CrackerJackAg said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

No, hybridizing is a specific breeding program. Wheat is not hybridized.

My point is that you have no real knowledge here.

And there is no GMO wheat produced anywhere on earth

---

Cool… Have a great day.

---

Well, then, maybe you won't post falsehoods in the future and claim they're 100% true...

That would make all of us have a great day...

---

Still not wrong. HB4 wheat (the first truly genetically modified wheat) was approved for use and consumption in Argentina in 2020.

Brazil and Indonesia now currently allow it for Human consumption.

The US and several other countries allow it for livestock feed.

HB4 is a fully, by all definitions, GMO.

That makes me definitely correct and the previous statement 100% false.

Farmer Fauci was wrong. ;-)

Ag with Kids trusted the science. ;-)

(I'm jacking with you so don't take those statements seriously)

https://www.google.com/search?q=https://www.reuters.com/article/argentina-wheat-gmo-idUSKBN26T277

---

Somehow, I believe the wheat farmer more than someone that googled something.

Are you going to google your medicines now and tell your doctors they're wrong?

---

Wow… seriously.

Reuters not good enough for you?

How about from the company itself?

https://investors.biocerescrops.com/news/default.aspx

Eco-Wheat!


Argentina News
https://www.batimes.com.ar/news/argentina/argentina-becomes-first-country-to-approve-genetically-modified-wheat.phtml

The Argentine National Commission for Science and Technology (CONICET) released a statement and you can look it up.

Don't know what to tell you but I wouldn't personally get my info on emerging tech from people will part retirement age.

---

Rooters >>>> Reuters

SunrayAg said:

---

You have been arguing all through the thread that "modern wheat" has been changed into something dangerous.

It has not.

It's still just wheat.

And when gmo wheat gets released, it will still be just wheat.

Yes I've known for years that there were some wheat GMO's in research. Farmers actually revolted and got one cancelled a decade ago. Monsanto made a roundup ready wheat in the lab, but nobody wanted it because farmers like to grow wheat for a cover crop to prevent wind erosion, and then kill it with roundup before planting their summer crop. So it was created, but never left the lab.

It does not change the fact that all of the wheat currently in the US food supply is still just wheat. And it does not change the fact that modern wheat has saved billions of lives.

---

I never claimed that there wasn't a greater good reason for the changes. I said it was changed into something less healthy. I said that all of the changes that have been made have not been with nutrition in mind, but larger harvest, and all the things that I mentioned earlier that I don't really care to go back and do again.

I was not the one that made definitive statements that there was not a GMO wheat anywhere on earth. CantonAg77 did that and he was wrong. With kids said that I was posting falsehoods and I showed the links in the receipts and he was wrong.

If you are OK with current wheat, I have no problem with that. I just don't think it's good for you and that's my opinion and I can post a lot of **** about why that's true and I'm sure you can post a lot of **** about why you think what you think is true.

You may just value something different than I do and that's OK.

APHIS AG said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Very good response and information, I'd just like to add to this

Quote:

---

4: if you believe glyphosate is dangerous then I'd invite you to come out to the farm and we can show you the real dangerous ones that we still use today

---

People need to Google up the list of chemicals that you are allowed to use on a crop, and still sell it as "100% Organic".

You will be surprised at what is allowed.

---

This.

One of the biggest con jobs perpetrated, especially on liberals, is the "organic" food "industry". What people do not know is that pesticides are still being used on crops.

The FDA allows certain pesticides and practices to be used and still label produce as "organic".

The public is so used to having "perfect" looking produce in that no one will purchase insect damaged produce, even though their is nothing wrong with it.

And on any farm, pests will always be a problem and farmers know that damaged produce will not be accepted.

Also, to label any item as "organic" is an excuse to add a 20% or more increase in the price of the item.

---

Up to and including taking a dump on it in the field.

That's also a major contributing factor to the ecoli outbreaks you get in lettuce and what not, but hey - it's organic!

FCBlitz said:

---

Over_ed said:

---

25 years after original publication - the" landmark" study scientifically showing glyphosate (Roundup) was safe -- with no cancer risk -- was retracted from its publication a couple of days ago.

The authors received payments from industry, relied on Monsanto's studies for their data, and, in fact, Monsanto ghost-wrote much of the paper.

It is much too easy for the money involved in "real" research to tempt academics to compromise their integrity. The lack of any prestige in replicating studies means that these "scientific" lies persist for decades.

Even worse is "research' in the social sciences etc, where studies are considered valid even when the researcher is not looking for objective truth but from the onset wants to present a slanted outcome.

All 3 of the authors of this study were teaching professors at academic institutions.

When professors on this forum talk about "academic freedom" the implication is that they need freedom from us plebes to uncover "truths". Myself, I wish they would just do a better job of teaching in the classroom because the huge majority of research is BS.

On a personal note, when I was pursuing my "higher learning", my advisor and good friend became a shill for the tobacco industry. So. I've seen this personally.

Oh- and burn Monsanto etc, to the ground and whoever was stupid enough to buy it. There need to be consequences,

https://usrtk.org/pesticides/landmark-glyphosate-safety-study-retracted-for-monsanto-ghostwriting/

---

I can't avoid sounding like a smart arse….so I will just be blunt. What was dangerous about agent orange? You brought up Monsanto so I am assuming you were speaking to AO?

---

I can answer that one……with a little help from Dr. Morris Merkle. As I recall, "Agent Orange" is a broadleaf herbicide consisting of a combination of 2,4-dichloro phenoxy acetic acid (2,4-D) and 2,4,5-trichloro phenoxy acetic acid (2,4,5-T). The combo was a good brush killer in the jungles of 'Nam. Obviously very similar chemicals, the process that added that third chlorine to the benzene ring to turn "D" to "T" had a byproduct- dioxin. While minuscule in amount, it's sort of a bad boy of carcinogens. It was also found in the herbicide "Silvex" (damn, I miss that stuff - great yucca killer). Later studies found that when used at the labeled rate it was pretty much a non-issue, but it was too expensive to have either relabeled, and other products were out there. Now when not handled correctly, bad things happen. How much protective gear did idiot19 year old kids in 'Nam in 1967 use when loading and mixing it in the jungle heat?

B-1 83 said:

---

FCBlitz said:

---

Over_ed said:

---

25 years after original publication - the" landmark" study scientifically showing glyphosate (Roundup) was safe -- with no cancer risk -- was retracted from its publication a couple of days ago.

The authors received payments from industry, relied on Monsanto's studies for their data, and, in fact, Monsanto ghost-wrote much of the paper.

It is much too easy for the money involved in "real" research to tempt academics to compromise their integrity. The lack of any prestige in replicating studies means that these "scientific" lies persist for decades.

Even worse is "research' in the social sciences etc, where studies are considered valid even when the researcher is not looking for objective truth but from the onset wants to present a slanted outcome.

All 3 of the authors of this study were teaching professors at academic institutions.

When professors on this forum talk about "academic freedom" the implication is that they need freedom from us plebes to uncover "truths". Myself, I wish they would just do a better job of teaching in the classroom because the huge majority of research is BS.

On a personal note, when I was pursuing my "higher learning", my advisor and good friend became a shill for the tobacco industry. So. I've seen this personally.

Oh- and burn Monsanto etc, to the ground and whoever was stupid enough to buy it. There need to be consequences,

https://usrtk.org/pesticides/landmark-glyphosate-safety-study-retracted-for-monsanto-ghostwriting/

---

I can't avoid sounding like a smart arse….so I will just be blunt. What was dangerous about agent orange? You brought up Monsanto so I am assuming you were speaking to AO?

---

I can answer that one……with a little help from Dr. Morris Merkle. As I recall, "Agent Orange" is a broadleaf herbicide consisting of a combination of 2,4-dichloro phenoxy acetic acid (2,4-D) and 2,4,5-trichloro phenoxy acetic acid (2,4,5-T). The combo was a good brush killer in the jungles of 'Nam. Obviously very similar chemicals, the process that added that third chlorine to the benzene ring to turn "D" to "T" had a byproduct- dioxin. While minuscule in amount, it's sort of a bad boy of carcinogens. It was also found in the herbicide "Silvex" (damn, I miss that stuff - great yucca killer). Later studies found that when used at the labeled rate it was pretty much a non-issue, but it was too expensive to have either relabeled, and other products were out there. Now when not handled correctly, bad things happen. How much protective gear did idiot19 year old kids in 'Nam in 1967 use when loading and mixing it in the jungle heat?

---

IIRC from reading about the dioxin pits at the mouth of the San Jac river and a couple of others along the coast here - the bad thing about dioxin is that the genetic damage it does carries on from the parent tot he offspring and on down the line. It's bad ju-ju for sure.

SunrayAg said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

sam callahan said:

---

I don't think I am buying that most Americans ate light breakfasts of a roll and coffee for breakfast prior to the 1920s.

Much more manual labor back then - especially farm work - and a light breakfast wasnt going to take you far.

Read Farmer Boy by Laura Ingalls Wilder and take note of how much food was consumed (provided it was available).

Plus, bacon was a cured meat making it a practical staple.

---

Yes, there was far more manual labor, which does play a role for sure.

But the food supply was also much, much different than it is now. It was much smaller in terms of available products and there were little, if any, highly processed foods available. Folks weren't eating hot pockets and little debbies back then - most food was pretty fresh. Lard and tallow were the oils used to fry in instead of processed canola oil or other seed based oils that we consume a huge quantity of now. More butter was consumed. Raw milk was consumed, etc.

The industrialization of our food supply combined with the fact that after the tobacco lawsuits were settled and a whole bunch of the tobacco scientists migrated to the food industry and began really working on developing foods that are flat out addictive (sugar is one of the worst things Americans consume way, way, way too much of), our food supply essentially turned against us. There is a reason most people you see now are fat and when you go back and look at pictures of people from the 80's, 70's and before they are generally in much better shape across the board.

---

The reason most people are fat now is they sit on their butts and stare at screens all day. People used to actually work and be active. A total lack of personal responsibility also doesn't help.

I used to know a guy who drank 12 cokes a day. Shockingly enough, he was massively overweight. Totally coca cola's fault, right? Not a matter of looking in the mirror and saying, gee, maybe that extra 3000 calories is not good for me.

---

That is absolutely a part of it, but it isn't anywhere close to the sole contributing factor. Our food supply is in need of an overhaul IMO, along with the education of how we view nutrition.