I figured this thread might have been about the Veritasium video, which was mostly about how amazing a company Monsanto is…

You made a very broad, non specific generalization that there was clearly something wrong with our food supply.

I asked a simple question to which you used AI to answer.

We have the most abundant and safest food supply in the world. We also have the most efficient production agriculture systems in the world. Thankfully so. We do have serious problems with over consumption, lack of balance coupled with a lack of exercise to name a few. Bread in itself isn't bad. Any other food groups you wish to shed light on?

Not picking on you. Just curious.

This is how the entire climate change industry works.

Fitch said:

---

Pretty sure this stuff was a factor in the death of my grandfather and the leukemia my uncle experienced ~10 years ago.

Given its broad use and the impact it has had on changing the crops we grow and consume (saying nothing of legal action Monsanto itself has levied on roundup ready plant genes spreading) the herbicide should be relentlessly reviewed and questioned.

Not calling for a ban, but anyone spouting off that it's perfectly safe and no need to worry is playing a fool.

---

More studies? Glyphosate is easily the most studied and mischaracterized herbicide in history. The EPA, EU, and others have deemed it safe for use as labeled, repeatedly . By now it should be obvious that if glyphosate was anywhere near the bad boy as claimed by anti-corporate distractors it would not still be here.

Teslag said:

---

Why you are pretty sure it gave him leukemia?

Do you feel same about 24D? Triclopyr? Any others? Why specifically glyphosate?

---

Pardon - semantic error on my part. He had non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Grandfather was the one who died of leukemia a matter of months after diagnosis. Neighbor's dad died of the same not long after spraying his property with Triclopyr from a four-wheeler.

We also use 24D, Triclopyr, and others. I get their value in the field, but having been present through that family illness and death bed, I will forever strictly treat them as poison and go to any / all measures to avoid contact, forever.

It irritates the living piss out me that it's advertised as harmless and used so heavily in the food chain. Nothing in this world can be used in excess without consequences.

You do realize that sometimes people just get cancer and leukemia right? There doesn't always have to be a triggering agent.

Quote:

---

It irritates the living piss out me that it's advertised as harmless and used so heavily in the food chain. Nothing in this world can be used in excess without consequences.

---

How is it used so "heavily" in the food chain, and what happens to it after it is used? That second point is crucial - glyphosate is a very weak chemical in the environment.

Sure. Doesn't change anything for me.

I'm fully aware correlation =/= causation and causation in medicine is nigh on impossible to establish in many cases, but bearing witness to some half dozen deaths and life-threatening illnesses by farmers in our community in the last couple of years, and now being at an age where I'm starting a family and have to contemplate number of years ahead with kids - I give zero slack to believing any product advisory.

Not out of ignorant superstition or a disbelief in science, but because I've seen downstream correlated happenings in living color and have myself been one of those consultants engaged to play fast and loose with marketing and statistics to promote a desired financial outcome (for real estate, not chemical production - full disclaimer).

We still use these products in our farm and ranching operations, but with a level of seriousness now as though they're cancer-causing agents. Not like they're just harmless agents which only affect undesirable plants, which generally speaking is how they're marketed.

ts5641 said:

---

This is how the entire climate change industry works.

---

Climate is much worse. Here, if the researchers had done their research and IF it had been shown to be carcinogenic, still would have been published.

Try getting something published against the orthodoxy in the climate lit now. I suspect you would not have "much" luck. :-)

But leukemia has been trending down in cases and deaths for decades. Don't you think we'd have a correlated explosion in cases as glyphosate has also exploded in use?

I've become concerned about replication in educational studies. Many districts, with good intentions, buy into programs or curriculum in an attempt to fix some of the challenges they face and end up buying a bunch of nothing. I worry about how this is decided and what can be put in place so that districts don't buy the new shiny toy in an attempt to fix issues.

Has farming per capita been trending up too?

Fitch said:

---

Has farming per capita been trending up too?

---

Are farmers the only people exposed to glyphosate?

TX_COWDOC said:

---

You made a very broad, non specific generalization that there was clearly something wrong with our food supply.

I asked a simple question to which you used AI to answer.

We have the most abundant and safest food supply in the world. We also have the most efficient production agriculture systems in the world. Thankfully so. We do have serious problems with over consumption, lack of balance coupled with a lack of exercise to name a few. Bread in itself isn't bad. Any other food groups you wish to shed light on?

Not picking on you. Just curious.

---

Yeah, depends on what safest means. You are not likely to get food poisoning? Great! Food security and abundance? Great!!

Preservatives, chemicals, sugar, hybrids and GMOs to make for more economical, nerve agents to make cheap oil edible and not smelly. Humanity survived millennia on bread. Send modern wheat back in it's place and no one is here to tell the tale.

I think we just disagree on the definition. That's ok because there are arguments for both and that's fine.

I don't know how old you are but don't be obtuse about AI. It's a tool and a pretty good one at this point. That's all.

I'm old enough to know I won't form my opinions or make broad uninformed generalizations with someone's computer algorithms.

Sorry Dave, I'm afraid you have to eat the bread.
Thanks Hal.

Exactly what is wrong with "modern wheat"?

A few fields of "Academic Science" (e.g. Pharmacology) are susceptible to the big money that Pharma or Monsanto throws at them. You can do a "study" and then publish what is basically an opinion. Having said that you cannot throw a general accusation on all "Academic Sciences" Most of the sciences are peer reviewed, based on hard facts and the competition is fierce. Publishing trash will ruin a reputation and any prospect of future research.

The problem with all of these arguments is everyone is imagining you take Glyphosate Salt, dissolve it in water and those are the active ingredients.

EVERY glyphosate product on the planet has DIFFERENT adjuvants, emulsifiers, and "inactive" ingredients that are rubber stand approved by governments globally based on only looking at the glyphosate molecule and allowing cloned labels.

As Roundup came off patent an EXTREMELY VAST amount of glyphosate products is sold by generic companies that manufactured the products in India or China for the fewest pennies you can imagine and allowed to enter markets because Monsanto registered a completely different mixture 30 years ago.

But no one asks why cancer rates are high after 20 years of generic cheap knockoffs and fixate on the first 20 years of a highly regulated and studied product.

Cancer rates have been dropping for decades

My point is everyone looks at glyphosate as a single period when it is clearly the initial heavily regulated and studied early phase dominated by Monsanto and Syngenta. Followed by the current phase that is almost exclusively a generic market run my knockoff Chinese and Indian products.

Is there a way of telling which version of glyphosate (the licensed vs. the generic) causes a cancer?

Burdizzo said:

---

Is there a way of telling which version of glyphosate (the licensed vs. the generic) causes a cancer?

---

Studies quoted are often looking at lab prepared glyphosate salts prepared with no other ingredients. All other ingredients are tested individually throughout time for various industries and get on "safe product" lists. Then when we would develop them we could combine things we needed from this list in new combinations with minimal or no regulations.

Glyphosate needs something to spread it on the leaf surface so we would search for already approved ingredients that did that chemically. Then you might need something to cut through cell membranes and cell walls so we would shop around for those. Combine the together as cheaply as possible. And BOOM! New product with no new required testing that also borrows all of the existing environmental surveys and health studies from the roundup that was registered 40 years ago.

Do this every time a new startup or regional company wants their own branded product and then continue to replace these additives periodically to reduce costs without needing a relabel. You are now 40+ remixes of glyphosate away from those initial studies done by Monsanto. AND every company now is mixing and selling unregulated adjuvants and surfactants designed to get these chemicals past cell wall and membrane defenses faster and in higher concentrations than ever.

McDonald's wasn't unhealthy when they started. It was the things that they did afterwards that made it into an unhealthy place to eat.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

TX_COWDOC said:

---

You made a very broad, non specific generalization that there was clearly something wrong with our food supply.

I asked a simple question to which you used AI to answer.

We have the most abundant and safest food supply in the world. We also have the most efficient production agriculture systems in the world. Thankfully so. We do have serious problems with over consumption, lack of balance coupled with a lack of exercise to name a few. Bread in itself isn't bad. Any other food groups you wish to shed light on?

Not picking on you. Just curious.

---

Yeah, depends on what safest means. You are not likely to get food poisoning? Great! Food security and abundance? Great!!

Preservatives, chemicals, sugar, hybrids and GMOs to make for more economical, nerve agents to make cheap oil edible and not smelly. Humanity survived millennia on bread. Send modern wheat back in it's place and no one is here to tell the tale.

I think we just disagree on the definition. That's ok because there are arguments for both and that's fine.

I don't know how old you are but don't be obtuse about AI. It's a tool and a pretty good one at this point. That's all.

---

Thanks for posting this. Absurdities like this let us know who we are dealing with.

Preservatives = less spoiled and rotten food. Food that can be transported and stored. More food being eaten and less wasted. You don't have to live across the street from the farm to get unspoiled food.

Chemicals allow a tiny portion of the population to feed the rest of the world. Don't worry. Organic crops are sprayed with plenty of chemicals too. They just have to be organic certified.

GMO's are completely inert. No human has ever been or will ever be harmed by a GMO crop . They do however, help increase yields and reduce pesticide usage.

I have no idea which conspiracy website gave you the idea that nerve agents are added to cooking oil. I thought I had heard them all.

Even more ridiculous is the garbage about modern wheat. Modern wheat… which is just wheat, naturally cross bred with other types of wheat from around the world… has saved billions of lives. With a B. Billions. But for some reason the scientifically illiterate have a problem with it? I don't get that one.

Our food supply is more safe, more plentiful, and less expensive than at any time in history. And I for one will not apologize for being part of it.

Insert "he's right you know" meme. I've never had anyone who tell me that gmo is bad explain what's actually bad. Then when you explain the pesticides and insecticides you no longer have to use to control previous issues, they had no idea. Most people are so far removed from food production to understand what it takes.

SunrayAg said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

TX_COWDOC said:

---

You made a very broad, non specific generalization that there was clearly something wrong with our food supply.

I asked a simple question to which you used AI to answer.

We have the most abundant and safest food supply in the world. We also have the most efficient production agriculture systems in the world. Thankfully so. We do have serious problems with over consumption, lack of balance coupled with a lack of exercise to name a few. Bread in itself isn't bad. Any other food groups you wish to shed light on?

Not picking on you. Just curious.

---

Yeah, depends on what safest means. You are not likely to get food poisoning? Great! Food security and abundance? Great!!

Preservatives, chemicals, sugar, hybrids and GMOs to make for more economical, nerve agents to make cheap oil edible and not smelly. Humanity survived millennia on bread. Send modern wheat back in it's place and no one is here to tell the tale.

I think we just disagree on the definition. That's ok because there are arguments for both and that's fine.

I don't know how old you are but don't be obtuse about AI. It's a tool and a pretty good one at this point. That's all.

---

Thanks for posting this. Absurdities like this let us know who we are dealing with.

Preservatives = less spoiled and rotten food. Food that can be transported and stored. More food being eaten and less wasted. You don't have to live across the street from the farm to get unspoiled food.

Chemicals allow a tiny portion of the population to feed the rest of the world. Don't worry. Organic crops are sprayed with plenty of chemicals too. They just have to be organic certified.

GMO's are completely inert. No human has ever been or will ever be harmed by a GMO crop . They do however, help increase yields and reduce pesticide usage.

I have no idea which conspiracy website gave you the idea that nerve agents are added to cooking oil. I thought I had heard them all.

Even more ridiculous is the garbage about modern wheat. Modern wheat… which is just wheat, naturally cross bred with other types of wheat from around the world… has saved billions of lives. With a B. Billions. But for some reason the scientifically illiterate have a problem with it? I don't get that one.

Our food supply is more safe, more plentiful, and less expensive than at any time in history. And I for one will not apologize for being part of it.

---

I feel equally blown away by you.

Hexane is used to clean and de-rancify Rapeseed/canola oil.

It a commercial solvent used for making shoes, contact cement, cleaning machinery etc…

It also just happens to maximize canola oil extraction.

It also is a known carcinogen and causes neurological issues. The FDA says it's cool and it's not so much left over you should worry about it but I just don't need hexane in my food.

You may decide it's not a problem for you in this quantities and I've decided it's not for myself and my kids etc..

I can also afford to not buy $5 oil and I'm ok with cold pressed expensive oils.

I don't have the time or will to argue the wheat thing right now but that's an easy Google.

I use a lot of Organic Einkorn Wheat. It's expensive but it's way tastier and healthier. Natural amounts of gluten means you have to slow ferment it (which is also good for you). Toasts wheat has a metric **** ton of gluten so that it can be baked really fast, trap more air and be cooked really quickly.

Modern wheat is hybridized for huge harvests and cheaper food. It's complex and is generally unhealthy. Tons of gluten for fast bread production. It's not nourishing as it's stripped of everything healthy and then they add back vitamins and call it enriched. Much lower protein and fiber content compared to something like Einkorn flour.

I honestly don't give a **** to argue. You do you and if you are ok with all that then that is your choice. I don't choose to and I'm ok with not eating dog crap of the shelf or buying the cheapest food.

Wheat is not hybridized, hope that helps

And don't blame the wheat for the processing

doubledog said:

---

A few fields of "Academic Science" (e.g. Pharmacology) are susceptible to the big money that Pharma or Monsanto throws at them. You can do a "study" and then publish what is basically an opinion. Having said that you cannot throw a general accusation on all "Academic Sciences" Most of the sciences are peer reviewed, based on hard facts and the competition is fierce. Publishing trash will ruin a reputation and any prospect of future research.

---

Consider this Monsanto case. 25 years to retract? At least 7 years AFTER the duplicity was known?

How about the Nature pub in 2006 which identified the "key" protein in Alzheimer's, and shaped essentially all funding for almost 20 years? Only to be found to be an outright con job? 10-15-20 years' delay in finding an effective treatment?

Climate research? Just 2 words say so much.

Some of the issues:

1) The utter lack of replication means that there is unlikely chance that even outright fraud will be uncovered. But, as has been pointed out in this thread, try to get replication published.

2) The current proliferation of journals and most of their abysmally low standards means, now, more than ever, most "research" will not benefit general society in any meaningful way.

3) Peer review means little in many of the hard sciences*, where the reviewers know the names and associations of the authors. Academic research should be judged on the quality of the research. And, if the reviewers can't review under two-way anonymity , then, imo, they are not qualified to review. "Fierce competition"? Yeah, with many players holding loaded dice.

*BTW, the one discipline that does it best, imo is CS, double-blind review + good standards, fwiw. But much of that is trash, too and in some ways not traditional research at all. (null hypothesis etc.)

Yeah, it is a blanket indictment, unfair to many (but not most), and if it doesn't apply to you or your discipline I apologize for painting you with my indiscriminately large brush.

https://nutritionsource.hsph.harvard.edu/2015/04/13/ask-the-expert-concerns-about-canola-oil/

I doubt this article will change your mind, but you ingest more hexane while breathing and pumping gas than eating canola oil

Signel said:

---

Lack of proof does not equal lack of a problem. I don't know what the problem is with the US food supply, but we absolutely have one.

It is possible to support using whatever is legal but also questioning if it is safe, and continuing to test it to validate. Science gets things wrong from time to time -- imagine that.

---

The problem with the U.S. food supply is the money available to buy it and the people that consume it. If you eat normal portions and healthy food you won't be fat or sick.

Iowafarmkid said:

---

https://nutritionsource.hsph.harvard.edu/2015/04/13/ask-the-expert-concerns-about-canola-oil/

I doubt this article will change your mind, but you ingest more hexane while breathing and pumping gas than eating canola oil

---

You may choose to breathe and pump gas but I….

I don't know. I'll just buy **** minimally processed and without it and IT may or may not matter in the end.

I

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Wheat is not hybridized, hope that helps

And don't blame the wheat for the processing

---

No because that isn't accurate. The most basic of research shows that statement to be 100% false.

ALL modern wheat is hybridized for characteristics to provide higher gluten, larger yields, disease resistance.

It's not transgenic. It's not all GMO.

IT IS ALL HYBRIDIZED.

I understand the word "hybridized" is often a stand-in for more complex changes in gluten content, protein structure, and farming practices that happened alongside the breeding like accelerated selection and plant breeding.

I'm not claiming it's had gene editing or splicing if that's what you think I mean.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Iowafarmkid said:

---

https://nutritionsource.hsph.harvard.edu/2015/04/13/ask-the-expert-concerns-about-canola-oil/

I doubt this article will change your mind, but you ingest more hexane while breathing and pumping gas than eating canola oil

---

You may choose to breathe and pump gas but I….

I don't know. I'll just buy **** minimally processed and without it and IT may or may not matter in the end.

I

---

You probably buy grass fed beef too

Teslag said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Iowafarmkid said:

---

https://nutritionsource.hsph.harvard.edu/2015/04/13/ask-the-expert-concerns-about-canola-oil/

I doubt this article will change your mind, but you ingest more hexane while breathing and pumping gas than eating canola oil

---

You may choose to breathe and pump gas but I….

I don't know. I'll just buy **** minimally processed and without it and IT may or may not matter in the end.

I

---

You probably buy grass fed beef too

---

Sometimes. That's purely a choice based upon what flavor I want.

I eat a ton of steak. 4-5 times a week. I like diversity. I like grass fed ribeye more than lot finished.

Grass fed tenderloin is whatever. Might as well eat elk from the freezer if I want that flavor.

If I want a really good steak it's going to be lot and grain finished obviously.

I grew up on a large cattle ranch. You aren't ever going to get me on beef some how.

Yet youre lecturing a wheat farmer (CanyonAg) about wheat?

Teslag said:

---

Yet youre lecturing a wheat farmer (CanyonAg) about wheat?

---

Yep, I'm aware. I picked up on that based on the defensiveness.

Everything I said is still 100% verifiably true.

I'm not arguing. Grow and eat whatever you want.