Yes, we do not need chemicals for our food.
2 Likes
[similar post]
4 Likes
Some Farmers do, most don’t like GMOs at all…
It all goes back to the original Implementation of GMOs in Kansas, I think, where the Wind cross polintaed a Farmers Corn with GMO Pollen and then MONSATAN sued the Farmer out of Existence because he sold his own Corn not knowing it was Cross Pollinated with GMO Garbage…
But besides all of that, We Americans are now finding out that GMO Foods are not good for us, healthwise, and in fact may be making us prone to, or open to things that cause Cancer and other horrible Illnesses…
We should BAN GMOs along with the Horrible Poisons that the Corporations have been slipping into our Food Supply…
3 Likes
Great post - I agree, our future literally is dependent upon a dramatic drop in pesticide use. To those who are extremely concerned that farmers won’t be able to grow food, and that it is unfair to strip chemical tools from the farmer toolbox, please check out the work of Gabe Brown and thousands of farmers who have adapted their farming practices. They have managed to heal the soil and ecosystem to such a point that they have 1000s of acres will few to no chemicals needed. To support the transition to low/no-input regenerative agriculture, farmers will need access to the equipment needed (swathers, roller crimpers, no-till drills, uncoated seeds), which is where the USDA should be focussing their attention. Those farmers who make this big leap find that their input costs - including fertility, fungicides, insecticides, and herbicides - go down substantially (often to zero!) and exports are opened due to low residues. Yields either remain the same or only slightly drop. Revenues rebound, which is something all farmers can agree is vital. The only ones who lose in this situation are the chemical manufacturers and their shareholders.
6 Likes
Did you have thousands of acres to fertilize?
I agree in principal with banning an additive, process or treatment that can be shown to have caused harm in reputable scientific journals. That said one needs to recognize that organizations, be they scientific, buearocratic or political can be captured by commercial interests. Also there is the possibility of “law-fare by paper” to hurt competing product/innovation. As a scientist I have seen leading studies used to “take down” alternative by deliberately settings conditions for failure. Happens folks, most aren’t trained to read scientific papers I’m afraid.
Well it didn’t sleep well so here is what I came up with.
- Autonomous Government agency setup to handle appeals to banning based on a reasonable level of threat as assessed by a second agency.
- Employees of said agency are on a fixed progression scheduled by years of experience and competencies. Employees banned by law for working in health or health related area for five years with stiff penalties if they leave. Renumeration to be commensurate with private employees in similar industry.
- On receipt of an appeal duplicated studies (true replicats) be launched on animal and in vitro or whatever medical and science experts agree is appropriate. If short term test do not confirm harm then larger long term sties ensue. After 1-2 years a provisional authority to use may be granted pending 5 and 10 year results.
I am saying you need a trusted process to sort fact from fiction when it comes to agriculture, food and industry processes that impact on everyones’ well-being.
2 Likes
The EU’s Precautionary Principle is a faith-based regulatory approach that presumes everything causes harm unless it can be proven otherwise. The US’s approach is risk-based and relies on science to determine whether or not there are risks, and if they’re within acceptable levels when products are used according to the label.
It’s worth noting that simply living carries risks. Leaving your house can be riskier than staying inside. Risk is scientifically quantifiable. Risk is a rational and logical basis on which to regulate chemicals.
Defaulting to the EU standard would mean giving up a degree of American sovereignty, which is a terrible idea all by itself IMO. It would also force Americans to obey the whims of non-profits whose “science” is often as bad, if not worse, than “science” provided by industry for regulatory purposes. Under current US law, industry must provide data that comports to rigorous scientific methodology that has been extensively peer reviewed. The EU standard is nowhere near as rigorous, which is why NGOs whose business models require people to be stoked into irrational panic rely on “science” that’s guaranteed to keep the charitable donations flowing.
As just one example, carcinogenic claims by ‘health advocacy non-profits’ regularly rely on dosing of ag chemicals that far exceeds authorized labeled uses and would be illegal if done in the field. This strategy has been know since the TaB soft drink carcinogenic scare of the 1970s, in which some rats developed bladder tumors when given the equivalent (in people) of drinking a case of TaB daily for 20 years. Susceptible people panicked, and TaB was taken off the market as a result.
2 Likes
Very good point about Sri Lanka.
Fans of organic farming are so enthusiastic about it, they never pay attention when their preference is tried out at scale and fails so miserably, one could wonder if they were trying to compete with the Soviets in forcing mass starvation on people (i.e. Holodomor).
What’s really strange is how, when I’ve mentioned Sri Lanka, I’ve yet to meet a fan of organic farming who begins questioning the wisdom of their beliefs.
1 Like
Depending on system of application, many of the “chemicals” whether organic or inorganic have far-reaching impact on soil, air and groundwater, including runoff into lakes and streams.
Suggest creating policy regarding establishment of “coexistence” decision-making in states and counties, with a healthy dose of Federal oversight to start, with Federal monitoring later. And continuity planning in order to phase out heavy Federal oversight and transition to monitoring.
No-brainer.
European food is great. Anywhere you go.
Whatever they’re doing to protect their water, soil, and agricultural products needs to be replicated here in America.
1 Like
personally believe the explosion of celiac disease, chronic bloating, diverticulitus, colon cancer and other gut/digestive issues will eventually be tied to glysophate being used as a drying agent on grain crops. if you look around there have been independent tests done that show massive amounts being found in flour, breads, and cereals like cheerios. bread has been a staple food globally for thousands of years, but considered toxic for the last 40?!? about the same time monsanto marketed glysophate/roundup/casseron as a crop drying agent and weed control?
I agree.
I completely agree with the concerns about toxic chemicals in agriculture. Chemicals like Atrazine, Chlorpyrifos, and Glyphosate have been banned in the EU due to their known health and environmental risks, yet they continue to be used in the U.S., where they pose significant dangers to both human health and ecosystems. The impact on pollinators, water quality, and public health is undeniable.
Instead of relying on harmful pesticides, we should adopt safer, sustainable practices. No toxic chemicals should be sprayed on our land, our food, or our water. It’s time for the U.S. to adopt stricter regulations and follow the precautionary principles used in Europe to protect people and the environment from these dangerous substances. We must prioritize health and sustainability over corporate interests.
2 Likes
mandate that food ingredients must be identical in the US as the same products sold to Europe
I disagree here based on the fact that some of the pesticides such as copper based (that is allowed in EU) can be less safe. Not to mention the EU does allow glyphosate.
If Europe does not approve neither should the USA. We need to have the same strict laws as the do in Europe. Their food is cleaner and healthier
2 Likes
the problem with that is they already have proven them to be safe, that’s why they have gotten approval
I would not put my eggs into the basket of a Alt-Left controlled NON-Elected body like the EU.
ANY ban predicated on a “Potential” risk is bad policy
we should not ban anything that “may” cause harm, just like we’d not approve anything that “May” be safe
Ban/Approval requires PROOF… one way or the other
Water is potentially harmful, yet we don’t ban it.
I think you got that backwards. Safety has already been proven. If you say you have been harmed by a chemical you have to prove the chemical is at fault. Many things cause disease claiming ones problems on a chemical with no evidence other than association is not valid. If you make a claim you have to back it up with proof.