“Organic” Is The Latin Word For “Grown In Pig Shit”

Genetic Literacy Project: The application of glyphosate to crops has increased about 15-fold since Roundup-ready crops were introduced in 1996. What has happened to the rates of [non-Hodgkin lymphoma] over the past 25 years? As shown in the figure below, while the use of glyphosate increased markedly, the incidence of NHL has remained flat, and mortality from NHL has decreased.

null

16 Replies to ““Organic” Is The Latin Word For “Grown In Pig Shit””

  1. And shysters are still trying to find “victims” to sue Monsanto. They even had an infomercial.

    The paid actors portraying “victims” were almost believable.

  2. The entire JUNK SCIENCE innuendo about glysophate was created by the WHO’s “International Agency for Research on Cancer” … just another branch of the anti-capitalist UN. SHAME on the US Courts and Juries accepting their politicized JUNK as … “science”

    1. All you need to do is convince a majority of 12 jurors that Monsanto “has lots and lots and lots of money” and can afford to pay for the “victim’s” cancer. Cause and liability be damned.

      On Stoney Trail I flipped the bird at an elderly couple from BC. Their bumper sticker proclaimed “Monsanto MURDERS”.

  3. Monsanto and Roundup in particular fed my family for 30 years.

    Great company that delivers solutions.

    “Oh my god, the topsoil erosion, what ever will we do!!!”

    No till farming. But the yields and weed pressure!

    Ok. We’ll take care of it.

  4. well there you go,proof Glyphospate causes cancer.
    At least in Climatology this is absolute proof,the finest science.
    That graph is at least as convincing as the supposed relationship between mans CO2 emissions and global Warming.
    And we now have a(unconstitutional)tax on CO2.
    P.J.O’Rouke:
    “The college idealists who fill the ranks of the environmental movement seem willing to do absolutely anything to save the biosphere, except take science courses and learn something about it.”
    Feelings and mass tantrum throwing is so much more productive.

  5. I find the ridicule quite disturbing from the readers of SDA re glyphosate. It is interesting how most who read this site are skeptical about the narrative put forth by the powers at be regarding issues such as global warming/climate change/lefttist govts, etc…but embrace the idea that glyphosate is akin to being one of mankind’s greatest creations, and is, of course, safe for us to ingest.
    How is it that you are awake about the falsehoods about CO2 but think that a corporate product such as Roundup is hunky dory. Over the last 10 years, I have researched health issues, including glyphosate, and am convinced that it is a slow poison to humans and faster to insects. The scientists who study glyphosate’s ill effects do not receive $ from corporations or govt, so what would benefit them to determine the harm it is doing to humans/insects/the land. I suggest you naysayers do some non-corporate shill research to find out the harm it is doing to you.
    I really appreciate SDA but have to wonder at how blind some of the readers are (and Kate for promoting this article in a ridicule-oriented manner). All I ask is to think through your thought processes whereby you know that the powers at be are lying about global warming, etc….but they are, of course, telling the truth about glyphosate. If they are conning the world about one hoax, they are definitely conning the world about everything else.

    1. I am going to have to second Jen’s comments. I say this coming from having done published research for the past 20 years (and yes, peer-review can be questionable at best, bogus at worst, if your asking). For example, regarding glyphosate, the cancer link may be tenuous for NHL as presented in this particular graphic, however, it’s effect on pollinators are certainly better documented, inviting more work into how best to use, and under what particular circumstances to use glyphosate. Another example would be Dr. Moore’s plugging of Golden Rice, the genetically modified one with the beta carotin gene to reduce the incidence of blindness in malnourished populations. Yes, find and dandy, except the amount of rice needed to be eated to obtain RDA is much more than what they eat, plus… just grow a friggin’ carrot why don’t cha.

    2. Maybe.
      But the hype and attempts to panic the public over weed killers ,has crossed the threshold into Public Hysteria years ago.
      We tolerate all kinds of slow poisons in our daily lives.
      And the very same A-Holies who are trying to ban Roundup were more than happy to ram compact flourscent lamps into our homes.
      Every second year,some conventional foodstuff or construction material is TOXIC,then next year Never Mind.
      Those who are most actively “trying to save us” need run out of town on a rail.

      1. Anyone who “believes” Glyphosate causes human cancer … needs to give up their cell phones, as the intense EM radiation is sterilizing them. What? You refuse to give up something that’s become an ESSENTIAL part of your life? Funny how that happens.

        So the mobile phone bloggers go find a product they don’t use and can live without … like ewwwww “chemicals” with scary-sounding names ‘gly-phos-ate’ they never learned about in their Gender Studies curriculum.

        And if you haven’t noticed … these shitty-educated agitprop’ers have taken aim at “fossil fuels” for the ‘gly-phos-ate’ treatment. Hey! They bike to work in their urban hellholes … they (think) they don’t need “fossil” fuels. These self appointed “green guardians” are trying to “tear it all down maaaan” … in the guise of “saving the planet” or “curing cancer” nonsense.

    3. Glyphosate technology has been around a long time and has stood the test of time. People have better diets and are living longer during the whole period glyphosate has been commonly used. One can conclude that it is relatively safe and the original research, which was less agenda driven back then was generally sound. Today, AGW (anthropological global warming) is promoted by those that hope to directly benefit from it. There is substantial evidence against the theory. So much so that the promoters morphed AGW into climate change because too much evidence was mounting against the original theory. So that is why I accept, and use glyphosate consuming produce that used it and reject AGW.

  6. Jen …I can understand your concern but unfortunately there are a few instances in the past which have unfortunately made a number of people who have thought this through and come to the conclusion that their might be some miss information being used. I can still remember a number of years ago when we were told that DDT was bad for the environment and it would kill hundreds of thousands of people. Turns out as was reported a couple of years ago it was the safest and best antidote for mosquito’s and other bugs. And now their is a locust pandemic in Africa and it has been reported that it will get worse over the next 4 or 5 months. So maybe the scientists who still have some morals and integrity might want to step forward and expose the ones who are all for “show me the money” and will do anything or say anything to keep the money flowing. Just a thought…Steve O

  7. Been spaying RU for years, roughly 600-800 gallons a year, Still waiting for my retirement honey pot to show up.
    Keep telling the wife all the recorded documentation showing fields,acres and rates of RU are saved for that day.
    So far nothing but you never can tell this about these things. I must be doing something wrong.
    Seriously am I suppose to drink this stuff maybe take a bath using it ?????

  8. I won’t say RU and other various agricultural chemicals are perfectly safe and without harmful effects, I’m no scientist or doctor and will not claim any authority on the subject.
    But, I can see a scam when it is presented, and too much of the fight against Monsanto stinks to high heaven. Unfortunately, due to the polarized climate surrounding the issue, very little information on the subject can be taken at face value. Scientists on both sides have their conclusions written before the research begins.
    I did look up a little bit about Glyphosate. The main base chemical is glycine, an amino acid found in many dietary supplements. The glycine is modified by mixing a phosphatic acid with a catalyst. The phosphatic acid is produced by mixing phosphate with chlorine, and I believe the catalyst is formaldehyde… there are a couple processes available to produce the end product.
    IIRC, Glyphosate works by changing a couple protein elements of a plant structure. The proteins it attacks are not found in animals or insects and therefore not supposed to be toxic to humans.
    I can’t back any of that up, the articles I read had some big words that I don’t have the time or energy to look up.

    For my own beliefs, I am going to go with the original research on the subject. It wasn’t considered dangerous for 25 yrs, but became a horrible carcinogen virtually overnight. I won’t be using RU as a mixer for cocktails at any point. However I am not going to lose sleep over trace amounts of it in my foodstuffs.

  9. Some people are stupid enough to think Organic is better and more healthy they conventonal foods because they beleive all t he hype some are stupid enough to think that going vegan will help stop Global Warming/Climate Change which is still unproven by Science its all Political just like the fake science group Union of Concerned Scientists their concerns are Political not scientific

Navigation