California EPA Moves to Label Monsanto's Roundup 'Carcinogen

While researching my genetics, I found that I am more intolerable to roundup and triclosan than many other people. A couple of gene snps can tell a person if they should avoid these things as much as possible. Now my body can detox some, but not a lot of this. Now I know this is a rare condition, only about thirty some percent of people have this problem so it is still considered GRAS because over half of the people can tolerate it. These thirty percent don't matter, they are defective I guess as far as the FDA is concerned. Most testing is done on the people in age groups that can tolerate and detox the chemistry the best, they they say that young children and senior citizens may have lost their tolerance for the chemical. So we are defective when we get over thirty, it is all right to poison us.

There are a lot of flaws in the testing procedures for food chemistry additives, I studied how they derive at what testing is necessary to get them approved for use. The FDA does not test these chemicals themselves most times and only requires testing for known problems, problems they have already discovered. Another thing is that short term exposure is only tested, basically if it doesn't make you sick within twenty four hours it is good to go. The next thing is that most companies avoid testing anything other than what is required to test, to do so would be suicide for them. Ignorance is Ok, you can't get sued or fined unless there is evidence that you knew there was something wrong yet did not correct the problem. If you test and know, then you are liable, fire any research scientist that tests outside of the parameters, it could cause problems if you don't. They want their help only to test what they want them to.

If people want to believe that Roundup is safe, let them believe it. Evidently they have not researched it and the regulations that govern it's testing and approval. They can argue that there are too many regulations, but think of this. Why have they passed these regulations? They passed them because people were getting ill at one time in the past and it was found that there was a problem that was unknown, probably because they purposely did not test for it. Food itself is a complex chemistry and every single person on this planet has intolerances for some foods and food chemistry. Only four percent of all people are susceptible to listeria yet they make a big issue out of that because some influential person's kid died long ago. Most people think adverse reactions are small, that is a misconception they led themselves to accept. A little roundup is not going to kill most people occasionally in the food, but will hurt a lot of people if consumed even at small amounts every day. The problem is that it's residue is in so many things in our food supply. The cows poop it outt and the poop gets used as fertilizer for veggies.

People think that not using roundup is going to raise the price of foods a real lot, but look at organic food prices, they are not that high. I think people want to believe a lie. The devil would have you believe a lie. The devil is a trickster, it isn't actually a being, it is a way of life of deceivers. A collective consciousness of tricksters. Now Lucifer and Satan, those words may be what is considered a being, but I think devil is not. Think of Halloween, this teaches you that trying to deceive others into believing something rediculous can be profitable.

I think it is important to note, while they are restricting things we are happy to see them restrict? These are also the same (and I mean..literally..the very same individual PEOPLE) who looked at DDT, said 'but a BIRD egg is harmed!' and willfully wrote the death warrants of millions of people, and countless kids per year, worldwide, to the only effective insecticide used against mosquitoes on that scale.

People die...that's fine. Nature has a glitch...and well...people dying is just a part of the price to pay for "green balance'..and I wish that weren't proven out to be true by real world events so clearly.

---

So, personally? I agree that the base chemical in round-up is a bad thing..if used carelessly. I happen to be in a course with one student on Enviro Science with an instructor that has a real personal thing about Round-Up by name .. and then, across campus, another student and course for the preparation to become a certified/licensed 'applicator' or someone who sprays these chemicals for a living. It gives a very unique perspective on the good, bad and ugly of insect control and the reasons for it.

Eliminate ALL insecticide...and write off a % of the human race along with them. It won't take long. The problem is......careless abuse of exceptionally nasty chemicals is doing the same thing in slow motion..isn't it?

Why can't people just use a thing to the directions..and really believe it, when it says...use ONLY as directed?? Some things do MASSIVE damage when not followed that way (Like glyphosate)

You have done research on this stuff I see.  They are manipulating so many of these genes throughout our food supply that we cannot track why we are getting more cancer.  We can't assess what is actually causing the rise in Autism and the increase in ADD and ADHD in people.  Yes, when considering all variables, even the increase in doctors assessing the diseases, Autism is increasing and so is ADD.  They do not know why though and say it will be practically impossible to find out because of how many changes in our food chemistry over the last thirty years.

All these changes are causing changes in people's metabolism.  All foods are psychotropic in effect, meaning they do effect perception and can effect cellular communication.  The problem is too much change too fast.  We can't track it.  A possible carcinogen means that it can lead to cancer.  In the case of roundup, it is hard to prove that roundup is doing it, it could be the change in the genetics of the modified food that can be doing it also or the everchanging chemistry of insecticides.  A chemical is easy to get approved but darn near impossible to get removed.

Now, I know that I can not detox roundup well, I have evidence.  Now my kids have the same problem.  Since I know, I will avoid consuming too much of it or suffer the consequences.  Cancer is not the only problem with roundup, there are many other metabolic issues that it can cause but it seems that people now believe that only cancer is the problem.  It can cause liver and other organ problems in a lot of people and these problems are not just cancer.  It negatively effects the kidneys in a lot of people and can lead to needing dialasis and a kidney transplant for some people.

Roundup is supposed to break down in the soil in a certain amount of time but the chemical company does not mention that it is rejuvinated when you add phosphate fertilizer to the soil.You can use it to kill the weeds for potatoes and do not have to reuse it for many years.  That is because you keep adding phosphate fertilizer.  I use 6/24/24 for my potatoes and root veggies.  But with the genetic engineering they can spray it on a lot more and farmers do just that because even though it is classified as a herbicide it has other properties that are not listed because it does not have to be listed.  If they classified it for those properties it might not be allowed.  Farmers are told about these properties by sales people sometimes but nothing is in writing.

You can buy roundup at Tractor Supply and many other stores and the application is a recogmendation.  There is nothing that says it is illegal to exceed the recommendations.  Nobody is checking to see how much is being sprayed.  If you spray too much on the wrong crop, it won't grow right.  All the fields out there that they use this excessively on are ruined for other crops so we are stuck with it.  Was this the intention of Monsanto?  They can force everyone to buy their product and can rule the world.

Ain't that the bitch of it, too? This is what I learned in a hard way during an Agriculture class I assisted last year. Genetic manipulation through lab equipment and white coated doctors is one way its done. Simple expression of genes, as well as selective breeding to emphasize and/or breed out others is another way.

Is there a difference, in the end? I don't know I'd say there is for actual end result. Lab work can get some more focused and specific results, while certainly doing it quicker ...but is the end result really different?

You mention academic material and one thing comes to mind. Perhaps one of the only things I took away from a Biology class I came to hate with a passion. The Russian fox experiments ..and what they found for 100% selective breeding to breed in and out traits by design. They found they could breed them for personality, aggression and disposition...to a degree. Where it worked? It worked fabulously! It actually DID work in most areas of effort.

What didn't work, and what I won't forget is..even succeeding generations with tight breeding controls...couldn't breed out pure mean and vicious from the worst of the original stock they worked from. Born bad was born bad, and seemed to run in bloodlines as sure as other stated traits. 

......that is bothersome in YOUR context as well, because they had little to no issues, as I recall it, breeding nice and friendly ones to become vicious after a couple generations. 

dirkgently,

Well, let me ask you something? This may be a hair off topic, but I don't intend to pursue it beyond the question here...

I watched a documentary back in the late 90's for timing, I'd say, which focused heavily on the human cost of Chernobyl. One 'exhibit' hall of medical abberation they maintained had a number of still born and very short lived babies attributed to the accident and its long term aftermath. 

One of those? I remember to the day I die, for what its mere physical existence in our world implied. Accident or not, and I wonder if it could have been a manipulation of gene expression through outside factors, given the very 'proper', horrible birth defect the one was.

The head was out of proportion to the baby body to a marked degree, but what stood out the most was the symmetrical cyclops feature. Not a part of a mishapen face as much as what looked like a natural feature ...that simply comes from myth we're taught didn't exist. 

Think that was possible as having been a natural path which genes could have expressed in an exceptional situation?