Toxic weed killer found in almost all wine and beer brands

[Masterlu]

Originally Posted by PHC1

Screw the politicians.

[PHC1]

Many children with food sensitivities can exhibit ADHD symptoms after they are exposed to certain foods. Some of the common foods that can cause ADHD reactions include milk, chocolate, soy, wheat, eggs, beans, corn, tomatoes, grapes, and oranges.



Up until the 1940s inorganic substances, such as sodium chlorate and sulphuric acid, or organic chemicals derived from natural sources were still widely used in pest control.


The growth in synthetic pesticides accelerated in the 1940s with the discovery of the effects of DDT, BHC, aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, chlordane, parathion, captan and 2,4-D. These products were effective and inexpensive with DDT being the most popular, because of its broad-spectrum activity4 ,10. DDT was widely used, appeared to have low toxicity to mammals, and reduced insect-born diseases, like malaria, yellow fever and typhus; consequently, in 1949, Dr. Paul Muller won the Nobel Prize in Medicine for discovering its insecticidal properties. However, in 1946 resistance to DDT by house flies was reported and, because of its widespread use, there were reports of harm to non-target plants and animals and problems with residues


Throughout most of the 1950s, consumers and most policy makers were not overly concerned about the potential health risks in using pesticides. Food was cheaper because of the new chemical formulations and with the new pesticides there were no documented cases of people dying or being seriously hurt by their "normal" use11. There were some cases of harm from misuse of the chemicals. But the new pesticides seemed rather safe, especially compared to the forms of arsenic that had killed people in the 1920s and 1930s


Research into pesticides continued and the 1970s and 1980s saw the introduction of the world’s greatest selling herbicide, glyphosate, the low use rate sulfonylurea and imidazolinone (imi) herbicides, as well as dinitroanilines and the aryloxyphenoxypropionate (fop) and cyclohexanediones (dim) families. For insecticides there was the synthesis of a 3rd generation of pyrethroids, the introduction of avermectins, benzoylureas and Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) as a spray treatment. This period also saw the introduction of the triazole, morpholine, imidazole, pyrimidine and dicarboxamide families of fungicides. As many of the agrochemicals introduced at this time had a single mode of action, thus making them more selective, problems with resistance occurred and management strategies were introduced to combat this negative effect.

In the 1990s research activities concentrated on finding new members of existing families which have greater selectivity and better environmental and toxicological profiles. In addition new families of agrochemicals have been introduced to the market such as the triazolopyrimidine, triketone and isoxazole herbicides, the strobilurin and azolone fungicides and chloronicotinyl, spinosyn, fiprole and diacylhydrazine insectides. Many of the new agrochemicals can be used at grams rather than the kilograms per hectare.

Today the pest management toolbox has expanded to include use of genetically engineered crops designed to produce their own insecticides or exhibit resistance to broad spectrum herbicide products or pests. These include herbicide tolerant crops like soybeans, corn, canola and cotton and varieties of corn and cotton resistant to corn borer and bollworm respectively9. In addition the use of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) systems which discourage the development of pest populations and reduce the use of agrochemicals have also become more widespread. These changes have altered the nature of pest control and have the potential to reduce and/or change the nature of agrochemicals used.



Insects fight back. Selection for resistance can occur if a small proportion of the insect population is able to survive treatment with insecticide. These rare resistant individuals can reproduce and pass on their resistance to the offspring. If an insecticide with the same mode of action is repeatedly used against this population, an even greater proportion will survive. Ultimately, the once-effective product no longer controls the resistant population.

What's next???

[Masterlu]

[62caddy]

Originally Posted by PHC1

I thought it was obvious that by corporations I meant those that are aware of the damage they are bringing to the population for a profit. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure things out that drenching our food and soil in heavy pesticides and watching the pests become resistant as well as the weeds doing the same that you can not fight nature. It will win in the end. All we are doing is poisoning ourselves. What is the next action now that we are aware that pests will still have the upper hand as will the weeds? More pesticides until our skin melts off and internal organs turn to mush?

All I know is that is what a bunch of people may be saying; it doesn't necessarily make it fair, accurate or true.

How many times have we been told all kinds of similar things that turned out to be incomplete, over-stated to outright false. And often it is not borne of search for the truth; instead for selfish purposes of self-aggrandizement, prestige, personal advancement and indeed...money. And when such is revealed, rarely does it get the press of the original supposition/accusation, by which time the damage had already been done.

When any of these so-called "reports" come out, do you ever question what skin they have in the game? Were there any flaws in their methods/analyses? Or do you simply assume these are all angels whose motives are pure whose methodology is faultless? Instead your instinctive default is to assign blame & condemnation in one direction only. Why?

Has it ever occurred to you that you're backing the wrong team - at least some of the time? And when lives and/or businesses have been ruined by misrepresentation -whether by acts of commission or omission - for whatever reason, purpose or motive - where is your indignation at that?

Just as you apply skepticism in the many other areas that you do, you should be looking at these issues no differently.

[PHC1]

Originally Posted by 62caddy

All I know is that is what a bunch of people may be saying; it doesn't necessarily make it fair, accurate or true.

How many times have we been told all kinds of similar things that turned out to be incomplete, over-stated to outright false. And often it is not borne of search for the truth; instead for selfish purposes of self-aggrandizement, prestige, personal advancement and indeed...money. And when such is revealed, rarely does it get the press of the original supposition/accusation, by which time the damage had already been done.

When any of these so-called "reports" come out, do you ever question what skin they have in the game? Were there any flaws in their methods/analyses? Or do you simply assume these are all angles whose motives are pure whose methodology is faultless? Instead your instinctive default is to assign blame & condemnation in one direction only. Why?

Has it ever occurred to you that you're backing the wrong team - at least some of the time? And when lives and/or businesses have been ruined by misrepresentation -whether by acts of commission or omission - for whatever reason, purpose or motive - where is your indignation at that?

Just as you apply skepticism in the many other areas that you do, you should be looking at these issues no differently.

Backing the wrong team? No I have not ever thought that. Let me ask you this, name a large corporation in existence today that does not in one way or another exploit, pollute, present some sort of risk, or potentially hurt us with their products, that doesn't lobby, that doesn't cheat, that doesn't lie.... It will be difficult I assure you. Nope, I am always backing the right team. As it applies to this thread, I back the ORGANIC farmers with my wallet each and every time.

[PHC1]

Originally Posted by Masterlu

Afraid it will come to that as the aggregate of all world problems that we are creating with our own hands.

[Poppyhome]

Originally Posted by PHC1

Backing the wrong team? No I have not ever thought that. Let me ask you this, name a large corporation in existence today that does not in one way or another exploit, pollute, present some sort of risk, or potentially hurt us with their products, that doesn't lobby, that doesn't cheat, that doesn't lie.... It will be difficult I assure you. Nope, I am always backing the right team. As it applies to this thread, I back the ORGANIC farmers with my wallet each and every time.

WOW....................sounds like you are really an anti-corporate activist.

anti-corporate adjective
an·​ti-cor·​po·​rate | \ ˌan-tē-ˈkȯr-p(ə-)rət , ˌan-tī-\
variants: or less commonly anticorporate
Definition of anti-corporate
: not favoring or promoting the interests of corporations : opposed to or hostile toward corporations or corporate interests

Ron

[Masterlu]

And that shall bring this thread full circle to closure.