Glyphosate misinformation continues

The freedom to share an opinion on a mass scale used to come with more responsibilities. There was a responsibility to inform and not to mislead. If you did too much of the latter, often the platform on which you preached would fail after the money to maintain it ran out.


Folks who read your stuff or listened to it would stop because it was a waste of their time or insulted their intelligence. When you lost their attentions, you lost the advertisers who paid you to let them hang around. That is mostly how the media works. 


At The Western Producer, we work hard to deliver the truth and invest heavily in professional journalists to meet what we expect are your information needs. So far in our nearly 100 years of business, you and your forbearers have chosen to provide us your money and your time, more so than any other information provider in our industry. 


There were always media out there that would preach to the converted: some publications and talk-radio shows. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as everyone knows what kind of information is being sold and how much salt should be served with it.


The internet has meant everyone could be a mass-scale publisher: no presses, radio station or pricey journalist investments required. As a result, preaching to the converted got louder.


ADVERTISMENT

Now anyone can help the average consumer develop a hate for glyphosate or genetic modification using a nearly free website.


And the big boys haven’t failed to get in on the alternative-truth action of looking for vulnerable congregations. Fox in the United States has become the Republican state broadcaster and propagandist. And the New York Times has been allowing its credibility to be undermined by some of its regular columnists.


While genetic modification and glyphosate have been recent Times targets, the insecticide chlorpyrifos is its latest anti-science focus. Journalist and Times opinion writer Nicholas Kristof has tied the chemical’s origins to Nazi Germany and its risk to children. This is despite American, Canadian and European government agency scientists assurances of its safety.


Agriculture and food production, like many forms of reality, appears to be at risk of too many opinions and too little information.


ADVERTISMENT

  • Yes Maam

    Agriculture and food production are destroying it’s soil, nutrients, and viability from the lies of the GMO and chemical companies.
    All one has to do is read a few pages of the lawsuit against Monsanto to see how often the truth has been manipulated, covered up, and twisted in order to have your publication and farmers buy into their poison system.
    Please read the truth anf protect your farms and families.

    Link to brief
    http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/daubert-brief/Plaintiffs-1-Response-in-Opposition-to-Monsanto-Companys-Daubert-and-Summary-Judgment-Motion.pdf

    • Eric Bjerregaard

      Poison system??? Yet yields are up and people are thriving. When do you predict we will all die?

      • Denise

        The canary in the coal mine scenario. BIrds, bees, butterflies dying off from 70 -90%. Gulf of Mexico poisoned for hundreds of miles out to sea with fertilizers and pesticides, running into it ,from America’s “heartland”. Fresh water sources polluted above and below ground with nitrates and phosphorus. No one cares about the pollution killing Lake Winnipeg (10th largest fresh water lake in the world). We’re next!!!
        It might take awhile, but we’re next if Big AG rules and nothing changes.

        • Eric Bjerregaard

          … Bee numbers are near record highs. Citations are needed for all that. The sediments from the Mississippi river are not all Agriculture and you are wrong to blame only farming. The stupid dikes and levees that don’t allow spring floods to spread over the valley and delta are a large factor. Since the development of GE crops and more extensive use of no till organic matter is building in effected soils. “no one cares?” That is just a lie.

          • Denise

            Honey bee industry keeps numbers up. Costs them alot to replace all the die off, though. The wild pollinators are not so lucky as to have somebody replace the die -off of their populations.
            Tell me how all those agri- chemicals are getting into the Mississippi River if dikes and levees are the problem? No, it’s not just over- population of factory hogs and too much GMcorn/soy/chemical farming production to blame but they are definitely a huge part of the problem.
            In Manitoba,there are hardly any dikes or levees, that I know of, , but a lot of the crap from factory hog production and chemical farming drain into the rivers, with spring melt and frequent flooding, then on into Lake Winnipeg. Phosphorus and nitrate overload feeding bluegreen algae blooms in Lake Winnipeg is smothering it to death.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            Bee keepers have always kept bee numbers up. Nothing new there. The varroa mite, as you have been repeatedly shown, along with the viruses are the big problem. While you are at it look up how the exotic honey bees are spreading diseases to native bees. I already told you how dikes and levees contribute. You failed to understand. As usual.

          • Denise

            Actually, maybe you should look up how dikes and levees work to slow down flooding. Imagine how many times worse the pollution would be ,going into the Gulf of Mexico, without the dikes slowing it down since they have removed a lot of the natural vegetation, along the Mississppi,which acted like a sponge.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            … Waaaay back in Geography class. They were supposed to have taught you that dikes and levees channelize flood waters. Thus not allowing them to spread across flood plains and slow down enough to drop their silt. You have it backwards.

          • FarmersSon63

            You should be way more concerned about the toxic pollution running off the city landscape.
            Over 90% of all toxic pollution comes from cities.

          • richard

            “Agriculture represents the largest non point source of pollution in America” (National Research Council, United States of America, Alternative Agriculture)

          • Denise

            Which leads us to look back at the 800 lb. gorilla in the middle of the room. If you weren’t overloading the land with all these toxic chemicals and toxic waste from factory farms,there would not be a dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico ,for hundreds of miles, and we would not be endangering our very existence by killing off the pollinators.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            There is no gorilla in the room. There are many factor that add up. A lot of the soil loss due to farming is past tense. As far back as the 60s I remember reading about contour plowing and buffers to slow erosion. Since then there have been more advances. Unfortunately there has also been urbanization to counter that. Factory farms are efficient and thus when run properly produce yields high enough to allow for more buffers and marginal lands not to be used. You have virtually everything backwards. Even your chemophobia is wrong. We use far less risky pest control products than even 20 years ago.

          • Denise

            Factory hog farms and GMOcorn/soybeans production are Not
            efficient. Otherwise, the City of Des Moines would not have had to sue the upstream agricultural sector for polluting the city’s source of drinking water which comes from the nearby rivers. Skyrocketing costs to treat the water supply in order to remove all the agricultural contaminants, forced them to sue. The water was not safe for consumption by pregnant mothers,babies and children.
            Deny all you want, but the issue has been written about ,on a regular basis,in the Des Moines Register.

          • Denise

            Because the pest control product is coated on the seeds!!!

          • FarmersSon63

            The runoff from the first half inch of rain from a city parking lot…(Imagine Walmart) is about the most toxic spew you could ever imagine to ever end up in our waters. Antifreeze, motor oil, soap, baby diapers, paint, human urine, human spit, ……I could go on and on.
            We should require city people to live underground and never bring any waste to the surface.

          • Harold

            Perhaps instead of saying “no one cares” perhaps Denise should have said – no one knows enough to care; would this have been a lie?
            You like citations?. Don’t you know where to find them yourself? I know where all of yours are and I can certainly find Denise’s. Those who consistently ask for citations are only those desperately trying to hold their own ground. Be that as it may, night and day do not come to you by citations, they come by experience. Citation requests are of those who lack experience. Does a teacher ask a pupil for citations? Does a pupil ask a teacher for citations? Is the study of math gathered by citations or teacher “peer reviews”? At exactly what point in time did 1 + 1 = 2 At teacher and peer time or in spite of them and in its own time. I can gather many citations from both Harper and Trudeau can’t I? If I have many citations from both, am I somehow more elevated than both, or do I stay only as elevated as they are? Is there no elevation above theirs? Do you know where to find Hitler’s citations? His Citations were convincing enough to bring Germany to war. Do we need a Peer review? I’m sure that you like the citations of your industry and their peers because they are the most believable too. We are fed full of the necessary citations aren’t we? If you could point at the ones not seeking citations, who do you suppose those people would be? Are activists seeking citations? Are they frowned upon because they are not – and asking for the math instead? I hear a citation coming from the industry every time that they are facing an activist. What I don’t see is the Industry’s willingness to pass the activists exam. Is a teacher ever unwilling to answer the students exam? Only if the student is presumed smarter or the teacher has no answer. (do you need a citation?)
            Please tell me, how many bees of the record high numbers have your personal hands touched or was a citation your only touching? Nonetheless, Science always has an elevation above it to achieve and therefore the doors are never closed. There is no such thing as a concluded science. Do you need a citation of all of the past chemical recalls? Pharma is a bio-chemical industry as well; do you need a citation of all of their recalls? Has science concluded anything? Science only makes conclusions on the things that do not work, but what doesn’t work, still remains open to a challenge. The ones who claim that science is closed on any matter, are suffering from citation dementia.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            Citation requests are made to see if the ignorant person who made a stupid claim has anything other than an imagination to back up the nonsense. More rarely they are made of an intelligent commenter when the person forgets to paste the source with the evidence backing up the claim. There is no such thing as an activist exam. I have a buddy that sometimes keeps bees at my farm. I try not to touch them. I dislike getting stung and have no protective gear.

          • Denise

            You know things are getting pretty bad when honeybees are trucked from Florida to California to pollinate the crops.
            Approximately 1/3 of everything we eat is a result of bees’ hard work!!

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            They truck the bees in because they need huge numbers. They have for many years. Time for you to go work on a farm.

      • richard

        yup, yields are up, subsidies are way up, obesity and disease is way way up….and people are thriving, on denial…….I predict people are dying from it right now…

        • Eric Bjerregaard

          Got any proof for that subsides claim. After failing to fiid any. Look up conflation. Obesity due to poor food choices and couch potatoism are not related to agriculture.

  • richard

    Let me get this straight Michael…..The future of glyphosate is in danger because of misinformation being spread by those big mean activists on social media? Seriously?…. Glyphosate is finished because of its own hubris….full stop. It is the most used and abused chemical in the history of civilization and in spite of the fact that industry was warned ten years ago that using it as a growth regulator was going to bring big pain…ritual abuse continued…… Maltsters, oat processors, foreign buyers of wheat, durum, oats and barley….pulse buyers all made public and private objections to its use…. with the result that all exports of Canadian grains including organic have now to be tested for residuals….. Glyphosate was originally registered as a mineral chelator, a boiler cleaner, later patented as an antibiotic/antimicrobial…..finally as a herbicide. It was never designed to be a growth regulator….. pouring a systemic toxin on living seeds at harvest is nothing more than willful ignorance. The fact that its cheap and works aint gonna save it…..as per usual the public sees nothing in it for themselves but ongoing manipulation by institutionalized arrogance…. Projecting blame for this on social activists is just another example of better living through denial.

    • ed

      Blame the victim is kinda in right now, especially in the chem industry. Speak out and they will take you down. Those profits have given them alot of power. But it is diminishing to a great extent as consumers wake up to the dangers.

    • Harold

      We are on the same page. glyphosate misinformation is continuing and it is the manufacturers who are continuing to spread the misinformation. They believe that if they are the first to say “misinformation” then they by some illusionary default are the ones who hold the truth. Unfortunate it is for them, the public are becoming aware and the public in growing numbers are not that stupid. The information that you have provided is available to all, but foremost, if the so-called “uneducated” simply by their conscience, and nothing more, do not want glyphosate to enter into their mouths, there is precious little that they can do about it and rightfully so, and the profit loss is their greatest fear and necessitates their relentless desire to capture them. The fear is demonstrated in the absurdity of blaming social activism and in their resentment and character assassination of all who oppose them. The word fascism comes to mind because their corporate behaviour along with government pandering is likened to the same. The so called “uneducated” and non-abiding are their biggest threat. I don’t mind being called “uneducated” but only if I am provided with the entertainment of their melt-down in exchange.

      • richard

        Read Bertram Gross’ “The Friendly Fascist”

        • Harold

          Already have, thank you.

  • Denise

    Thank you EU for protecting human rights (childrens’ rights) against hazardous susbances and wastes. The Monsanto trials in California are/will be very revealing!
    In NorthAmerica, many farmers still feel held hostage by biotec/agrichemical companies.They did a good job of indoctrinating their product promoters and the farmers with misinformation and improperly conducted “scientific “research.
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/06/the-eu-and-glyphosate-its-time-to-put-childrens-health-before-pesticides

  • Ian Bodnaryk

    No one who has posted comments here has any sense about the practical things glyphosate does to allow reduced tillage which in turn improves soil health and productivity.
    I refuse to accept that dessicating crops (which I oppose) is the same as controlling weeds out of the cropping season.

    Farmers are not held hostage by anyone but themselves. They have the choice to grow Non-GMO crops and many do (I, for one). They also have the choice not to dessicate and again some choose this option.

    Yield gains have not come about from transgenics but rather from hybridization and selecting (through natural breeding) for better traits. Reducing tillage by using chemicals to control weeds before seeding or after harvest (without tillage) has improved soil health. Seeding technology allowing seed and fertilizer to be placed in an undisturbed seedbed make a huge difference to productivity in arid regions. Non-GMO crops can outyield GM crops consistently with good minimal tillage practices. Minimal tillage requires some weed control because nothing destroys yield like weeds. If we keep spraying the same thing on the same plants eventually we will have herbicide resistance. Farmers are learning this and developing techniques to prevent this.

    Glyphosate is something that helps yields because of soil conservation practices that came about through its use (out-of-crop). This is critical to soil health and sustainability of agriculture.

    The glyphosate debate is not well argued with an all or nothing approach. There are many positives that need to be appreciated and some things that may not be such a great idea. Broad strokes will do more harm than good.

  • FarmersSon63

    No, runoff water is not treated in any way shape or form.
    Raw chemical runoff going straight into our streams and rivers.
    Please, please educate yourself….you are making a fool of yourself.

    • Peter Olins

      Until recently, in Colorado it was illegal to collect rainwater because it supposedly deprives people of river water who live downstream of us. A new law permits up to 110 gallons to be collected! I kid you not.

      But our homeowners’ association requires that vast swaths of grass in our open space be irrigated to give a nice green look for much of the year.

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    Waay back in geography class we learned that the levees and dikes were what interfered with the water getting to the natural floodplains. If you think rivers didn’t flood until after populations and commerce were established. were are completely daft.

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    Because you are aware that I am correct and have sources for what I say. Thus you don’t want others to read the information.

  • FarmersSon63

    They treat sewar water, not runoff water.

    Do you even have a clue how many gallons mother nature dumps with one inch of rainfall per acre?