Monsanto. Breaking Story. Don’t Let This Go Unshared!

a reply to: MysterX

That seems like a really, really small number. The European Commission sets the maximum residue standard at 0.1 ppm.

0.1 ppb is 1/1,000 of that amount. I am highly skeptical that 0.1ppb is harmful.

As horrible as this sounds, I would think twice before linking a foodbabe website...

This is the same woman who went on a rant because she found airplane air to contain nitrogen! (that is part of the regular air in the atmosphere) and demanded to have 100% oxygen (that would cause you to black out).

Take it with a grain of salt

whatever doesn't kill you... is a good source of weed killer, apparently.


Monsanto has nothing to hide. it's supply and demand.
when the American people want to stop eating pesticides, they'll stop buying them.

a reply to: jimmyx

Unilever... Thats another one. Seems like they make everything from snack food, to toilet cleaner and everything in between.

I seem to remember a report about monsanto, where a lot of crops were resisting active ingredients in round up and other weed killer.

They lobbied the gov't to preemptively raise the 'acceptable' levels of the chemicals in food. Successfully, if I remember right.

Horrible people at Monsanto. Very powerful lobbyists in Washington, too.

a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o

They lobbied the gov't to preemptively raise the 'acceptable' levels of the chemicals in food. Successfully, if I remember right.

It would be cool if you could provide a source.

Probably why Cheerios don't taste the same since the 90's. Time to throw them out.

a reply to: makemap

Yeah. After 20 years I would imagine they're way pass the "sell by" date.

a reply to: Phage

Scepticism is a good thing fwiw. However, standards are standards and don't usually become so without good sound scientific advice and research.

If 0.1ppb (and yes, it's a tiny amount) is the set standard, it could be argued it being such a very small amount is indicative of just how horrendously harmful to Human health and that of the biosphere, that poison actually is.

originally posted by: o0oTOPCATo0o
a reply to: jimmyx

Unilever... Thats another one. Seems like they make everything from snack food, to toilet cleaner and everything in between.

I seem to remember a report about monsanto, where a lot of crops were resisting active ingredients in round up and other weed killer.

They lobbied the gov't to preemptively raise the 'acceptable' levels of the chemicals in food. Successfully, if I remember right.

Horrible people at Monsanto. Very powerful lobbyists in Washington, too.

with the de-regulation and pro-business crowd now in power, it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.....I feel trump is the carnival barker distracting us from the anti-environmental legislative onslaught happening before our eyes.....our only hope is if white republicans get screwed over first, because to them, anything coming from a liberal or democrat has as much influence as a fart in a hurricane

Oh god not food babe the queen of dietary woo and pseudoscience.

a reply to: MysterX

If 0.1ppb (and yes, it's a tiny amount) is the set standard,

It isn't the standard.

Arsenic, is really bad. Right? Definitely dangerous. The drinking water maximum is 10.0 ppb.

0.1 ppb is absurd.

a reply to: projectvxn

In this case she's just sharing something she read from elsewhere but she is, indeed, a piece of work. An ignorant one.

When your body is in the air, at a seriously high altitude, your body under goes some serious pressure. Just think about it – Airplanes thrive in places we don’t. You are traveling in a pressurized cabin, and when your body is pressurized, it gets really compressed!

It gets better.
www.freezepage.com...

Not sure if this has been addressed.. Skimmed the thread.

How on gods green earth is double stuff oreos LESS than regular oreos?

a reply to: MysterX

If 0.1ppb (and yes, it's a tiny amount) is the set standard, it could be argued it being such a very small amount is indicative of just how horrendously harmful to Human health and that of the biosphere, that poison actually is.

FYI injected mice LD50 of Sarin is 0.172ppm rel to its weight.

It's been pretty controversial over a great many years. However Canada and California consider it a carcinogen, (Canada though was/is waiting for the outcome of a court case involving Monsanto??)
In Europe tests their found Glyphosate to be toxic in some areas to humans, but not conclusive on cancer, but that it was also toxic to aquatic life.
Since there are many weeds now resistant to Glyphosate...which is a problem..(farmers now using alternatives is one scenario) it's probably true to say it's effectiveness is greatly lessened, and that would be an ideal time to have a moratorium on the use of it.

One other thing is that Glyphosate is supposed to be neutralised in soil after so many days, so if the compound is turning up in the food chain, that should not be.
245T has caused great problems around the world, yet there is still debate going on about effects, while the legal eagles do their various battles, it seems things grind to a halt.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Cofactor
a reply to: MysterX

If 0.1ppb (and yes, it's a tiny amount) is the set standard, it could be argued it being such a very small amount is indicative of just how horrendously harmful to Human health and that of the biosphere, that poison actually is.

FYI injected mice LD50 of Sarin is 0.172ppm rel to its weight.

Oh dear.

Thanks for that Cofactor...i think!

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MysterX

If 0.1ppb (and yes, it's a tiny amount) is the set standard,

It isn't the standard.

Arsenic, is really bad. Right? Definitely dangerous. The drinking water maximum is 10.0 ppb.

0.1 ppb is absurd.

I beg your pardon, i misread 'ppm' as 'ppb'.

Apologies.

a reply to: smurfy

However Canada and California consider it a carcinogen

California seems to consider just about everything a carcinogen.

Canada does not, anymore.