March Against Monsanto Explodes Globally

a reply to: MALBOSIA

As Phage has repeatedly pointed out even non-GMO farmers have been using roundup and pesticide.

You claimed non-GMOs can't be farmed in soil where GMOs have been farmed which it can.

Remember you said the soil was a resource and as you can see it still is.

Farmers can switch back to non-GMO if they want, but they have to want to. I don't think it is right for others to force them to.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MALBOSIA

And obviously you cannot GM feilds are full of pesticides. So how can non gmo grow in it.

Ask the farmers who have been using it since before there were GM crops.

When glyphosate was introduced in 1974 it was initially used after the harvest in the autumn on stubble fields. This “post-harvest pre-planting” management is still an important tool for controlling weeds prior to planting the next crop. Farmers use this management strategy for winter crops especially, such as winter wheat and oilseed rape, which are often infested with annual weeds like black grass (Alopecurus myosuriodes) and rye grasses (Lolium spec.) that can be difficult to control before harvesting.

Since many annual weeds flower early and their seeds germinate immediately after harvest, farmers generally apply glyphosate in the autumn, 4 – 6 weeks after harvest, to clear fields of these weeds and volunteer crops.

Another common application method for glyphosate herbicides is spraying after sowing, but before the new crop emerges. The “post-harvest pre-emergence” practice is used to control weeds that may have been transplanted or grown from seeds after the crop was planted.

www.glyphosate.eu...

They did not decide for themselves to use so many pesticides

They didn't?

I wonder if you have discovered where the big spike in cancer rates generated from.

Phage. Maybe we can clear this up with a simple question. Do Is there evidence that you accept that proves the harmful effects of weed killers. Any of them? All of them?

And no, Health Canada would be the dictator on the matter. That is why that *snip* monsanto gave American milk producers to make cows make more milk, never made it into Canada. Farmers here would gladly use it if they could. I don't know how they got round-up in here, maybe it came before enough data on it could be collected. rgbh was a lot later so maybe test and data was easier.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: MALBOSIA

As Phage has repeatedly pointed out even non-GMO farmers have been using roundup and pesticide.

You claimed non-GMOs can't be farmed in soil where GMOs have been farmed which it can.

Remember you said the soil was a resource and as you can see it still is.

Farmers can switch back to non-GMO if they want, but they have to want to. I don't think it is right for others to force them to.

The ammount of pesticide that goes into a GMO feild compared to non gmo is not even on the same scale. Ill let you find the ppm on both. I think it would be common sense so I wouldnt even bother. Im open to be proven wrong.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

I wonder if you have discovered where the big spike in cancer rates generated from.

What big spike? You mean in prostate cancer? Took a while to get going. Or maybe it has to do with better diagnostics.
Men
Women

Do Is there evidence that you accept that proves the harmful effects of weed killers. Any of them? All of them?

Yes, there are indeed harmful weed killers. Some are much worse than others. But you claimed that GM crops contaminate soil. You said that only GM crops can be grown in "GM ready" fields. Weed killers are not exclusive to GM crops.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

I don't know how much pesticide goes to one or another.


I am still dealing with what you originally stated which was:

We cannot grow natural seed on GM contaminated soil.

You understand at this point that, that statement was wrong don't you?


It is not that I like Monsanto because honestly I don't, but I also don't like false or misinformation. There isn't much I can do about Monsanto but I can correct misinformation when I come across it.

At some point there may be some good solid reason against some herbicides and pesticides and people will be able to rightfully rage against the companies with solid evidence, but if false accusations are attached to those complaints the true complaints may be drowned out. It is the whole cry wolf scenario where many people wouldn't listen because of so many false accusations.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MALBOSIA

I wonder if you have discovered where the big spike in cancer rates generated from.

What big spike? You mean in prostate cancer? Took a while to get going. Or maybe it has to do with better diagnostics.
Men
Women

Do Is there evidence that you accept that proves the harmful effects of weed killers. Any of them? All of them?

Yes, there are indeed harmful weed killers. Some are much worse than others. But you claimed that GM crops contaminate soil. You said that only GM crops can be grown in "GM ready" fields. Weed killers are not exclusive to GM crops.

Like I said to Grimpachi. I think the quantity of pesticide used in roundup ready feilds is way beyond the amount that would be risked in non gmo. If a weed cannot dare grow, then how can any other seed. Ok that is only during the sungle season. Stop using pesticides and the weeds will grow yes. The soil is still contaminated beyond what is an acceptable residue level for any organic crop. The field is fubar, no? At least by CFIA standards.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Stop using pesticides and the weeds will grow yes.

When did pesticides start killing weeds?

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: MALBOSIA

I don't know how much pesticide goes to one or another.


I am still dealing with what you originally stated which was:

We cannot grow natural seed on GM contaminated soil.

You understand at this point that, that statement was wrong don't you?


It is not that I like Monsanto because honestly I don't, but I also don't like false or misinformation. There isn't much I can do about Monsanto but I can correct misinformation when I come across it.

At some point there may be some good solid reason against some herbicides and pesticides and people will be able to rightfully rage against the companies with solid evidence, but if false accusations are attached to those complaints the true complaints may be drowned out. It is the whole cry wolf scenario where many people wouldn't listen because of so many false accusations.

Sure, something "grew" in a pesticide feild. However on-farm testing by CFIA would fail the crop due to residue levels. An organic farmer would lose certification of product came from a field where pesticide was previously used.

Ill admit I was wrong If I don't have to repeat myself. I am not trying to sound rude but I had hoped younwoukd have understood my meaning without demand my statement hold water as a legal writ.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

The soil is still contaminated beyond what is an acceptable residue level for any organic crop. The field is fubar, no? At least by CFIA standards.

That is not what you first said. So now you've switched to organic certification. I don't see anything about the fact that glyphosate was ever used in a field precludes certification. It does break down, after all.
www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca...

a reply to: MALBOSIA

You are confusing me at this point. Are you claiming pesticides kill plants? Round up is not a pesticide.

You have been talking about 3 different things so far. Pesticides, herbicides, and GMOs.

What are you claiming makes the field to where plants can't grow?


I am a bit confused on this. Maybe you have moved on to a different subject.

a reply to: Grimpachi
Weeds are also classified as pests and the terminology is acceptable.

Now I have to say good day.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
a reply to: Grimpachi
Weeds are also classified as pests and the terminology is acceptable.

Now I have to say good day.

OK by.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MALBOSIA

The soil is still contaminated beyond what is an acceptable residue level for any organic crop. The field is fubar, no? At least by CFIA standards.

That is not what you first said. So now you've switched to organic certification. I don't see anything about the fact that glyphosate was ever used in a field precludes certification. It does break down, after all.
www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca...

I realize I am jumping a bit in between organic and non gmo. I didnt even respect the difference. I went wrong there. My apologies. However. Acceptable levels of residue are present in both non gmo and organic. I could be wrong but that is what I figured. Gmo has the advantage of being immune to the pesticides but does that mean no residue detected as well? Because that is what I was gathering.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Gmo has the advantage of being immune to the pesticides but does that mean no residue detected as well? Because that is what I was gathering.

As far as I know GM plants are not certifiably organic so the question would seem to be moot.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Gmo has the advantage of being immune to the pesticides but does that mean no residue detected as well? Because that is what I was gathering.

As far as I know GM plants are not certifiably organic so the question would seem to be moot.

Im not talking about the genetics. I mean the traces of whatever chemicals or whatever they meant by "residue".

Im unfortunately no longer capable of having this conversation due to partaking in leasures that the t&c prohibit me from esplaining. I forgot what what we are talking about...

a reply to: MALBOSIA

As long as it was organic
I won't panic

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MALBOSIA

As long as it was organic
I won't panic

Very. Organic.

Only one news source, can someone dig more news that cover this.

Also problem with monsanto is not GMO nor it is pesticide, herbicide nor fungicide. It is how they handle the business. And please stop defending a corrupt fat cat that make your own government a puppet and you claim that you have right to vote!!!

Secondary problems with Monsanto are that they promote mono-culture which is a devastating thing to eco life. Many bugs essential for all life on earth will die if Monsanto take over the world.

I can state more problems and i don't even need to touch a GMO problem. Because my mind on GMO is neutral. I m not against GMO nor for it. Actually i think that someone else need to take over all the GMO. Someone with high moral and ethics!!! And not a corporation who just wants to make money, corporation that will kill, destroy and poison for few bucks!!!

A large new story just waiting to be covered
by "our" news outlets but because we all know
major media is in bed with big agriculture big pharma and even bigger energy;
none of us are surprised that a major protest is NOT getting the coverage
it deserves.
And yet..Unless something is brought to our attention by said media outlets
we don't believe it .
See 9/11

Me and my family participated in the March Against Monsanto year before last. There were literally hundreds, if not over a thousand people there. The only thing scarier than Monsanto....was the media blackout. I even contacted all the local papers to point out their oversight and there was still wasn't a peep about it. Sure there was an article about some old guy that fabricated a military career....but not one word about a major protest in downtown Ft. Worth.

* and interesting side note- I was going through some old magazines in the garage from like, the 70s and there are Monsanto ads bragging about how their chemically developed/fabricated carpets can last for generations. Now is that really who you want making your food?