Food Additives Banned in Europe but not in the USA.

[Winemaker]

Europe economic growth is stunted by massive regulations that aren't proven to stop anything. It's the way bureaucracies increase their self-importance/control of lives & demands for more spending on them. It's why so many Euros are disgruntled with the EU & their country government both. Anything "may" or "concern" is unproven.

Well, yes and no. Politically, I know what you are saying but we're not going there.

But take something like wine. European vs. US. The hardest thing about French wines to Americans is the label. European wines, especially French wines are sold strictly by the region, then domaine. One purchases a wine knowing in advance that a particular wine is made with xx grape, blended with x or y grape, grown by that vineyard, farmed by that organization, and the vintner is part of that organization. (Usually a family) And one pays a price knowing that information always, and only vintage year is different.

In the US however, strict laws regarding labels, drives wineries crazy. A xx wine from a vineyard must have minimum 75% of xx grape in it. The thought is the consumer is paying for xx wine, made with xx grapes, so they must pay xx prices for that wine. God forbid one pay too much, but wines from good wineries are blended to improve taste, not to rip folks off. For example, if my wine contains 78% Cab and 23% Malbec, I may be able to charge $78.00 bottle for it. But if I use 70% Cab and 30% Malbec, it is now a blend,and I may only be able to charge $58.00 for it, because it, by law, is now a blend. In France, unless they sell it in the States, it is still the same wine, and costs the same. I have to get my label approved before I'm allowed to stick it on a bottle, and that takes a fee and a few months time. I have to reapply for a new label approval even if all I change is the year the grapes in the wine was changed. European laws are much more relaxed in this area.

As far as additives, sulfites are added as a formula of pH content, despite there being sulfites formed during the fermentation and growing processes.
There is more sulfites in white wine to prevent browning than red wines, despite claims that one gets headaches from the sulfites in red wine. More histamines are created in red wine, which may be the root cause, unless one is not properly hydrated and drinks too much. There is more sulfites in dried fruit than we put in wine. The use of bentonite (clay dirt) as a clarifier is occasionally used, but it drops out with the dirty grape proteins that cloud a wine. Chitosan, a shellfish derivative, is used also, and it drops out too. They are natural, but they do produce a chemical effect. And if I decide to filter my wine, is that processing? If I filter to 1.8 microns, the wine is more polished, and will have no floaties in it. But if I filter to .5 microns to remove any yeast that may want to revive and create havoc, is that over processing?

I started making homebrew years ago because DW was celiac and could not imbibe in most commercial beers/ales. It was the ability to add an enzyme, Clarity-Ferm, used in Europe, to break down the protein haze, thus removing the gluten, a protein. It is not recognized by the FDA as a gluten remover. After 10 years of occasional controlled quaffing of these malted beverages, it has been quite successful, and she has not grown a third arm due to the use of this additive.

All food preservation is dependent upon some kind of additive or chemical process. Adding sugar or salt to a food is a form of preservation not only seasoning. Is the use of chemical smoke flavoring better than the use of my smoker using my hickory, apple or plum trees? The use of diluted wine that has soured from bacteria and oxygen exposure (vinegar)?

 

[ERD50]

....

In the US however, strict laws regarding labels, drives wineries crazy. A xx wine from a vineyard must have minimum 75% of xx grape in it. The thought is the consumer is paying for xx wine, made with xx grapes, so they must pay xx prices for that wine. God forbid one pay too much, but wines from good wineries are blended to improve taste, not to rip folks off. For example, if my wine contains 78% Cab and 23% Malbec, I may be able to charge $78.00 bottle for it. But if I use 70% Cab and 30% Malbec, it is now a blend,and I may only be able to charge $58.00 for it, because it, by law, is now a blend. ...

The whole post is very interesting, but can you clarify this point? I'm pretty sure you mean that the law states you must label it as a blend, and a 'blend' does not fetch as much on the open market (due to consumer perception?)? Not that the law is dictating prices?

I'm no connoisseur of wine at all, and while I've enjoyed some blends, and I understand why a vintner would want to blend to achieve a certain flavor profile and that could produce a higher quality wine, I can also understand that a consumer knows they like a Cabernet they've had before, or a Zinfandel, or whatever, and maybe didn't care for another varietal, so they tend to look for those as a somewhat known entity. So consumer demand is pushing blends to the side?


Speaking of clarifying things [rimshot!], I'm on my 4th batch of home made wine, the first from a kit, the rest from a 6 gallon bucket of juice that a local wine club has shipped in from Chile or CA (Spring and Fall). The kit had several clarifiers, the bentonite (kitty litter! ), and a couple others (one a 2-part) that I forget the names of. Apparently, these were mostly just to speed up the process, for more immediate gratification for the consumer. For the juice, I only used the initial bentonite mix, and just gave it time in the carboys (racking from plastic bucket fermentor, to carboy, then to second carboy, then bottling). About 3 months in each carboy.

They are crystal clear at bottling, about 6 months after fermentation (maybe sooner, but I've let them go that long), so I don't plan to bother with any clarifiers. There are reds, Cabernet, a Zinf, and this fall, a Ruby Cabernet from CA.

So I'm assuming this is the same with commercial vintners? They are using the clarifiers just to speed the process? I'm lazy, and in no rush after the first, so letting the wine sit for a few more months works for me.

-ERD50

 

[OldShooter]

Lunch today. Taco John's Super Nachos. Syntho cheese with bright yellow dye, several varieties of diethyl-trimethyl foodlike substances, delivered in a plastic tray and served with a plastic fork. Delicious!

(I wonder what they do in California. I don't think there would be room on the tray for all the warnings that the CA bureaucrats would mandate.)

 

[Winemaker]

The whole post is very interesting, but can you clarify this point? I'm pretty sure you mean that the law states you must label it as a blend, and a 'blend' does not fetch as much on the open market (due to consumer perception?)? Not that the law is dictating prices? Yes, this is correct for wines made in the US for consumption in the US.

The point of the law is to "protect" consumers from themselves when buying a wine.

I'm no connoisseur of wine at all, and while I've enjoyed some blends, and I understand why a vintner would want to blend to achieve a certain flavor profile and that could produce a higher quality wine, I can also understand that a consumer knows they like a Cabernet they've had before, or a Zinfandel, or whatever, and maybe didn't care for another varietal, so they tend to look for those as a somewhat known entity. So consumer demand is pushing blends to the side?

Most red wines are blends. For example, Cabernets are blended with Petit Verdot for improved color, aroma and tannin, Malbec for color, fruitiness, mouthfeel, Merlot for softness and fruitiness, or Petite Syrah for color and tannins, individually or a combination therof. But by law they cannot be called and sold as a Cabernet if that percentage is more than 26%. Even a trained supertaster is not going to notice a 1% difference in taste, but the market will discount that wine 10-15% in price because it is a blend.

A "Frere Jacques" red made in France for French wine drinkers will be sold at a price because of the reputation of the "Frere Jacques" vineyard if it were a 74% varietal, or 65% for that matter.

Speaking of clarifying things [rimshot!], I'm on my 4th batch of home made wine, the first from a kit, the rest from a 6 gallon bucket of juice that a local wine club has shipped in from Chile or CA (Spring and Fall). The kit had several clarifiers, the bentonite (kitty litter! ), and a couple others (one a 2-part) that I forget the names of. Apparently, these were mostly just to speed up the process, for more immediate gratification for the consumer. For the juice, I only used the initial bentonite mix, and just gave it time in the carboys (racking from plastic bucket fermentor, to carboy, then to second carboy, then bottling). About 3 months in each carboy.

Yes, the 2 part envelope of clarifiers speed up the process as kit wines can be ready to drink/bottle in 4 weeks. But the will also taste like 4 week old kit wines, which you may or may not be able to taste. Hence the aging process, which is also a clarifying process as well, due to gravity. To a home winemaker who is only trying to please oneself, that will suffice many. A winemaker who sells his wares on an open market has to make wines that customers will buy, and they are not going to buy even a slightly cloudy wine in their $25 or $2 wine glass. It will be filtered. If a white, rose' wine or beer, it will have a clarifier or two in it.

They are crystal clear at bottling, about 6 months after fermentation (maybe sooner, but I've let them go that long), so I don't plan to bother with any clarifiers. There are reds, Cabernet, a Zinf, and this fall, a Ruby Cabernet from CA.

So I'm assuming this is the same with commercial vintners? They are using the clarifiers just to speed the process? I'm lazy, and in no rush after the first, so letting the wine sit for a few more months works for me.

My homemade red wines age for at least a year in carboys, demijohns or stainless tanks before they see any oak, aged in oak depending on the age of the barrel, and up to 3 months in a bottle before I release them. At the winery over the hill where I help out at, they age up to 1 year and bottle as needed. He has to make good wines and a profit, I just like to make good wines.

-ERD50

I hope I cleaned things up above. Any other questions PM me, I feel like I hijacked the thread.

 

[COcheesehead]

The whole post is very interesting, but can you clarify this point? I'm pretty sure you mean that the law states you must label it as a blend, and a 'blend' does not fetch as much on the open market (due to consumer perception?)? Not that the law is dictating prices?

I'm no connoisseur of wine at all, and while I've enjoyed some blends, and I understand why a vintner would want to blend to achieve a certain flavor profile and that could produce a higher quality wine, I can also understand that a consumer knows they like a Cabernet they've had before, or a Zinfandel, or whatever, and maybe didn't care for another varietal, so they tend to look for those as a somewhat known entity. So consumer demand is pushing blends to the side?


Speaking of clarifying things [rimshot!], I'm on my 4th batch of home made wine, the first from a kit, the rest from a 6 gallon bucket of juice that a local wine club has shipped in from Chile or CA (Spring and Fall). The kit had several clarifiers, the bentonite (kitty litter! ), and a couple others (one a 2-part) that I forget the names of. Apparently, these were mostly just to speed up the process, for more immediate gratification for the consumer. For the juice, I only used the initial bentonite mix, and just gave it time in the carboys (racking from plastic bucket fermentor, to carboy, then to second carboy, then bottling). About 3 months in each carboy.

They are crystal clear at bottling, about 6 months after fermentation (maybe sooner, but I've let them go that long), so I don't plan to bother with any clarifiers. There are reds, Cabernet, a Zinf, and this fall, a Ruby Cabernet from CA.

So I'm assuming this is the same with commercial vintners? They are using the clarifiers just to speed the process? I'm lazy, and in no rush after the first, so letting the wine sit for a few more months works for me.

-ERD50

Euro wines and their control is a rat hole and deserves its own thread. Many Euro wines defined by a region like Bourdeaux, Chianti, Chateaneuf du Pape, Gigondas, etc are blends, but what varietals are allowed and how much can be produced is controlled and thus prices are somewhat managed.

 

[Winemaker]

Euro wines and their control is a rat hole and deserves its own thread. Many Euro wines defined by a region like Bourdeaux, Chianti, Chateaneuf du Pape, Gigondas, etc are blends, but what varietals are allowed and how much can be produced is controlled and thus prices are somewhat managed.

Yes, but those rules are regional and not federally dictated. A Bordeaux wine is not going to put a Rhone varietal in it's blend because not promoting it's own region, and would also break the definition of a Bordeaux wine. And even a wine such as a Bordeaux is broken down further in geograghical regions based on location of the winery; Left or Right Bank. Call it marketing, regionalism, "terroirism" or whatever, the same may be said for Napa vs. Sonoma, Lodi or Central coast. But it is not federal regulations.

There is a big lawsuit now regarding Copper Cane's wines. Grapes grown in Oregon are trucked to a California winery for processing and there are claims of labeling violations as to whether it is a Oregon wine or Californian wine, or whether some Californian grapes are "contaminating" Oregonian wine. It also may be retaliation for the winery's refusal to accept grapes that have a possible smoke taint from this summer's fires.

 

[COcheesehead]

Yes, but those rules are regional and not federally dictated. A Bordeaux wine is not going to put a Rhone varietal in it's blend because not promoting it's own region, and would also break the definition of a Bordeaux wine. And even a wine such as a Bordeaux is broken down further in geograghical regions based on location of the winery; Left or Right Bank. Call it marketing, regionalism, "terroirism" or whatever, the same may be said for Napa vs. Sonoma, Lodi or Central coast. But it is not federal regulations.

There is a big lawsuit now regarding Copper Cane's wines. Grapes grown in Oregon are trucked to a California winery for processing and there are claims of labeling violations as to whether it is a Oregon wine or Californian wine, or whether some Californian grapes are "contaminating" Oregonian wine. It also may be retaliation for the winery's refusal to accept grapes that have a possible smoke taint from this summer's fires.

I am very familiar with the suit and I avoid corporate wines for good reason though I have many friends who think Meiomi, The Prisoner and Apothic Red (all blends I might add) are the epitome of what wines should be, but not me.

 

[COcheesehead]

Here’s just the tip of the iceberg on what may be in your wine.
https://winesvinesanalytics.com/features/article/51033

 

[Winemaker]

Here’s just the tip of the iceberg on what may be in your wine.
https://winesvinesanalytics.com/features/article/51033

I personally do not use M-P nor anyone in my wine circles here back east and in northern California. I would tend to expect it in jug wines or any wine that tastes the same year after year, such as Apothic Red. Funny though, AP is considered a dry red wine, but contains more residual sugar than any of my sweet wines. Yet, California law forbids the addition of sugar in California wines.

I do suspect it in kit wines for home winemakers.

 

[COcheesehead]

I personally do not use M-P nor anyone in my wine circles here back east and in northern California. I would tend to expect it in jug wines or any wine that tastes the same year after year, such as Apothic Red. Funny though, AP is considered a dry red wine, but contains more residual sugar than any of my sweet wines. Yet, California law forbids the addition of sugar in California wines.

I do suspect it in kit wines for home winemakers.

CA forbids it yet there is a run on sugar almost every year in CA. LOL.

 

[Chuckanut]

or whether some Californian grapes are "contaminating" Oregonian wine. It also may be retaliation for the winery's refusal to accept grapes that have a possible smoke taint from this summer's fires.

Emphasis added above....

Interesting comment. One of my favorite wines is from a small winery that bought land that had been burned over in a huge fire years ago, and planted a vineyard. It's a very, very good Cabernet and is called "Born of Fire". I'm not sure what the French would think of this.

Getting back on topic, does anybody remember the great olive oil scandal where several Italian olive oil firms where diluting the olive oil sent to the USA with various seed oils. Then there was the cow's milk added to mozzarella cheese (true mozzarella is only made with buffalo milk). Not all Europeans are examples of ethical and moral purity.

 

[braumeister]

Our food suppliers seem to be taking good care of us.
This morning I bought a pork shoulder at the supermarket and the label clearly stated "Gluten Free."

 

[HFWR]

A healthy skepticism seems prudent when pondering what is in our food/drink, given some discoveries over the years. But it’s difficult to separate the gluten-free wheat from the chaff...

One example is the recent “discovery” of glyphosate in cereal. I’ve not dug too deeply into this, but it’s my understanding that California limits are 10x lower than federal limits, and the organization claiming they found glyphosate set their limits 10x below California. Not sure, but 1 ppb is probably low enough to not worry much...

 

[target2019]

Bad news for Cheerios lovers.
https://www.ewg.org/childrenshealth...till-contaminates-foods-marketed-to-children/

Major food companies like General Mills continue to sell popular children’s breakfast cereals and other foods contaminated with troubling levels of glyphosate, the cancer-causing ingredient in the herbicide Roundup. The weedkiller, produced by Bayer-Monsanto, was detected in all 21 oat-based cereal and snack products sampled in a new round of testing commissioned by the Environmental Working Group. All but four products contained levels of glyphosate higher than what EWG scientists consider protective for children’s health with a sufficient margin of safety.

Can't trust General Mills?

 

[RAE]

Bad news for Cheerios lovers.
https://www.ewg.org/childrenshealth...till-contaminates-foods-marketed-to-children/

From the article:

Glyphosate is used mostly as a weedkiller on genetically modified corn and soybeans. But it is also sprayed on oats just before harvest as a drying agent, or desiccant. It kills the crop, drying it out so it can be harvested sooner, which increases the likelihood that glyphosate ends up in foods children love to eat.

I never have eaten much oatmeal or breakfast cereals containing oats (as I try to avoid most highly processed foods in general), but after reading how Roundup is routinely used as a dessicating agent on oats before harvesting, I think I will make it a point to never eat any of that stuff again. Why even such a practice is permitted is beyond me.

 

[ERD50]

From the article:

Glyphosate is used mostly as a weedkiller on genetically modified corn and soybeans. But it is also sprayed on oats just before harvest as a drying agent, or desiccant. It kills the crop, drying it out so it can be harvested sooner, which increases the likelihood that glyphosate ends up in foods children love to eat.

I never have eaten much oatmeal or breakfast cereals containing oats (as I try to avoid most highly processed foods in general), but after reading how Roundup is routinely used as a dessicating agent on oats before harvesting, I think I will make it a point to never eat any of that stuff again. Why even such a practice is permitted is beyond me.

I expect they will ban the use of it in this way. I was surprised, I had only heard of it as a weed killer. I'm pretty sure most pesticides have restrictions for how many days prior to harvest they can be applied.

I'm also a little surprised that General Mills didn't find this in their own testing, and take action. For me, it's not so much a matter of trust, it is in their own best interests to do this. This could turn into some very bad PR for them, and a large cost.

I'll need to look into the other aspect, just how good/bad is the evidence linking Glyphosate to cancer?


***EDIT*** wait a minute, my skepticism just went up a few notches, but I'll check tomorrow. The article is from this "EWG" group, and the guidelines they say are exceeded were set by.... the "EWG" group. Hmmm, it doesn't look like they have any official standing to be setting guidelines, do they? Is this for real, or is this a RoundUp/GMO hating group with some fake news? Curious.

-ERD50

 

[Clone]

The EPA 'tolerance for residues' published for Grain, cereal is 100, 30, or 300 parts per million <edit: initial post said billion- that was a fat fingered, dull brain mistake> (there are different categories that I do not understand). The EWG report claims they found levels of 1,300 parts per billion, or 1.3 parts per million. EWG is a fundraising entity, and produces sensational articles on many topics. Their Dirty Dozen list of produce to avoid (because of pesticides) is Strawberries, Spinach, Kale, Nectarines, Apples, Grapes, Peaches, Cherries, Pears, Tomatoes, Celery, and Potatoes. Every page pops up 'Donate $10 Now to receive the wallet guide FREE!"

On the positive side, they have their Clean Fifteen. Avocados, Sweet Corn, Pineapples, Frozen Sweet Peas, Onions, Papayas, Eggplant, Asparagus, Kiwis, Cabbages, Cauliflower, Cantaloupes, Broccoli, Mushrooms, and Honeydew Melons. (They still encourage you to Donate $10 and receive a Free wallet guide!)

They do some good work, but are perpetually criticized for questionable interpretation of results, questionable testing, and incomplete reporting. If you read their website, you can quickly figure out if they resonate with your beliefs or not. Look at who they support, who supports them, follow the money, and decide if they have good science or if they are slanting their stories to promote either fund raising or an agenda.

 

[ERD50]

The EPA 'tolerance for residues' published for Grain, cereal is 100, 30, or 300 parts per billion (there are different categories that I do not understand). The EWG report claims they found levels of 1,300 parts per billion, or 1.3 parts per million.

... They do some good work, but are perpetually criticized for questionable interpretation of results, questionable testing, and incomplete reporting. If you read their website, you can quickly figure out if they resonate with your beliefs or not. Look at who they support, who supports them, follow the money, and decide if they have good science or if they are slanting their stories to promote either fund raising or an agenda.

Thanks for that. So their guidelines seem to be roughly in-line with what you found. That leaves their testing methods in question. Hmmm, but with a screen name of "Clone", well, we know where you stand on the issue (hah-hah-hah)!

In general terms of the carcinogenic potential, I found this report/study summary:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5515989/

I skimmed it, and am no expert with these terms, and am still metabolizing my morning caffeine dose, so check my numbers/interpretation:

There was some correlation with cancer rates seen in a (some?) studies, but other studies did not seem to confirm this?

Animal studies have not shown a clear (any?) correlation. In Table 4, it seems there were several studies of 18~24 months on mice/rats, with doses in the 4000mg/kg body weight per day area.

So check my math. That is 4 grams/kg bw/day. A 44 pound child is about 20 kg, so that would be 80 grams of glyphosate per day ( ~ 2.8 ounces, ~ 17 teaspoons, about 1/3 Cup - gulp, gulp, gulp). If they are finding 1ppM in oat cereals, a kid would need to consume....

edit that math is wrong, I'll be back...
80 million grams of cereal a day? [-]That's 80 kg of cereal a day - 4 times their body weight in oat cereals? A day?[/-]

Hmmm, worse than I thought (darn decimal points, if I ever meet Dewey....)! 80 million grams would be 80,000 kg. So that is 4,000x their body weight in oat cereal, per day! Somebody must (not) do something!

OK, in an abundance of caution (and probably more for PR), it might make a bit of sense to limit spraying crops that close to harvest. But for me personally, I'll worry more about the 7th decimal point in my SWR calculation than I will in my grandson's oat cereal intake, and I am not giving up my beloved Oat Stouts!

-ERD50

 

[Clone]

The EPA 'tolerance for residues' published for Grain, cereal is 100, 30, or 300 parts per billion

I fat fingered this. Need to stop posting so late at night... If somebody could tag that previous post, it would be good to do that.



The limit is parts per million for the EPA. The limit it 30 - 300, they found 1.3. So the numbers they found are well below the limit, but not totally inconsequential. Assuming their method of testing was responsible. But they have cut corners and used sources which were not reputable before. Thus, my immediate response is to not believe their numbers. (Which is not the correct way to do things, but at some point you cannot fix everything.) The claims of cancer causing violates many scientific principles, but many of the anti-glyphosate folks hang their hats on it. And the lawyers are interested in their percentage more than they are interested in the safety of the chemical.

 

[Clone]

From Monsanto's website:

Even at the highest level reported by the EWG (1,300 ppb), an adult would have to eat 118 pounds of the food item every day for the rest of their life to reach the EPA’s limit. Of course, nobody eats close to that much food! Using oatmeal as an example, 118 pounds would equal 228 servings or 3,658 percent of the daily recommended intake of fiber. These numbers translate to 9 ½ servings every hour without sleep for a person’s entire life.

I do not wish to defend the corporate giants, but I do feel that the crusaded against Round-Up is misplaced. The use of Round-Up has displaced a cocktail of very nasty chemicals and many passes of mechanical cultivation. The fields are much cleaner, yields have improved, and the exposure to really nasty chemicals has been reduced.

 

[ERD50]

I fat fingered this. Need to stop posting so late at night... If somebody could tag that previous post, it would be good to do that.



The limit is parts per million for the EPA. The limit it 30 - 300, they found 1.3. So the numbers they found are well below the limit, but not totally inconsequential. Assuming their method of testing was responsible. But they have cut corners and used sources which were not reputable before. Thus, my immediate response is to not believe their numbers. (Which is not the correct way to do things, but at some point you cannot fix everything.) The claims of cancer causing violates many scientific principles, but many of the anti-glyphosate folks hang their hats on it. And the lawyers are interested in their percentage more than they are interested in the safety of the chemical.

Yes, here's the source I found:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2010-title40-vol23/pdf/CFR-2010-title40-vol23-sec180-364.pdf

30-100 ppM for various grains.

edit, I used the wrong number for the EWG limit...

[-]So "EWG" decides to use limits ~ 30-100x tighter. Why (that's a rhetorical question)?[/-]

The 'correct' number from EWG site:"The EWG children’s health benchmark is 160 ppb."

So EWG limits are ~ 200x to 600x tighter than the government regs! Really?

For reference, by that logic, we should all be super concerned, and avoid consuming more than about 3 Tablespoons of water per day! Certain death!

my calcs (since I've been messing up this AM!):

from wiki (and matches other sources):

Water is considered one of the least toxic chemical compounds, with an LD50 of over 90 ml/kg in rats.[3]

So an 80 kg person, that would be 80 x 90 mL = 7200 mL, which is 7.2 Liters.

Divide by 200x, we get 36 mL, which is ~ 2.4 Tablespoons. And that results in DEATH! Unequivocal result. Not something like "at this dose, applied daily over 2 years, we saw a slight increase in the number of tumors in the population". No half of them are dead, dead I tell you!


-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

... I do not wish to defend the corporate giants, but I do feel that the crusaded against Round-Up is misplaced. The use of Round-Up has displaced a cocktail of very nasty chemicals and many passes of mechanical cultivation. The fields are much cleaner, yields have improved, and the exposure to really nasty chemicals has been reduced.

Yes, to me this sounds a lot like the "No-Nukes" musicians and actors in the 70's and 80's. By fighting nukes, we ended up with more fossil fuel, and especially coal for many years.

Be careful what you wish for. Watch out for the unintended (but not unforeseeable) consequences.

From what I recall, RoundUp breaks down quickly in soil. That's the problem with many other pesticides (like DDT), is that they are persistent, and build up over time. I think RoundUp breaks down slowly in water though, so it should not be used too near water sources. Science can make advances like this, and make each subsequent pesticide more and more environmentally friendly. If we stick to the old ways, we are mostly stuck with little opportunity to improve.


-ERD50

 

[Chuckanut]

Yes, to me this sounds a lot like the "No-Nukes" musicians and actors in the 70's and 80's. By fighting nukes, we ended up with more fossil fuel, and especially coal for many years.

Be careful what you wish for. Watch out for the unintended (but not unforeseeable) consequences.

The Law of Unintended Consequences is one of my favorite truths in life.

Interestingly enough I learned one of its corollaries from an acquaintance who was a strong environmentalist. The corollary is "You can never do just one thing."

FWIW, I have heard that some of the more radical green folks are now coming to understand that if the world will really be permanently doomed in 10-15 years by carbon excess then nuclear power must be part of the solution. Sort of a "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" point of view.

Back to Roundup. I hear people talk about the dangers of Roundup, and they sound to much like the people who think vaccines are dangerous. This is a somewhat unfair comparison, I admit. I blame the modern 'news media' with gives a bullhorn to everybody who makes an exaggerated claim no matter how thin the facts that support it.

 

[RAE]

The jury may still be out on whether Roundup causes cancer, but in any case, I'd rather not eat the stuff (in any concentration), and especially when it is sprayed on oats to dessicate the crop, right before harvest.

There have also been three consecutive large jury verdicts against Bayer (who recently acquired Monsanto) in cases where people who used Roundup claimed it caused their cancer. Here is a short article about that:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...n-award-in-roundup-cancer-trial-idUSKCN1SJ29F

 

[RAE]

From what I recall, RoundUp breaks down quickly in soil. That's the problem with many other pesticides (like DDT), is that they are persistent, and build up over time.

Persistence of Roundup in soil:

"Field studies cited in the report show the half-life of glyphosate in soil ranges between a few days to several months, or even a year, depending on soil composition. The authors say the research demonstrates that soil sorption and degradation of glyphosate vary significantly depending on the soil’s physical, chemical, and biological properties."

https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/glyphosate-persistence-raises-questions/9510.article