YouBet said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

ETFan said:

---

It's almost like they don't have a single principled bone in their body and just follow the money no matter what. Crazy stuff.

Not being partisan. Both sides are trash.

---

I did get a chuckle out of this in the story:

Quote:

---

If Secretary Kennedy remains at HHS after this, it will be impossible to argue that his past warnings about glyphosate were anything more than campaign rhetoric designed to win trust and votes."

---

It's as if people in maha believed THEIR guy would be no different than every other person who gets into office or a position like Kennedy's.

Bless their hearts.

---

I have no dog in this hunt as I am not a farmer and don't know dick about this topic.

This could simply be RFK getting into office and getting more exposure to science that simply made him change his mind. The cynics will obviously laugh at that, but it does happen. Talk a big game on the trail and then when they get access to real data once in office they change their tune because they realize their campaign position was wrong, impractical, etc.

Considering how unrelenting he's been on other topics where the "science" according to the left is overwhelming against him and he's ignored it, I don't see him just bending over easily.

But, the farmer lobby is huge, and considering the rocky road for mid-terms the WH very may well have told him to STFU and get in line.

---

True.

Now, to give him props where props are due, I love that he's helped get rid of so many ingredients that the Europeans have never allowed in their foods because of the health risks associated with them. He's actually helping Americans eat more like those who want to eat "clean," which should be something everyone should easily be on board with.

When it comes to processed foods, I hope he goes even further to get us as close to European standards. A la Google:

Quote:

---

The
Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement aims to align U.S. food processing with stricter European standards by targeting the removal of certain artificial additives, dyes, and preservatives. It seeks to shift the U.S. toward a, European-style precautionary principle, regulating ingredients like titanium dioxide and, reducing pesticide use to combat chronic diseases.

---

Considering every single one of us consumes the products of farmers, I don't think they have a lot of influence at all.

But something like Roundup is an issue that the vast majority of people know nothing about "real" about.

The hysteria in media is driven by lawyers, not by people who actually use the product. The same can be said for organics and GMOs. People have no idea of the truth because they're not the ones producing crops.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

MavsAg said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

American agriculture depends on Roundup. The poster above was absolutely correct about $30 bread without it.

---

I buy bread from a glyphosate free bakery and it's $6-$8 a loaf. Sure, more expensive than the bread that doesn't go bad for a month, but I'm happy to pay a bit of a premium to ensure I get good bread.

---

Good for you.

I'll never intentionally buy glyphosate free bread because it's a waste of money to me. And it won't take a second off of my life. But you can do whatever you'd like.

---

As I often say on these threads, Americans don't realize what a miracle is their food supply.

For the first time in history, humans can easily produce huge amounts of surplus food, do it cheaply, and distribute it worldwide in days.

We are the only country in the history of the world where our poor people are obese.

There has been no other time in history when food has been so cheap, abundant, and easily available, that consumers feel justified in dictating HOW it is produced. And they have enough extra income that they can vote with their pocketbooks.


Let me reiterate, vote with their pocketbooks. You want bread that makes a wild claim of being glyphosate-free, good for you. Spend your extra money.

Just don't let ambulance chasers and social media idiots dictate to the people out there who actually follow the science and do the work.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

One of my aerospace classmates' father died of cancer caused by Roundup while I was in school

---

No, one of your classmate's father died of cancer. He also used Roundup. To assert a definite link between the two is nonsense with no scientific basis.

---

You'll never convince him otherwise.

ETA: Routinely sticking your arm into a tank past your elbow is more exposure than a consumer would see in a thousand lifetimes.

People believe what they want to believe. With today's science it is impossible to prove or disprove.

For instance, he believes his dad stuck his arm into a tank of Roundup.

Me, I've never seen a screen inside a tank.. They are all external. And if you're using clean water for the mix, Roundup doesn't clog screens on its own A spray solution of Roundup is about 1/2 of 1% glyphosate. So even sticking his arm in, if he immediately washed, it would be little problem.

There are thousands of things in that man's life that could cause cancer. To focus on one is scientifically illiterate.

He probably put himself at more risk by going outside to spray weeds. Skin cancer is common and dangerous.

He saw his father reach into his sprayer tanks many times but our conversations were 30 years ago so my recollections may be off. My guess is anyone with chemical hygiene like that was also cleaning parts in gasoline and exposed to countless other toxins by the time he was in his mid 40s. So I'm concede it's impossible to prove either way.

We know alcohol causes cancer. Ethanol is a group 1 carcinogen - chemicals can't be any more carcinogenic than that.

However, if someone is diagnosed with cancer, we cannot conclusively say alcohol caused it. There are simply too many variables - including genetics - at play. If someone is a heavy drinker, we can speculate that it contributed to the development of cancer, but no doctor or current test is able to say conclusively that alcohol is the sole cause of any one specific person's cancer.

Any layperson who makes fear mongering statements about ToXiC CHeMiCaLs is FOS and should be ignored. Any doctor or scientist who makes those kinds of statements is a walking red flag. If your doctor makes those kinds of statements, you should probably find a new doctor.

The same issue applies for just many other chemicals and their effects on the human body, whether they are carcinogens or not. And just to be clear, glyphosate has not been conclusively determined to even be a carcinogen. WHO considers it "probably carcinogenic", but only because of indirect evidence. And in the scientific world, there is a huge difference between indirect and direct evidence.

I get that cancer is scary and people want to make "chemicals" the big bad bogeyman for just about every ailment known to man. It's human nature to blame the things that most people don't really understand.

But the truth is, putting your energy into maintaining a healthy weight (ie, don't become obese, as that is known to increase cancer risk), avoiding drugs, smoking, and alcohol (an indisputable carcinogen), and eating a diet of primarily lean protein, fruits and vegetables, and fiber is way more productive in the long term than worrying about exposure to glyphosate, microplastics, PFAS, pesticides, GMOs, artificial sweeteners, etc.

Teslag said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Roundup does not cause cancer.

It is absolutely necessary to US Agriculture.

I don't really give a crap what RFK "ran on"

The lawsuits against Monsanto are not scientifically based

---

Amen, and it's good to hear that coming from an American Farmer.

There is absolutely nothing unsafe with glyphosate used as recommended. It's complete liberal hippie granola dumbassery to think otherwise.

---

I call it gas can legislation. The government determines that we aren't responsible enough to go grab a gallon of gas in a milk jug. Instead we must be protected from ourselves. And they offered protection in the form of a $40 POS that makes you use curse words that you didn't even realize you knew.

stick93 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Roundup does not cause cancer.

It is absolutely necessary to US Agriculture.

I don't really give a crap what RFK "ran on"

The lawsuits against Monsanto are not scientifically based

---

Amen, and it's good to hear that coming from an American Farmer.

There is absolutely nothing unsafe with glyphosate used as recommended. It's complete liberal hippie granola dumbassery to think otherwise.

---

I call it gas can legislation. The government determines that we aren't responsible enough to go grab a gallon of gas in a milk jug. Instead we must be protected from ourselves. And they offered protection in the form of a $40 POS that makes you use curse words that you didn't even realize you knew.

---

lol. I ordered conversion kits on Amazon for $5 that let you install an old fashioned spout and air hole so that you can actually pour gas and diesel. They' also have caps so that you can prevent vapor leakage during storage.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

stick93 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Roundup does not cause cancer.

It is absolutely necessary to US Agriculture.

I don't really give a crap what RFK "ran on"

The lawsuits against Monsanto are not scientifically based

---

Amen, and it's good to hear that coming from an American Farmer.

There is absolutely nothing unsafe with glyphosate used as recommended. It's complete liberal hippie granola dumbassery to think otherwise.

---

I call it gas can legislation. The government determines that we aren't responsible enough to go grab a gallon of gas in a milk jug. Instead we must be protected from ourselves. And they offered protection in the form of a $40 POS that makes you use curse words that you didn't even realize you knew.

---

lol. I ordered conversion kits on Amazon for $5 that let you install an old fashioned spout and air hole so that you can actually pour gas and diesel. They' also have caps so that you can prevent vapor leakage during storage.

---

Thanks for the tip but sorry if my story gave you the impression that I complied. In fact my next gas can is drying beside the sink right now

Gas cans are not legislated to be crappy. Ambulance chasing lawyers are to blame for the horrible gas cans

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

MavsAg said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

American agriculture depends on Roundup. The poster above was absolutely correct about $30 bread without it.

---

I buy bread from a glyphosate free bakery and it's $6-$8 a loaf. Sure, more expensive than the bread that doesn't go bad for a month, but I'm happy to pay a bit of a premium to ensure I get good bread.

---

Good for you.

I'll never intentionally buy glyphosate free bread because it's a waste of money to me. And it won't take a second off of my life. But you can do whatever you'd like.

---

As I often say on these threads, Americans don't realize what a miracle is their food supply.

For the first time in history, humans can easily produce huge amounts of surplus food, do it cheaply, and distribute it worldwide in days.

We are the only country in the history of the world where our poor people are obese.

There has been no other time in history when food has been so cheap, abundant, and easily available, that consumers feel justified in dictating HOW it is produced. And they have enough extra income that they can vote with their pocketbooks.


Let me reiterate, vote with their pocketbooks. You want bread that makes a wild claim of being glyphosate-free, good for you. Spend your extra money.

Just don't let ambulance chasers and social media idiots dictate to the people out there who actually follow the science and do the work.

---

Weird to get so upset at me saying I buy healthy bread that doesn't cost me $30 a loaf. I also said (but that was conveniently left out of the quote) I don't buy the bread because it's glyphosate free. I buy the bread because it's actual bread with real ingredients. Very strange to get riled up at me for that.

I think most people understand that you can't just remove glyphosate and things would be just as they are today. The odd thing about this is the immunity that was given.

bigtruckguy3500 said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

bigtruckguy3500 said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

ETFan said:

---

It's almost like they don't have a single principled bone in their body and just follow the money no matter what. Crazy stuff.

Not being partisan. Both sides are trash.

---

The White House told RFK to shut his pie hole about Roundup and get in line.

And that's what RFK has done. He's gotten in line.

Now you know why RFK is always wearing jeans. He's afraid of taking it in the shorts yet again.

---

hey there my liberal friend....

Roundup was introduced in the early 70s and was well established during the 1980s/90s when Reagan/Bush were Prez.

---

You will note that I have made no comment about roundup's safety.

I am noting that RFK ran on shutting down roundup, and just now endorsed increasing roundup because Trump told him to.

That's all I am saying.

---

you mean trump told him to stop being a ***** and instead use his brain. Neat.

---

To what degree RFK believes what he says remains to be seen. He's very anti-science and believes a whole lot of hogwash and has done untold damage to science, medicine and health.

And the ONE time that Trump shuts him down is to increase Roundup. Everything else, Trump lets him run over and destroy.

---

like what - be specific

---

Does this count?
https://www.cdc.gov/measles/data-research/index.html

---

statistically irrelevant measles cases? What is your point?

---

convincing people to stop vaccinating their children? Leading to outbreaks that cost 100's of thousands of dollars (or more) in hospitalizations, 3 deaths last year (70 deaths in Samoa), and the potential for more disease outbreaks of other types, or sequelae from preventable illness? You wanted an example. I gave one.

In 2017 it cost almost a million dollars to keep an unvaccinated 6 year old alive when he got tetanus. I saw an unvaccinated child get hospitalized for 3 days recently due to febrile seizures from rotavirus infection. I've seen quite a few hospitalized for other vaccine preventable illnesses (pneumonia, RSV (new vaccine), meningitis, the flu, etc.). Some may seem statistically insignificant. But added together, they have a real effect on healthcare cost and utilization of resources.

---

RFK left the MMR in the recommended vaccinations of the CDC. So you are wrong about that.

Quote:

---

Weird to get so upset at me saying I buy healthy bread that doesn't cost me $30 a loaf

---

Weird that you think I was upset, or that the comment was directed to you. as I responding to "Ellis Wyatt".

Quote:

---

I also said (but that was conveniently left out of the quote) I don't buy the bread because it's glyphosate free. I buy the bread because it's actual bread with real ingredients

---

It wasn't left our, read again. I am 100% aware that you bought on preference, not glyphosate. I even mentioned it in an earlier post, making the comment that the bread you buy is good because it's local and fresh, not because it's touted as glyphosate free.

Quote:

---

The odd thing about this is the immunity that was given.

---

Not real sure what immunity you think was given, unless you are referring back to the OP. Roundup itself has been discussed, researched, and debated more than any other farm chemical.


To be clear, since apparently I wasn't, I don't give a crap what people choose to buy with their disposable income. In fact that is exactly what should happen. If you buy local bread, it shifts the demand to the type of bread you like, and the bakers and farmers can adjust their production to take advantage of the higher demand and price.

That is what my reply to "Ellis" is stating. That we live in such amazing times. in the last 10,000 years of human history, there have been multiple famines and shortages, poor quality food, hard to obtain food, disease ridden food, etc. etc. And humans have spent huge portions of their waking hours simply hunting, gathering, or farming.

Today, you spend less than 10% of your time (based on cost) to obtain good food, including having other people grow it, kill it, ship it, and often, cook it.

So isn't it wonderful that food is so cheap and abundant that you can be picky about how your food is grown and prepared.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Law-Apt_3G said:

---

We have a big network here: Maybe someone got sick or personally knows someone who got sick from Roundup weed killer. No bot stories, just regular 10 finger and toes, former students from Texas A&M with a story.

The townspeople are getting fed up with the boy who cried wolf.

---

I can respond with a list of farmers, aerial applicators, farm hands, etc, etc, who never got sick from it.

---

Used roundup in a chemical weedeater, haven't grown an extra appendage yet and that was 50 years ago.

MavsAg said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Maroon Elephant said:

---

What I've read before is that he surfactant ingredient in Roundup is more acutely toxic than glyphosate itself and the combination of the two is even more toxic. Maybe that's a myth and I've been duped. Still never gonna use it around my house. BTW, I'm no hippie, far from it.

---

American agriculture depends on Roundup. The poster above was absolutely correct about $30 bread without it.

---

I buy bread from a glyphosate free bakery and it's $6-$8 a loaf. Sure, more expensive than the bread that doesn't go bad for a month, but I'm happy to pay a bit of a premium to ensure I get good bread.

FWIW, I don't buy the bread specifically because it's glyphosate free. Although, I do appreciate that aspect of it.

---

And you know it is glyphosate free how? Because you read a sign in the window?

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

I'm just saying what I see. There are plenty of chemicals and environmental contaminants and stuff that haven't been studied extensively that people are saying are safe because the "other guys" say it's dangerous, and vice versa.

---

The EPA has a concept called GRAS. Generally Regarded As Safe. Aspirin would be a good example, though it would be FDA, not EPA. Been around 100 years, seems to work, doesn't seem to be killing people. So the government isn't going to make Bayer spend billions of dollars doing studies to prove it is safe.

Same goes with a lot of old products used with crops, such as nitrogen fertilizer.

No one has the time and money to research every thing out there.

Pesticides, however, go through a long, laborious, expensive, and and extensive process to gain approval for use. Back when I was an Agronomy major and dinosaurs walked the earth, it was accepted that it took 5 years and $25,000,000 to get a new chemical approved.

I'm sure those numbers have quadrupled.

---

Don't get me started on GRAS and the brain dead liberals that took over the epa with Clinton. I had to apply for an INAD and one of the questions I had to answer was about the predators of redfish. During the conversation I had with EPA staff I was asked if bears were a major predator of adult redfish in Texas.