but as I understand these GMOs spread like cancer. if you have .001 one year
soon you will have .01 then .1 then 1% and so on. so you have to have zero
tolerance or your place on earth will have no non GMO soon like us here in
the USA.
now we are lucky we can test and find the smallest amount of these GMOs. so
if a bird doesn't shit it out or a bee does not carry the pollen or a boat
or truck does not have a few grains left of the floor or someone does not
bring it in in their luggage etc. we can maybe stop the cancer from
spreading to the whole body. in just a short time already we expect
contamination in the USA. remember this was made in a lab. it is not like
the killer bee that is a gene from mom and dad this is a gene added and in a
short time already expected to contaminate .001 man next year they will tell
us the .01 in expectable and on and on till there is no more non GMOS. it
is a cancer that was made in a lab spread by companies and all with the help
of the USDA. I guess this is what the folks met in the public comments "the
genie has been let out of the bottle or no use closing the barn door after
the cows got out" labels will not do any good. every will that does not
want to be one of the white mice will need a test kit. no only will these
genes go with the corn but as you can see they will contaminate the wheat
and weeds and on and on. some of the genes like fish gene in veg. and
scorpion poison in veg. will soon be spreading out to the whole earth. they
are changing life on earth as we know it. I know the killer bee is a NON
GMO but watching it spread and seeing that the USDA can not stop it (these
bees just killed a man down the street from me) all the way from South
America to Ca. they will not be about to stop the living GMOs they are
making in the lab today.
the point of all this
you places that don't have any GMO;s test test test and don't except any
percent of the cancer because a little bit will spread. and you poor
organic growers in the USA the USDA has killed off organic growing . forget
about it. they make a rule no GMOs allowed for organic growers then
release on the public GMO's that the organic farmer has no control over and
soon no more organic . they make a law and kill u with the law they make.
they have not only taken over the word organic but have destroyed it.
there is no one to protect organic growing only burden those trying to
protect life on earth while letting the contaminators prosper.
Sal, I think you are right: many seed companies (in the U.S. at least)
can no longer guarantee 100% non-GMO seeds, unless they grow their
seeds in countries like ours (the Philippines) or maybe Brazil, which
had not planted any GMO plants yet.
Consider it this way: seed companies usually guarantee 98% purity of
their hybrid varieties. This means, they know that some
cross-pollination and contamination occurs among their fields.
If they are using the same level of care for their GMO/non-GMO
isolation, this means that their non-GMO seeds are around 98% non-GMO
too. If they take extra care isolating their non-GMO seeds to avoid
GMO contamination, they might reach 99% or even 99.9% or even 99.99%
but the contamination will still be there... And that 0.01% GMO-seed
in the non-GMO batch will later grow and create more GMO seeds and
contaminate the fields again.
If the worldwide trend against any GMO-contamination continues, U.S.
corn and soya farmers are in trouble... Those U.S. states (are there
any?) and countries who have so far delayed GMO commercialization will
be in a much better position to guarantee 100% GMO-free seeds and
products.
>
> Reversing this trend is simply not a consideration for Dale, and I
> don't say that critically. (I though his recent post answering Sal's
> questions was both nice and well done).
>
> Dale has come a long way and will continue to make progress, while
> others of us do the job of limiting (and hopefully cleaning up) the
> "collateral effects" that splice 'em, dice 'em and gas 'em ag science
> / ag business have brought us.
Douglas I am afraid all the kings horses and all the kings men can not put
humpty dumpy together again. and for you places on earth that have not
partaken of this GMO thing I hope you can keep it that way and to do so you
need 0% tolerances. to me it would seem any more than that and you have the
cancer. I see now why the burned the fields. I see now why farmers burn
the fields and I hope they got it in time. only destroying GMOs now will
save the earth from this Genetically mutilated Genes cancer. IMHO as a dumb
farmer burn baby burn.
> Douglas Hinds, CeDeCoR, A.C.
> Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural, Asociacion Civil
> (Center for Rural and Community Development, a non-profit organization)
> Cordoba, Veracruz; Cd. Guzman, Jalisco & Reynosa, Tamaulipas Mexico
> dmhinds@acnet.net, cedecor@acnet.net
>
> *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
>
> Loren> Wilson, Dale wrote:
> >>
> >> Loren, Roberto, and Mark,
> >> First, I don't think you folks have an appreciation of just how
sensitive
> >> modern quantitative analysis really is.
>
> Loren> Dale, I am trying to rephrase your comment to ensure that I fully
> Loren> understand your position before responding.
>
> Loren> Are you suggesting that our disagreement with your position can
only
> Loren> have its basis in a misunderstanding of analytic chemistry?
>
> Loren> If not, please clarify, because that's what I think you said.
>
> Loren> If so, you have misunderstood
> Loren> our statements and made a response unrelated to our positions.
>
> Loren> I'll try this again. We were discussing finding chloropyrifos in
the
> Loren> urine of practically everybody.
>
> Loren> Loren wrote:
> >> Apparently, the clear evidence of chemical trespass itself is
> >> disregarded as being in the category of things we call
> >> "a problem."
>
> Loren> Deciding whether to label something a "problem" or not is a matter
of
> Loren> policy, not chemistry.
>
> Loren> Roberto wrote:
> >> I find such cavalier attitude towards chemical contamination
> >> quite incredible.
>
> Loren> The analytic chemistry showed the unambiguous presence of
chloropyrifos
> Loren> in the urine or 80-90% of the people checked.
>
> Loren> Mark wrote:
> >> Anything showing up in our bodies uninvited is a violation of
> >> both property rights and human rights.
>
> Loren> Mark does not wish to allow this chemical trespass and feels that
his
> Loren> rights have been violated.
>
> Loren> To these above quotes, Dale responds:
>
> >> Loren, Roberto, and Mark,
> >> First, I don't think you folks have an appreciation of just how
sensitive
> >> modern quantitative analysis really is.
>
> Loren> None of us said anything about analytic chemistry. We were all
making
> Loren> the point that we find it a problem when manufactured substances
which
> Loren> we have never used and in fact actively avoid contact with,
nevertheless
> Loren> can be found in our bodies, as evidenced by being excreted by our
> Loren> bodies.
>
> Loren> Sombody manufactures chloropyrifos. They sell it to person B. Now
> Loren> person B "owns" it. As it is applied, person B seems to be
allowing it
> Loren> to run amok, and many of us are not pleased with that.
>
> Loren> Person B is not allowed to store his lawnmower in my garage. His
shoes
> Loren> are not under my bed; his livestock may not graze in my front yard,
nor
> Loren> may his dog crap there. No shoes, no lawnmowers, not a single
grazing
> Loren> animal, not one little turd. Zero. I don't have to prove that it
would
> Loren> injure me seriously to have B doing any of these things. I do not
want
> Loren> these things on my property, and that reason is sufficient.
>
> Loren> That is also the case for chloropyrifos. I did not buy it. I do
not
> Loren> benefit from it. I don't want it in my personal space or on my
property
> Loren> for any reason, in any quantity. If it's there, then person B
still
> Loren> "owns" it and he is trespassing with his stuff. He should have to
keep
> Loren> better track of his belongings. If it is not possible to ascertain
which
> Loren> "person B" has been careless with his purchase, then it is fine
with me
> Loren> if the legal responsibility for the substance still belongs to the
> Loren> manufacturer.
>
> Loren> I still haven't said anything about analytic chemistry. This
subject
> Loren> matter is not in the realm of analytic chemistry.
>
> Loren> I have taken the opportunity to have 150 college students decide
whether
> Loren> chloropyrifos in the urine is or is not a "problem," by giving the
> Loren> choice to them on an exam. They may choose either, provided only
that
> Loren> they supply their reasoning. I'll let you know what they think
when I'm
> Loren> done grading this mountain of papers.
>
> >> At a sufficiently low level of
> >> contamination, this controversy devolves into theoretical
hair-splitting.
>
> Loren> What does that mean? The "threshold" concept has never been
validated,
> Loren> and it is probably not valid. It is the responsibliity of all
modelers
> Loren> (for example those who estimate toxicological risk) to know the
> Loren> limitations of the model and ALL of the assumptions built into the
> Loren> model. The threshold assumption is built in to all the models.
It's
> Loren> use, however, is not a matter of analytic chemistry, it is merely a
> Loren> policy choice, and we all know that POLICY and CHEMISTRY are not
the
> Loren> same thing. Or do we all know it? Must we eternally suffer this
mutant
> Loren> dialogue, where every time somebody doesn't like where the policy
> Loren> conversation is headed, a random comment about "sound science" is
> Loren> inserted in the hope of deflecting the conclusion?
>
> >> Second, society subjects all of us to all kinds of risks.
>
> Loren> Name some. This conversation is improved by specificity. How is
this
> Loren> statement relevant to the discussion of chloropyrifos in the urine
of
> Loren> people who never use chloropyrifos?
>
> >> Ordinary risks we accept without second thought are a lot bigger than
> >> pesticide risk (as far as I can tell).
>
> Loren> Name some. Explain the relevance of this statement.
> Loren> Which non-zero risks do "we" accept with absolutely zero benefit to
us?
> Loren> I cannot think of any.
> Loren> Or do we "accept" them because we have no choice? Do we accept them
> Loren> because we do not know about them? Is our conscious, informed
choice
> Loren> implied by your use of the word "accept?"
> Loren> Are you and I are the same person in your "we" scenario?
>
> >> Third, we constantly ingest all manner of toxic substances that occur
> >> naturally.
>
> Loren> How many of these compounds are large, chlorinated molecules?
> Loren> Which ones were humans never exposed to before 1900? Which ones do
we
> Loren> ingest without knowing that we are eating something? How is this
> Loren> statement relevant to chloropyrifos in my body?
>
> >> To a large extent, the function of kidneys and liver is to
> >> detoxify and/or eliminate these things.
>
> Loren> Yes, these organs have co-evolved with other life forms on this
planet
> Loren> for many millions of years, and can, to some extent, allow the
organism
> Loren> to escape harm from naturally occurring toxins evolved over the
same
> Loren> time scale. UNLIKE CHLOROPYRIFOS.
>
> Loren> And that's not analytic chemistry either, it's evolutionary
biology,
> Loren> which apparently is not a permitted subject matter in some parts of
this
> Loren> country. I wonder if my email will arrive with "the E word"
deleted?
>
> Loren> Loren
>
> Loren> To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
> Loren> "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the
command
> Loren> "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
> Loren> To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the
command
> Loren> "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
>
> Loren> All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
> Loren> http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail
>
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
> "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
> "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
> To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
> "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
>
> All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
> http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail