5 ms·

> It's not for no reason, it appears that it can increase yield. Based on a study that is so recent, not to mention something that has not proven to pencil out

> It's not for no reason, it appears that it can increase yield. Based on a study that is so recent, not to mention something that has not proven to pencil out in the first place, that there is no reason to believe it is used widely in practice. Especially for crops before the current one given that the science was completely unknown before that. If your friend's problem just started in the last few months, maybe you're on to something. But also, I will point out that 3rd leaf stage is quite early in the plant's development. What mechanism allows the glyphosate to remain in the system until harvest? At least with desiccation it is understandable that some glyphosate will come in contact with the actual consumable product. The consumable part doesn't exist in third leaf. > Go do some research, the answer is "yes". Extra wheat berries/bulbs/seeds (?) are grown Okay, how? At the end of harvest the crop is out of the field and stored away/already consumed. That's what harvest means, after all. Remember, you literally wrote: "it looks like glyphosates applied at the end of the harvest increase yield." How are the berries that are already in the bin, which could be stored thousands of miles away by that point, maybe even already eaten, going to multiply by you spraying a barren field with roundup? This is the strangest agricultural claim I have ever heard – and being a farmer, I hear a lot of strange claims about agriculture from 'city folk' who have never been outside of a city. > But if there is no financial incentive, why would this _ever_ be done? Yet, we know it is being done We already established it is done for desiccation in certain climates. Your links say so, my links say so. My direct experience with agriculture as a farmer says it is a practice that is done with crops, but not so common in wheat. Your own link even confirmed this. There's really not much more to say about this. > I don't know which specific foods (or which specific wheat types) affect her. I will have to ask her. How, exactly, have you come up with the theory of glyphosate being the link when it appears that you know almost nothing about her condition? I am starting to get the impression you have an axe to grind rather than an interest in finding out what the source of the problem is, be it glyphosate or something else. > The post from Bob's Red Mill was clear, some of his suppliers use it. So nothing is "slipping through". Yes, the post is quite clear. The post explicitly states that some of their suppliers that collect from multiple sources may take in loads that have had glyphosate applied. When you mix those loads in with all of the loads the supplier has collected from many farmers, you're going to have pockets of grain delivered to the mill that cannot be reliably detected for the presence of glyphosate due to the reasons I outlined before. This is what slipping through means in my mind. If the product commonly contained traces of glyphosate, analysis would quickly detect it every time.

RobertRoberts 9y ago
>Based on a study that is so recent I didn't quote any particular study, you did. I found a few of them, and I am not well enough versed or studied to argue for or against them. >...there is no reason to believe it is used widely in practice... And I have not provided any proof either, I only reported what I have been told. >If your friend's problem just started in the last few months, maybe you're on to something. Nope, she's had issues for years, but have gotten worse over time. But again, related to only some food products, as far as I know. (I have never interviewed her about this, I will now) >What mechanism allows the glyphosate to remain in the system until harvest? I am not an expert, you are arguing with me as if I am claiming this, I am not, nor have I. I simply reported a few facts relayed to me from 2 different people, and I did some guessing and reporting of what I found online. The answer to this question seems to be simple, it's sprayed on the plant while it is still alive, and it doesn't kill it. Look up hermosis, I can't explain it. >How are the berries that are already in the bin, which could be stored thousands of miles away by that point, maybe even already eaten, going to multiply by you spraying a barren field with roundup? Well, the research I found showed putting small amount of glyphosates on a living plant, not enough to kill it, caused "hermosis" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis) in wheat, which caused extra wheat seeds to grow. >This is the strangest agricultural claim I have ever heard... I didn't make it up, so it would be a decent courtesy of you to recognize that it's not my idea, I am not a scientist, I am just reporting what I read. >We already established it is done for desiccation in certain climates. ... There's really not much more to say about this. One of your key arguments against the idea of putting round-up on living wheat crops was because there was no financial incentive. Are you retracting those statements? >How, exactly, have you come up with the theory of glyphosate being the link when it appears that you know almost nothing about her condition? Logic. She has very specific illness that she thought was related to GMO wheat. She can eat wheat in foreign countries, and doesn't get sick there. I just found out last week there is no GMO wheat anywhere on the planet, from a friend who works in the GMO industry. And in the same conversation he told me that they spray wheat with glyphosates. It adds up as a distinct possibility. I have not spoken with either friend since, and was only reporting what I was told by both. >This is what slipping through means in my mind. Everything I understand about the phrase "slipping through" means something gets through, even though it's trying to be stopped. If people know about it, they are "letting it through", I think that's an important distinction.

RobertRoberts 9y ago

>Based on a study that is so recent I didn't quote any particular study, you did. I found a few of them, and I am not well enough versed or studied to argue for or against them. >...there is no reason to believe it is used widely in practice... And I have not provided any proof either, I only reported what I have been told. >If your friend's problem just started in the last few months, maybe you're on to something. Nope, she's had issues for years, but have gotten worse over time. But again, related to only some food products, as far as I know. (I have never interviewed her about this, I will now) >What mechanism allows the glyphosate to remain in the system until harvest? I am not an expert, you are arguing with me as if I am claiming this, I am not, nor have I. I simply reported a few facts relayed to me from 2 different people, and I did some guessing and reporting of what I found online. The answer to this question seems to be simple, it's sprayed on the plant while it is still alive, and it doesn't kill it. Look up hermosis, I can't explain it. >How are the berries that are already in the bin, which could be stored thousands of miles away by that point, maybe even already eaten, going to multiply by you spraying a barren field with roundup? Well, the research I found showed putting small amount of glyphosates on a living plant, not enough to kill it, caused "hermosis" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis) in wheat, which caused extra wheat seeds to grow. >This is the strangest agricultural claim I have ever heard... I didn't make it up, so it would be a decent courtesy of you to recognize that it's not my idea, I am not a scientist, I am just reporting what I read. >We already established it is done for desiccation in certain climates. ... There's really not much more to say about this. One of your key arguments against the idea of putting round-up on living wheat crops was because there was no financial incentive. Are you retracting those statements? >How, exactly, have you come up with the theory of glyphosate being the link when it appears that you know almost nothing about her condition? Logic. She has very specific illness that she thought was related to GMO wheat. She can eat wheat in foreign countries, and doesn't get sick there. I just found out last week there is no GMO wheat anywhere on the planet, from a friend who works in the GMO industry. And in the same conversation he told me that they spray wheat with glyphosates. It adds up as a distinct possibility. I have not spoken with either friend since, and was only reporting what I was told by both. >This is what slipping through means in my mind. Everything I understand about the phrase "slipping through" means something gets through, even though it's trying to be stopped. If people know about it, they are "letting it through", I think that's an important distinction.