It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

EPA raises the acceptable pesticide levels on US crops

page: 2
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 07:44 PM
link   
EPA FDA MONSANTO,.
well lets throw in
WHO CDC, USDA,

All corrupt .

and yet the common peoples let them set the standards.




posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 


Just try to keep in mind that science... is often found to be wrong...
Yes. That's the way it works. As flawed as it may be, what's our alternative? Superstition?



Wouldn't it be much better to address concerns, rather than lambaste others' hypotheses ?
Wouldn't it be better if those hypotheses had some evidence to support them?



I thought we wanted the truth here?
Yes. Distortions and lies from either side don't help. That's why critical thinking is required.



I posted earlier expressing my worry for the bees, considering I have personally seen a decline here, I guess I was outta line for asking that question based on my personal experience?
You didn't ask a question about bees. You as much as declared that bee declines are related to the use of glyphosate.

edit on 7/30/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Okay some 'peer-reviewed studies' that shed light on glyphosate intoxication and the various problems that may be induced from ingestion and also some that speak on undoing the glyphosate's toxicity with certain treatments.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

I'm sure we can all agree too much of something can kill you. Whether it be the caustic nature of oxygen itself, too much alcohol, or absorption of hazardous material unbeknownst to the people-- glyphosate should be in no way sanctioned to be raised.

There's no need to argue about the validity of the OP's claim. When a certain company lobbies hard enough it's done for profit, never for the betterment of others.
edit on 30-7-2013 by qwerty12345 because: typo



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Phage, It has everything to do with it.

www.plosone.org...

Peer Reviewed, Accepted, And Published.

And is that the Department of Agriculture...

Scary Times my friends.



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ChristIsHere
 


Peer Reviewed, Accepted, And Published.

I don't see glyphosate mentioned in there. Can you point it out?



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


It would seem that while places like the European Union are coming to see the horrors of chemical contamination of food crops, our EPA is still so firmly in the pocket of large agriculture, they need help finding daylight again.


You think? From last year:

The European Union (EU), effective June 14, has revised its limit on glyphosate residue in lentil imports to 10 parts per million (ppm), up from its much tighter previous residue limit of 0.1. ppm.

www.grainews.ca...


Well, I do appreciate the clarification on that. The stories like these .....

Bee deaths: EU to ban neonicotinoid pesticides

Bee-harming pesticides banned in Europe

..... sometimes leave a different impression. Although, to be honest on it, they also seem to think telling the public the actual chemicals involved in things like this by name is very hit and miss as to importance. Like we're generally ignorant out here (which isn't far from accurate) and are just as well left that way (Which is how it happens, to start with...lol).

It's interesting that this wouldn't be among the pesticides recently focused on, but them, chemistry and farming aren't my areas of focus. I'm just a consumer and former trucker who hauled the stuff on this story, with a basic interest from that side of things. From there? I'd be real happy to see tolerable numbers drop, actually. Increasing isn't the direction this ought to be going, I'd think. Especially when even fair debate may exist about real health impact while it's used on food crops.

That's just me though. These are the people with a pretty poor long term track record on weighing benefit vs. risk.(yoda) I trust them not. (/yoda)



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by qwerty12345
 


Okay some 'peer-reviewed studies' that shed light on glyphosate intoxication and the various problems that may be induced from ingestion

For example:

A case of rapid lethal intoxication from glyphosate-surfactant herbicide involved a 37-year-old woman, who deliberately ingested approximately 500 mL of concentrated Roundup formulation

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...



I'm sure we can all agree too much of something can kill you.
Yes. So what's your point? That someone is likely to receive a lethal dose of Roundup with a glyphosphate concentration of 10ppm? That would take eating an awful lot of beans. That woman drank half a liter of 41% (410,000 ppm) glyphosate.


Why the uproar about glyphosate? You know that every pesticide in use on food crops has tolerance levels allowed by the EPA, right? Why do you think that glyphosate is the worst thing ever?



edit on 7/30/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 




Like we're generally ignorant out here (which isn't far from accurate) and are just as well left that way (Which is how it happens, to start with...lol).

That doesn't have to be the case. If you really want to learn something about it the information is there. The trouble is the vigorous arm wavers don't really understand either. Instead, anytime the word glyphosate is mentioned, it's the destruction of our lives and all we hold dear.

In a perfect world with tons of cheap farm labor, we wouldn't need pesticides. It's not a perfect world.

BTW, glyphosate is not a neonicotinoid
edit on 7/30/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


You're right! I just saw "Bees" and remembered reading that article.

Something interesting for you.

Jennie Stitzinger who works for the University of Maryland who designed and preformed the experiment. (and if you'll notice in the "author contributions" everyone's initials are listed for the experiments but in the "who wrote the paper" it says JP and not JSP.. did they mean JS? typo? who knows...)
Elinor M. Lichtenberg who works for the University of Maryland who analyzed the data and wrote the paper.
Dennis vanEngelsdorp who also works for University of Maryland who analyzed the data and wrote the paper.
(Elinor and Dennis were the only ones who analyzed the data)

Then I found a link between Bayer Corporation and a study with the University of Maryland in 2011 linked in the article below.


www.bayerus.com...

Jeffery S. Pettis Who is with the USDA based out of Maryland...
Robyn Rose Who is with the USDA based out of Maryland...
But yet at the end of the paper it says, and I Quote,




The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the policies or positions of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA).


Odd to me that they would say that? Isn't that the whole point of the USDA?

Michael Andree, who has a connection with Dennis vanEngelsdorp through Penn State (who now ironically works for University of Maryland as I mentioned above), works for UC Davis where Bayer offers many Scholarships.

I find all of these connections odd... On a site where we "Deny Ignorance", I don't believe in this many coincidences. Once is chance, twice is a pattern. I'm sure there are many more connections but I'm growing weary haha!

Have a good night all!



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Can you find good science that shows glyphosate is harmful to humans or bees at reasonable levels of exposure or do you just rely on what others tell you about it?

edit on 7/30/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Do you have information that says that it doesn't?

Don't just tow the company line without providing information that could be beneficial to the critical thought process, otherwise you just come off as a shill.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ChristIsHere
 


Odd to me that they would say that? Isn't that the whole point of the USDA?
The USDA did not conduct the study. You will find such in many scientific articles. You will find independent collaborations with scientists from different Universities. The point is, those scientists are working independently from any affiliations they may have.


Do you remember reading this in the article?

In our study and those listed above, pesticides applied by beekeepers to control hive pests were present in a large proportion of the samples, often in quantities higher than most of the pesticides that are applied to crops.

www.plosone.org...



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by supremecommander
 


Do you have information that says that it doesn't?

Yes.
pubs.acs.org...
link.springer.com...
www.cabdirect.org...;jsessionid=8D80E621DBFAF74D1E726CE991C81D1E



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join