How Much Pesticide Residue on Your Produce? FDA Doesn't Know New GAO report reveals FDA doing scant

And that is not the point of this thread nor the article I referenced. You refresh your memory. The article is amount the lack of and poor methodolgy of testing imported (and domestic) produce to ensure that it meets the minimum standards set by our country for food safetly. Certainly a public safety concern.

As it stands now, with only 1/10 of 1% of imports being tested (with poor methods) we have no idea what is on the food we eat.

Now you may think that's fine, that is your perogative; however, I don't. I think it is appalling.

a reply to: FyreByrd

The article is amount the lack of and poor methodolgy of testing imported (and domestic) produce to ensure that it meets the minimum standards set by our country for food safetly.

I agree that's a concern. I said that.

I don't know why you had to throw Monsanto into it. It just muddies the water, as you can see.

originally posted by: Sabiduria
a reply to: FyreByrd

We need to remember that just because the FDA approves something, doesn't mean that it works. Look at the Dr Oz scandal. All those "miracle" pills for weight loss and other various things that were approved by the FDA but they don't work and we know they don't work.

Thank you for pointing this out. Whether or not the existing standards are actually protecting life or not is a whole other question.

The point here is that, whatever the standards, the verification of adherance to them is non-existance so why should any farmer, or importer, or processing company spend the money to ensure a complaint product. Compliance is expensive unless the fines and penalties for non compliance cost more.

That is the point and the agenda of big business.

Are you the least concerned about contaminated foods (poisions of all sorts - industrial waste more likely, radiation, disease - think e coli outbreaks). Without inspections using good methods of testing - how will anyone know.

a reply to: Phage

Let's forget that GMO products messes with the RNA of plants, animals and humans. The fact that less pesticides get used totally makes it worth it.

Exogenous plant MIR168a specifically targets mammalian LDLRAP1: evidence of cross-kingdom regulation by microRNA

or how about this, I'm sure this is nothing to worry about either:

Female rats fed genetically modified (GM) soya produced excessive numbers of severely stunted pups with over half of the litter dying within three weeks, and the surviving pups are sterile.

These alarming findings came from the laboratory of senior scientist Dr. Irina Ermakova at the Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow. The experiments began two years ago, and the initial findings hit the world press when Ermakova was invited to speak at the 11 th Russian Gastroenterological Week in Moscow in October 2005

GM Soya Fed Rats: Stunted, Dead, or Sterile

a reply to: Sabiduria

Let's forget that GMO products messes with the RNA of plants, animals and humans.

Let's forget that the topic is inadequate testing for pesticides by the FDA.

originally posted by: ThichHeaded
a reply to: Phage

You know.. i have always wondered about this.. not just this gmo bs.. cause really we are being forced to eat this if you don't grow your own food.. but things in general.. what makes something so crappy become so popular.. elected officials, videos, drugs, hookers.. why?

And the other question is... with it being such a crappy product why does it stay on the market? Usually in free trade the people dictate things.. not the government.

Because so called 'free-trade' is a fallacy. Free-Trade tends to imply that consumers make an informed decision on their buying choices. This could not be further from the truth especailly in this day and age of super-monopolies and cartels. This is true not only with food purchases but all other necessity purchases (Gas, Electricity, Communication, etc.)

But the 'free-market' crowd will say "you don't have to buy it" when THEY have rigged and fight tooth and nail to maintain that very system. Don't want to buy Gas - what are your realistic choices? Don't like your cable provider - any alternative other then shutting it down?

Corporations have only one imperitive and that is stockholder value - which by legal definition can only be measured in dollars.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Are you the least concerned about contaminated foods (poisions of all sorts - industrial waste more likely, radiation, disease - think e coli outbreaks). Without inspections using good methods of testing - how will anyone know.

Look at all the stuff that still happens even though there are inspections with "good methods" of testing. We still have problems with contaminated foods, radiation, oil disasters... I could go on. U.S Corporations number one goal is to make money, no matter if it harms or kills people. If corners in inspections need to be cut in order to save money, so be it.

It's a real shame and even bigger shame that we allow it to continue to happen.

There is no need for GMO when we can use Aquaponic food farms and existing croplands.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ThichHeaded
Would your rather have 2,4D used as a pesticide? The use of glyphosate has cut down on its use as well as others which are scarier.

And aren't pesticides being accused of the killing off of millions of bees?

Well, since bees are insects, it sort of follows that insecticides would not be good for them, right? That would seem to be an argument for GM crops though, since using insect resistant plants would mean reducing in the use of sprayed insecticides.

Oh, I said the apparent lack of adequate testing is a matter of concern, didn't I?

But the GMOs are not designed to be 'insect resistant' but 'resistant to pesticides'. Insects consuming the plants and/or nectar of GMO plants may die but due to the toxicity of the plant material not by design.

originally posted by: Sabiduria
a reply to: FyreByrd

Are you the least concerned about contaminated foods (poisions of all sorts - industrial waste more likely, radiation, disease - think e coli outbreaks). Without inspections using good methods of testing - how will anyone know.

Look at all the stuff that still happens even though there are inspections with "good methods" of testing. We still have problems with contaminated foods, radiation, oil disasters... I could go on. U.S Corporations number one goal is to make money, no matter if it harms or kills people. If corners in inspections need to be cut in order to save money, so be it.

It's a real shame and even bigger shame that we allow it to continue to happen.

There is no need for GMO when we can use Aquaponic food farms and existing croplands.

In a perfect world all food would me grown with organic principals and organic soil amendments. But we do not live in that world yet.

How, in the mean time, do we insure that our food supply supports rather then destroys life?

a reply to: FyreByrd

But the GMOs are not designed to be 'insect resistant' but 'resistant to pesticides'.

There are GM varieties which are resistant to herbicides (there are also natural plants which are resistant to herbicides) and there are GM varieties which are insect resistant.

Insects consuming the plants and/or nectar of GMO plants may die but due to the toxicity of the plant material no by desing.

The insect resistant GM crops produce Bt toxin, that is the same (natural) pesticide which is approved for use in certified organic farming. It is not the pesticide being implicated in CCD (bee colony collapse disorder). Many plants produce pesticides without genetic modification.
www.fortfreedom.org...
www.hort.purdue.edu...
www.botgard.ucla.edu...
www.amnh.org...

As you say. Not an area I am well versed in.

I know many plants are insect resistant and are used in companion plantings and spray-on pest repellents. I find that a very different application then that of altering a plants genome to produce a toxin that is not native.

From casual readings you seem to think food safety is in good hands with the corporations.

I do not. It need to be in the hands of a organization and people who's sole operating principal is safety. And we the people will have to support it because if we don't - industry will just buy it.

Anecdotally, I've read that Monsanto, to name one name, doesn't used any GMO foods in their corporate cafeteria. I wonder why that would be?

a reply to: FyreByrd

From casual readings you seem to think food safety is in good hands with the corporations.

Not really. I just tend to avoid hysteria. How many times do I have to say that inadequate testing by the FDA is of concern?

Anecdotally, I've read that Monsanto, to name one name, doesn't used any GMO foods in their corporate cafeteria. I wonder why that would be?

Maybe you shouldn't believe everything you read, at least no without a bit of investigation.

a reply to: Phage

Well, thanks to you and a memory of using this stuff once, I did. And I will actually source my information so that you might learn something as well.

From: www.gmwatch.org...

One of the favourite arguments of the pro-GM lobby in support of Bt-toxin GM crops is that the Bt toxin has been safely used for decades by organic farmers.

The bt bacteria, commercially available for organic farming is a preparation of weakened or most often dead bacteria, which is sprayed only in the case of high insect infestation and only onto the affected area.

....

The actual bacterium, which is not eaten by any insects, degrades in the light/sun/rain pretty fast (less than a day). The chances of pests developing resistance to it are very low indeed, since all the pests which are exposed to the toxin are affected by it.

NOTE! The ACTIVE TOXIN can only be found IN THE GUT OF THE INSECT.

Bt bacteria has no harmful effect on the environment as far as we know.

and so the organic industry uses this bacteria quite safely. Now lets look at the GM version:

The gene of one, or several of the active, trimmed toxin is transferred to the GM plant and will be synthesized in every single cell of the transgenic plant and the active toxin is being expressed by every cell, all the time. Therefore, the ACTIVE TOXIN IS IN EVERY PLANT CELL AND TISSUE, ALL THE TIME and cannot be washed off.

Pests are exposed to a low dose of the toxin in their environment all the time, which gives the best chances for developing resistance.

As far as safety is concerned, the active toxins are not easily degraded by gut enzymes and, since they are lectins, they all are very likely to bind to the wall of the mammalian/human gut.

The bt toxin is in the soil, in the plant, in the pollen, in the nectar -- in short, in every part of the plant which is used as human food or animal feed.

A pretty big difference in my opinion.

Here's another interesting item:

www.nosprayzone.org...

Unfortunately, when Bt pesticides are formulated, a number of “inert” ingredients are added as preservatives, enhancers, and flow and wetting agents. These inerts are never revealed by manufacturers or tested for safety, and some may be toxic. For instance, Foray 48B, a common moth insecticide, probably contains the chemical BIT (1,2-benzisothiazolin-3-one) that was recently prohibited for environmental releases in the EU.

To be fair I'll throw in this article on the safety of such GM plants:

academicsreview.org...

In looking over the references for the article I see no indication that any are specifically about GM BT. Maybe one - but it's not clear whether there is any comparison.

It appears that the article is specifcally written to counter the specific argument made in my first reference.

Well now you can make up your own mind, or rather other people.

I'll stick to my mother's adage "Better safe then sorry" on this front.

There still is no way to ensure that food coming into this country meet the standards that the good people from Dow have paid for.

Someday I'll learn not to care, maybe not.

a reply to: FyreByrd

A pretty big difference in my opinion.

And in the opinion of your source. Is your source a biologist? Apparently not, since with this statement:

The chances of pests developing resistance to it are very low indeed, since all the pests which are exposed to the toxin are affected by it.

Demonstrates a total lack of understanding of how tolerance develops.

Here's another interesting item:

An item which talks about inert ingredients used with sprayed Bt toxin. Another argument seemingly in favor of insect resistant GM plants, since they don't employ spraying or those inert ingredients.

There still is no way to ensure that food coming into this country meet the standards that the good people from Dow have paid for.

No way to ensure anything, is there? I could get killed by a drunk driver tonight. But a better effort to test for pesticides could be made.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Here's an opine on academicsreview.org. It doesn't provide links but enough information to trace down their sources. This is specifically about a different offering then the one I referenced but it does provide some background about the organization:

gmoinside.org...

The groups’ co-founder Bruce Massey is on the advisory board of the American Council on Science and Health, a pro-industry science advocacy group that takes significant funding from corporations such as Bayer Crop Science and Syngenta, which can be seen as having a financial stake in these debates. Links to this and other pro-biotechology organizations, such as International Food Biotechnology Committee, Center for Environmental Risk Assessment, and GMO Pundit, are listed prominently on their website.

Gawd, I'm so easily distracted - must meditate more.

Can't help myself - have to add:

Contrary to the oft-repeated refrain that we need GMOs to feed the world, this important Atlantic Monthly article by Barry Estabrook cites numerous studies suggesting that organic agriculture has the best potential to feed people in a way that protects our critical natural resources, including the 2011 landmark U.N. Report, Agro-ecology and the Right to Food,

As U.N. Special Rappateur Olivier De Shutter, the author of the report, said: “Today’s scientific evidence demonstrates that agro-ecological methods outperform the use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food production where the hungry live—especially in unfavorable environments.” He added, “Conventional farming relies on expensive inputs, fuels climate change, and is not resilient to climatic shocks. It simply is not the best choice anymore today.”

a reply to: FyreByrd

Gawd, I'm so easily distracted

Sticking with your topic would be a good idea.

Monsanto salesmen and lobbyists convince farmers their products are superior and completely safe. My father was convinced DDT was completely safe because he was told it was safe by people selling it. These people were told by salesmen it was safe. DDT has been renamed since then and reintroduced into the farming system with very minor changes that did nothing to reduce the danger it had.

I expect the same thing to happen if Glycophosphate is banned. A new patent probably has already been filed.

Nothing about our food safety programs in this country seems to be completely legit. It seems we are being BSed to believe we need things we really don't need. But now that we have severely damaged toe natural Ecosystem we may be bound to keeping these poisons. Wasps and hornets used to eat the bugs in the fields before, but we kill the natural preditors of these bugs. The chemical industry is trying to make us completely dependent on them. They were not needed a hundred years ago, why do we need them now.

a reply to: rickymouse

DDT has been renamed since then and reintroduced into the farming system with very minor changes that did nothing to reduce the danger it had.

What is the new name?

I expect the same thing to happen if Glycophosphate is banned. A new patent probably has already been filed.

I don't know what Glycophosphate is but the patent on glyphosphate (the active ingredient in RoundUp) expired about 14 years ago.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: rickymouse

DDT has been renamed since then and reintroduced into the farming system with very minor changes that did nothing to reduce the danger it had.

What is the new name?

I expect the same thing to happen if Glycophosphate is banned. A new patent probably has already been filed.

I don't know what Glycophosphate is but the patent on glyphosphate (the active ingredient in RoundUp) expired about 14 years ago.

Dicofol en.wikipedia.org...

Monsanto is modifying it's formulas constantly to combat resistance. Sometimes the resistance isn't even present in hardly any areas but salesmen can sell it anyway.

Farmers buy what they are supplied, most must use chemicals with their orders or face not being able to sell or to be covered in case of crop loss.