China says no to Frankencorn

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by Boreas

These two statement would seem to be contradictory.

Seems to me that would only be an issue if both statements were coming out of the same person.

That said...I'm assuming that this 3 year rule is part of the US government's GMO planting regulations. So...since when would anybody be surprised that science has absolutely nothing to do with government regulations.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

Seems to me that would only be an issue if both statements were coming out of the same person.

Not at all. You say it's night and I say it's day. If we make these statements at the same time and in the same place, they're contradictory.

That said...I'm assuming that this 3 year rule is part of the US government's GMO planting regulations. So...since when would anybody be surprised that science has absolutely nothing to do with government regulations.

So, you're making a value judgment based on an assumption for which no evidence has been provided.

[Ike Bana]

Nope...

[djv8ga]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

Seems to me that would only be an issue if both statements were coming out of the same person.

That said...I'm assuming that this 3 year rule is part of the US government's GMO planting regulations. So...since when would anybody be surprised that science has absolutely nothing to do with government regulations.

What government GMO regulations? The 3+ years is to let the Glyphosate (A salt) leach out of the soil. The only government regulation going on is the effort to put the small grower who doesn't kiss Monsanto's a$$ out of business.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by djv8ga

What government GMO regulations? The 3+ years is to let the Glyphosate (A salt) leach out of the soil. The only government regulation going on is the effort to put the small grower who doesn't kiss Monsanto's a$$ out of business.

I believe the length of time such fields must remain fallow before replanting has been set by the government in order for a product which contains the fruits of that dirt to be marketed as non-GMO. But I could be wrong and I would appreciate being corrected if I am.

[djv8ga]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

I believe the length of time such fields must remain fallow before replanting has been set by the government in order for a product which contains the fruits of that dirt to be marketed as non-GMO. But I could be wrong and I would appreciate being corrected if I am.

You're wrong. I think you're getting organics mixed up with the GMO crops. I'm talking about creating soil & you're talking about certified organic foods.
The 3 year thing is a coincidence.
http://organic.about.com/od/cropsfar...quirements.htm

[Ike Bana]

So we're talking about dirt that has been treated with products containing Glyphosate. The most common of these is Roundup. So my question remains, if Roundup has a half life of, at the most, 3 days. Why would dirt treated with Roundup be disqualified for production of non-GMO foods for 3 years?

[bobabode]

"The half-life of glyphosate in soil ranges between 2 and 197 days; a typical field half-life of 47 days has been suggested. Soil and climate conditions affect glyphosate's persistence in soil. The median half-life of glyphosate in water varies from a few to 91 days."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate

[merrylander]

What ever happened to the law of conservation of matter?

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by bobabode

"The half-life of glyphosate in soil ranges between 2 and 197 days; a typical field half-life of 47 days has been suggested. Soil and climate conditions affect glyphosate's persistence in soil. The median half-life of glyphosate in water varies from a few to 91 days."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate

So it is. However the stated half-life of Roundup is 2-3 days, not 2-197 days. Why that would be when it's the main ingredient in Roundup is for the scientists to explain. I can only assume the most simple explanation which would be the concentration of Gly I'm sure if I was interested in spending the time to track it down, I would be able to find it somewhere. And as I mentioned before, a friend of ours is a soil speci@list at the EPA. It's her job to research and study such stuff. And she has reported to us that's the published half-life, the actual half-life identified by her group is 24 hours, perhaps a little less.

As far as the EU goes, all indications are that most, if not all EU countries have not banned GMO's but have instituted controls for close study of GMO's. Here's a reasonable sized Wikipedia article on the general practices in the EU with a focus on Spain, France and Germany. Yes...yes...it's Wikipedia...conveniently dismissed by all sides of any argument anybody disagrees with because it's Wikipedia. This seems well researched and accurate to me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulat...European_Union

I'm just as concerned as anybody with the likelihood that increased levels of pollutants in the environment may have caused the upsurge in cases of autism (if there really is data to support an increase in the prevalence of autism) and particularly in the increase in prevalence of auto-immune disorders like MS which increasingly disables people like my brother. I would never argue against the labeling of anything we stick in our bodies to let us know how it's produced.

But I'm more than a little tired of the pseudo-science types who grab pieces of data, or who grab bad data, and promote ridiculous bullshit like vaccinations cause autism, and the GMO foods you eat will kill you, kill all your children, and kill every relative you have withing 100 miles because you're even thinking about eating any produce that has been genetically engineered.

This GMO shit is nuts bob. And giving headcases like Oprah Winfrey who want GMO's banned, and anti-vaxxer public menaces like Jenny McCarthy is at best, not productive, at worst...just fucking crazy.

This is what we get instead of factual research data:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/201...d-seeds-busted