View Single Post
Old March 19, 2012   #15
bughunter99
Tomatovillian™
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: zone 5
Posts: 821
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fortyonenorth View Post
I agree. One of the takeaways for me was that the residual effects may not be catastrophic (e.g. plant death), but insidious by way of dramatically reduced nutrient uptake. So, your crop doesn't die, it just ends up with the nutritional value of a Twinkie.

Also, significantly, this guy being interviewed (Huber) is a professor emeritus at Purdue - not simply an anti-Monsanto crusader.
For me the key point as well is that it does not go away and it can become reactivated impacting anything you have since planted in the site. The persistence of its ability to kill/impact is not a small thing for me. That and frankly I do not trust our government to give us the straight scoop about it. I believe the papers that indicate a negative impact on microbial life. It is logical.

Way too many times I have seen drugs, vaccines, chemicals, additives given a green stamp of safety and then later, have it pulled. after being associated with devastating consequences. The corporate influence on the decisions regarding labeling cannot be denied. I follow my instincts with stuff like Round Up. For me any chemical capable of killing all plant life, with the ability to "reactivate" is not anything I want anywhere near my food growing area. I grow my own food to provide healthier options for my family. That means minimizing unnecessary chemical exposure as much as possible.

Stacy
bughunter99 is offline   Reply With Quote