from any plant.

Any suggestions on what to spray that would be least toxic to the surrounding area?
Is this a reasonable use of Roundup or will it, sooner or later, leach into the soils?
Allegedly it doesn't, but after reading this thread, I'm not sure of anything other than it
pays to be careful.

thanks. Drew
thanks

 

[super55]

how safe is it to spray the weeds around the edges of a garden, in our case those under the deer fence, which does not like our powerful string trimmer at all. I can mix up a batch of organic stuff, but the application of this weedkiller is at least six to ten feet from any plant.

Any suggestions on what to spray that would be least toxic to the surrounding area?
Is this a reasonable use of Roundup or will it, sooner or later, leach into the soils?
Allegedly it doesn't, but after reading this thread, I'm not sure of anything other than it
pays to be careful.

thanks. Drew
thanks

Drew there are several options. If you want to go organic you can try using vinegar which the active ingredient is 5% acetic acid which has shown some varied effectiveness as long as the plants are under 3" typically. This also just burns down the plant and not the roots so re-application will be likely. You can burn the weeds with a propane torch and have similar type results where re-application will likely eventually be needed plus the fire hazard if conditions are dry. You can use roundup (41% glyphosate) and spray the area and you maybe might need to do one reapplication but not likely. 6-10 feet from any plant I can assure you that none of your garden plants will uptake any glyphosate and it bonds tightly to the soil so leeching and runoff are not an issue as with some other herbicides.

 

[super55]

http://croplifefoundation.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/importance-of-herbicides.pdf

I had been following this post for quite some and everybody ridiculing monster Monsanto to the farmer that apply it. Trust me I get it. I don't think any of us would disagree that organic food is healthier. I hear everybody complaining conspiracy, corporate greed, etc but nobody has offered a solution as to how to do it better.

For anybody that cares to read the link posted it shows some of the benefits of herbicides mainly irrigation consumption and soil erosion and compares it to organic/conventional farming. I read this objectively and realize that it doesn't address the health issues related to herbicides which everybody else already covered pretty thoroughly but it does reiterate what I have been saying farmers that use these aren't just interested in maximum yields but also conservation of the their land. Anybody who gardens knows how well their yield is going to be has a large part to do with the dirt they have.

 

[dmccarty]

Drew there are several options. If you want to go organic you can try using vinegar which the active ingredient is 5% acetic acid which has shown some varied effectiveness as long as the plants are under 3" typically. This also just burns down the plant and not the roots so re-application will be likely. You can burn the weeds with a propane torch and have similar type results where re-application will likely eventually be needed plus the fire hazard if conditions are dry. You can use roundup (41% glyphosate) and spray the area and you maybe might need to do one reapplication but not likely. 6-10 feet from any plant I can assure you that none of your garden plants will uptake any glyphosate and it bonds tightly to the soil so leeching and runoff are not an issue as with some other herbicides.

Be careful with vinegar since it acidifies the soil. One can get higher doses of vinegar, over 5%, but it just makes the soil that much more acidic.

I have tried to burn weeds off our gravel. What a joke. The weeds we have are very fire resistant and take a few seconds under the burner to sorta burn. Eventually, they will burn out but then other weeds grow behind them. The batch of weeds I have been fighting for years is just easier and faster to pull up by hand. I have tried Round Up, cutting, and fire. Pulling has been the best and fastest remedy. PITA though. There is another set of weeds that does die off with Round Up which I will have to be spraying soon. There is simply no good solution for weeds...

Danged things even grow in gravel.

Later,
Dan

 

[super55]

Thats a good point Dan,

It does substantially lower ph. but usually only for about 48 hours. The other thing is that 20% acetic acid is a lot more difficult to handle. Acetic acid has a health hazard of 3. Can cause skin burns, inhalation hazards, and severe eye injury. Roundup is definitely easier to handle than high concentration vinegar with less health risks while applying.

 

[dave1949]

http://croplifefoundation.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/importance-of-herbicides.pdf

I had been following this post for quite some and everybody ridiculing monster Monsanto to the farmer that apply it. Trust me I get it. I don't think any of us would disagree that organic food is healthier. I hear everybody complaining conspiracy, corporate greed, etc but nobody has offered a solution as to how to do it better.

For anybody that cares to read the link posted it shows some of the benefits of herbicides mainly irrigation consumption and soil erosion and compares it to organic/conventional farming. I read this objectively and realize that it doesn't address the health issues related to herbicides which everybody else already covered pretty thoroughly but it does reiterate what I have been saying farmers that use these aren't just interested in maximum yields but also conservation of the their land. Anybody who gardens knows how well their yield is going to be has a large part to do with the dirt they have.

Yes, we are a suspicious lot. :laughing: But there are many precedents for that suspicion where the chemical industry is involved.

The funders of the CropLife Foundation are the same people we don't trust. The disclaimer at the end is IMO laughable.

CropLife Foundation is funded by the following agricultural research and production companies:
AMVAC
Arysta LifeSciences
BASF
Bayer CropScience
Cheminova
Chemtura
Coastal AgroBusiness
Crop Production Services
Dow AgroSciences
Drexel Chemical
Dupont Crop Protection
FMC
Growmark
ISK Biosciences
Makhteshim Agan
MGK
Monsanto
Nichino
Nufarm
PBI Gordon
Spicam Advan
Syngenta Crop Protection
Valent
Winfield Solutions
Our funders have no role in study topics, data collection or preparation of our published materials.

I don't know that distrusting Monsanto and the chemical industry, or not feeling comfortable with the direction agriculture is going in, obligates one to having a better solution. That is a sort of false argument--but a fair question.

Personally, and I think this is true for many others, organic farming is not just about healthier food, it is also about a healthier planet that supports a richness of biodiversity. The two goals are closely intertwined. In plain English, I think our agriculture practices, both in the production and consumption side of things, are collectively abusing the planet and we do and will pay a price for that in terms of human health and overall quality of life.

Think about the dirt that you want to protect. It isn't really just dirt, it is an entire biome of bacteria, fungus, and whatever else that makes dirt able to nourish plant life. Sterile dirt doesn't grow much of anything until it is repopulated with those necessary living things. It is literally alive, as I'm sure you know. From what I have read, limited I grant you, nobody really has a total understanding of the inter-relationships of the living things in dirt. I don't think all of them have exact names and identifications even.

Look at the comments and recommendations in this forum that deal with the interfaces between us and the rest of the life on this planet. There are two main tools that can be reduced to: spray and shoot. While those may be unavoidable in some cases, they certainly shouldn't be the only tools in the box, or the tools of first choice if we want to preserve anything like a natural environment.

I think we do have better solutions at hand but they are not going to be profitable for Monsanto, and they aren't always amenable to large-scale agriculture as we know it today. I think we need to return to having more people employed in food production, more locally sourced foods, and more natural growing conditions.

We need something like the farms of the 1940's and 50's that produced both meats and grains in a way that made sense, and they weren't running to the ag store for chemicals all the time either. Not that they were perfect by any means, but I think we tossed out the baby with the bath water.

I don't think that will make food tremendously more expensive either. We spend a lot on food, and a lot of what we spend isn't going into our local economies supporting local people. So while large-scale ag may produce cheaper foodstuffs, at the same time it impoverishes rural communities--they have been dropping like flies for 20-30 years now. It's not a free lunch.

This matters in people's value systems and their overall quality of life. The people here and elsewhere who value rural life based upon close-knit communities, closeness to the land, self-reliance and so on, they've traded that for a barrel of chemicals and a bag of GM seeds. Plain and simple, Monsanto is not their friend.

 

[DFB]

Another herbicide is Scythe. Its marketed alongside a lot of "organic" and "natural" products. 57% pelargonic acid is an organic acid (also called nonoic acid) found in the leaves of the geranium (Pelargonium) and allied plants.

Its a concentrate and max dilution is like 10%. Its pretty effective and fairly expensive. One gallon is probably the smallest size you can buy. They also suggest you can use it in conjuction with Roundup (glysophate) for a double whammy!

I originally thought it was OMRI approved (Organic Material Review Institute) but I double checked and its not on the current list. http://www.omri.org/sites/default/files/opl_pdf/crops_category.pdf

I have a big jug of it. I dont use any herbicide much because I mainly grow on plastic but its good for those weeds and annual grasses that grow along the edges of the plastic and where the tiller cant get close without ripping up the mulch


"A commercial herbicide which works by burning the cells of the plants. It is made of natural fatty acids and pelargonic acid, a substance derived from geraniums. Sprayed on grasses and broad leaf weeds you can expect to see results in hours. Plants that are adversely affected by Scythe are weeds, grasses, lichens, and mosses The product does not seep through the surrounding soil and so will not hurt nearby plants. It is an intensely concentrated product, just two and a half gallons will treat an acre. You will need to read the instructions provided by the company to know which concentration to use on the weeds you are dealing with."

Its manufactured by Dow Agrosciences

 

[DFB]

I think we do have better solutions at hand but they are not going to be profitable for Monsanto, and they aren't always amenable to large-scale agriculture as we know it today. I think we need to return to having more people employed in food production, more locally sourced foods, and more natural growing conditions.

We need something like the farms of the 1940's and 50's that produced both meats and grains in a way that made sense, and they weren't running to the ag store for chemicals all the time either. Not that they were perfect by any means, but I think we tossed out the baby with the bath water.

I don't think that will make food tremendously more expensive either. We spend a lot on food, and a lot of what we spend isn't going into our local economies supporting local people. So while large-scale ag may produce cheaper foodstuffs, at the same time it impoverishes rural communities--they have been dropping like flies for 20-30 years now. It's not a free lunch.

This matters in people's value systems and their overall quality of life. The people here and elsewhere who value rural life based upon close-knit communities, closeness to the land, self-reliance and so on, they've traded that for a barrel of chemicals and a bag of GM seeds. Plain and simple, Monsanto is not their friend.

I saw this trailer and movie link today. It looks like something I would want to see.
Maybe my library will get a copy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DMGunase5o


In a world of environmental and agricultural destruction from large corporate farming, what does future of local food and farming look like? This beautifully photographed documentary explores the lives of five young people who have decided to become small-scale farmers.

Named one of the ten most popular Canadian films at the Vancouver International Film Festival, To Make a Farm is an exceptionally hopeful answer, "giving us a close-range view of humanity along with a detailed portrayal of the nuts and bolts of agriculture."

To Make A Farm - Movie

 

[daugen]

thanks for the weedkiller suggestions. 40% of Scythe is petroleum distillates, which I assume is why it's not
labeled organic. They don't mention that do they...but somehow they remember to mention the 3% fatty acids.

I sprayed some organic weedkiller in an expensive little squirt bottle on some weeds today, curious to see how well it works. I sprayed some on half a large weed several days ago. And half was dead and half was still quite happy. Not good.

 

[RickB]

We need something like the farms of the 1940's and 50's that produced both meats and grains in a way that made sense, and they weren't running to the ag store for chemicals all the time either. Not that they were perfect by any means, but I think we tossed out the baby with the bath water.

I don't think that will make food tremendously more expensive either. We spend a lot on food, and a lot of what we spend isn't going into our local economies supporting local people.

You certainly have every right to suspect, question and even accuse.
1940 farming technology will not feed the population of today's world, plain & simple.
If you were born and lived your entire life in the USA and think food is expensive, you don't have a clue. We spend a fraction of our income on food as compared to the world as a whole, and have essentially throughout our country's history. There are millions here and abroad who can't buy enough food to keep hunger pains away.
It is all good & well to pontificate about all that is evil and dangerous in our world. We can sit at our keyboards & beat our chests trying to make each other believe whatever is on our minds (and in our hearts). But workable solutions are needed, and there are precious few of those in these 14 pages.
Affirming your right to complain without offering anything more is a waste of time.
I can't believe I am still following this thread, much less participating in it.

 

[DFB]

thanks for the weedkiller suggestions. 40% of Scythe is petroleum distillates, which I assume is why it's not
labeled organic. They don't mention that do they...but somehow they remember to mention the 3% fatty acids.

Daugen you say that like its a bad thing :laughing:

First sentence of the MSDS says it all doesnt it...

"Dow Agro Sciences LLC expects you to read and understand the entire MSDS as there is important information thruout the document"

 

[MuleMn]

how safe is it to spray the weeds around the edges of a garden, in our case those under the deer fence, which does not like our powerful string trimmer at all. I can mix up a batch of organic stuff, but the application of this weedkiller is at least six to ten feet from any plant.

Any suggestions on what to spray that would be least toxic to the surrounding area?
Is this a reasonable use of Roundup or will it, sooner or later, leach into the soils?
Allegedly it doesn't, but after reading this thread, I'm not sure of anything other than it
pays to be careful.

thanks. Drew
thanks

Maybe try a propane burner under the fence.....?