Thanks Monsanto...

  • Thread starter chickenman
  • Start date
  • Tagged users None
Status
Not open for further replies.
chickenman

chickenman

Premium Member
Supporter
10,698
438
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carey...eed_b_12008680.html?ncid=engmodushpmg00000003

FDA Finds Monsanto’s Weed Killer In U.S. Honey
09/15/2016 07:27 am ET |

Carey Gillam
Veteran journalist; Research Director for U.S. Right to Know, a non-profit consumer education group
n-HONEY-628x314.jpg

Yuji Sakai via Getty Images
probable human carcinogen. Other international scientists have raised concerns about how heavy use of glyphosate is impacting human health and the environment.

Records obtained from the FDA, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, detail a range of revelations about the federal government’s efforts to get a handle on these rising concerns. In addition to honey, the records show government residue experts discussing glyphosate found in soybean and wheat samples, “glyphosate controversies,” and the belief that there could be “a lot of violation for glyphosate” residues in U.S. crops.

Even though the FDA annually examines foods for residues of many pesticides, it has skipped testing for glyphosate residues for decades. It was only in February of this year that the agency said it would start some glyphosate residues analysis. That came after many independent researchers started conducting their own testing and found glyphosate in an array of food products, including flour, cereal, and oatmeal. The government and Monsanto have maintained that any glyphosate residues in food would be minimal enough to be safe. But critics say without robust testing, glyphosate levels in food are not known. And they say that even trace amounts may be harmful because they are likely consumed so regularly in many foods.

The residue issues are coming into the spotlight at the same time that the EPA is completing a risk assessment to determine if use of this top-selling herbicide should be limited. The agency has scheduled public meetings on the matter Oct. 18-21 in Washington. The EPA’s risk assessment report was initially due out in 2015, but still has not been finalized. The agency now says it will be completed in “spring 2017.”

In the records released by the FDA, one internal email describes trouble locating honey that doesn’t contain glyphosate: “It is difficult to find blank honey that does not contain residue. I collect about 10 samples of honey in the market and they all contain glyphosate,” states an FDA researcher. Even “organic mountain honey” contained low concentrations of glyphosate, the FDA documents show.

According to the FDA records, samples tested by FDA chemist Narong Chamkasem showed residue levels at 107 ppb in samples the FDA associated with Louisiana-based Carmichael’s Honey; 22 ppb in honey the FDA linked to Leighton’s Orange Blossom Honey in Florida and residues at 41 ppb in samples the FDA associated with Iowa-based Sue Bee Honey, which is marketed by a cooperative of American beekeepers as “pure, all-natural” and “America’s Honey.” Customers “can be assured that Sue Bee Honey is 100% pure, 100% all-natural and 100% American,” the Sioux Honey Association states.

In a Jan. 8, 2016 email Chamkasem pointed out to fellow FDA scientists that the EU tolerance level is 50 ppb and there is no amount of glyphosate allowed at all in honey in the United States. But Chris Sack, an FDA chemist who oversees the agency’s pesticide residue testing, responded by reassuring Chamkasem and the others that the glyphosate residues discovered are only “technically a violation.”

“The bee farmers are not breaking any laws; rather glyphosate is being introduced by the bees,” Sack wrote in response. “While the presence of glyphosate in honey is technically a violation, it is not a safety issue.”

Sack said the EPA had been “made aware of the problem” and was expected to set tolerance levels for honey. Once tolerance levels are set by EPA - if they are set high enough - the residues would no longer be a violation. When contacted this week, the EPA said there are currently no pending requests to set tolerance levels for glyphosate in honey. But, the agency also said: “there is no dietary risk concern from exposure to glyphosate residues in honey at this time.”

Sioux Honey Vice President Bill Huser said glyphosate is commonly used on farm fields frequented by bees, and the pesticide travels back with the bees to the hives where the honey is produced.

“The industry doesn’t have any control over environmental impacts like this,” Huser said. Most of Sue Bee’s honey comes from bees located near clover and alfalfa in the upper Midwest, he said. Beekeepers located in the South would have honeybees close to cotton and soybean fields. Alfalfa, soybeans and cotton are all genetically engineered to be sprayed directly with glyphosate.

The FDA results are not the first to find glyphosate in honey. Sampling done in early 2015 by the scientific research company Abraxis found glyphosate residues in 41 of 69 honey samples with glyphosate levels between 17 and 163 ppb, with the mean average being 64 ppb.

Bee keepers say they are innocent victims who see their honey products contaminated simply because they might be located within a few miles of farms where glyphosate is used.

“I don’t understand how I’m supposed to control the level of glyphosate in my honey when I’m not the one using Roundup,” one honey company operator said. “It’s all around me. It’s unfair.”

The FDA did not respond to a question about the extent of its communications with Monsanto regarding residue testing, but the records released show that Monsanto has had at least some interaction with the FDA on this issue. In April of this year, Monsanto’s international regulatory affairs manager Amelia Jackson-Gheissari emailed FDA asking to set up a time to talk about “enforcement of residue levels in the USA, particularly glyphosate.”

The FDA routinely looks for residues of a number of commonly used pesticides but not glyphosate. The look for glyphosate this year is considered a “special assignment” and came after the agency was criticized by the U.S. Government Accountability Office in 2014 for failing to test for glyphosate.

The FDA has not released formal results of its testing plans or the findings, but Sack made a presentation in June to the California Specialty Crops Council that said the agency was analyzing 300 samples of corn; 300 samples of soy; and 120 samples each of milk and eggs. He described some partial results achieved through April that showed glyphosate levels found in 52 samples of corn and 44 samples of soybeans but not above legally allowed levels. The presentation did not mention honey. The presentation also stated that glyphosate testing at the FDA will be expanded to “routine screening.”

The USDA also will start testing for glyphosate, but not until next year, according to information the agency gave to the nonprofit group Beyond Pesticides in a meeting in Washington in January. Documents obtained through FOIA show a plan to test in syrups and oils in 2017.

Soybeans and Wheat

Like the FDA, the USDA has dragged its feet on testing. Only one time, in 2011, has the USDA tested for glyphosate residues despite the fact that the agency does widespread testing for residues of other less-used pesticides. In what the USDA called a “special project” the agency tested 300 soybean samples for glyphosate and found more than 90 percent - 271 of the samples - carried the weed killer residues. The agency said then that further testing for glyphosate was “not a high priority” because glyphosate is considered so safe. It also said that while residues levels in some samples came close to the very high levels of glyphosate “tolerance” established by EPA, they did not exceed those levels.

Both the USDA and the FDA have long said it is too expensive and is unnecessary to test for glyphosate residues. Yet the division within the USDA known as the Grain Inspection, Packers & Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) has been testing wheat for glyphosate residues for years because many foreign buyers have strong concerns about glyphosate residues. GIPSA’s testing is part of an “export cargo sampling program,” documents obtained from GIPSA show. Those tests showed glyphosate residues detected in more than 40 percent of hundreds of wheat samples examined in fiscal 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012. The levels vary, the data shows. GIPSA has also been helping FDA access soybeans to test. In a May 2015 email, GIPSA chemist Gary Hinshaw told an FDA food safety official that “it isn’t difficult to find soybeans containing glyphosate.” In a December 7, 2015 email from FDA chemist Terry Councell to Lauren Robin, also a chemist and an FDA consumer safety officer, Councell said that glyphosate was present even in processed commodities, though “way below tolerance.”

The fact that the government is aware of glyphosate residues in food, but has dragged its feet on testing for so long, frustrates many who are concerned about the pesticide.

“There is no sense of urgency around these exposures that we live with day in and day out,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides.
 
Purpletrain

Purpletrain

810
143
lol more non sense
There is nothing new about transgenic organisms, in fact you (yes you) are one. Viruses regularly swap genes among unrelated organisms via a process called “horizontal gene transfer” [3]. For example, the gene which is responsible for the formation of the mammalian placenta was not originally a mammal gene—it was inserted into our distant ancestors by a virus. If a gene introduced by a virus confers a fitness advantage to the recipient, then that gene may eventually be propagated throughout that species’ population. Until recently, we didn’t even know that this process has occurred throughout the evolution of life, and didn’t know or care whether a crop was “naturally” transgenic!

Some beekeepers imaginatively feared that Monsanto was about to create a GM bee or was up to some other nefarious plot. But in reality, Monsanto’s vision of its future direction is anything but evil—I suggest that you peruse their website for your own edification [9], [10]. Of course I was curious as to why they had purchased Beeologics, since the market for bee medicine is far too tiny to draw the interest of a giant corporation. But one needn’t be some sort of psychic in order to figure out a corporation’s plans—all you need do is to read its recent patents, which are a virtual crystal ball for seeing ten years into the future. So I searched out any patents containing the words “Monsanto” and “RNAi.”

To my great relief, I found that Monsanto was not up to some evil plot—far from it! I suggest you read two of the patents yourself [11]:

Chemical pesticidal agents are not selective and exert their effects on non-target fauna as well…Some chemical pesticidal agents have been shown to accumulate in food, and to exhibit adverse effects on workers that manufacture and apply such chemical agents. Thus there has been a long felt need for methods for controlling or eradicating… pest infestation on or in plants, i.e., methods which are selective, environmentally inert, non-persistent, biodegradable, and that fit well into pest resistance management schemes. Plant biotechnology provides a means to control pest infestations by providing plants that express one or more pest control agents. Recombinant pest control agents have generally been reported to be proteins selectively toxic to a target pest that are expressed by the cells of a recombinant plant.

What the patents tell us is that Monsanto clearly sees that the public is sick of pesticides. Genetic RNAi technology would allow plant breeders to develop crop cultivars that control insect pests in the same manner that the plants naturally control viruses. All that the breeder need do would be to identify a unique target protein in a particular pest, and then splice a gene into the plant to produce a “blocking” dsRNA molecule that would prevent the pest from building that specific protein. The beauty is that dsRNA molecules are already naturally found in plant tissues, the blocking molecule would be entirely specific for that pest alone, completely nontoxic to humans or other non target species, and be rapidly biodegradable. It would be a win all around (except for the pest)—crop protection, no toxic pesticides, and a sustainable farming technology (as well as a market for Monsanto’s products, since they would need to continually develop slightly different cultivars in order to avoid pest resistance). Who’d have guessed that Monsanto would be leading the way toward developing eco-friendly pest control? Life is full of surprises!

Practicality overrides principle
Some folk make GM crops out to be some sort of abomination of nature, and shun them with religious fervor. I’m not sure that this is the best course for environmentalists to take, and that perhaps, in the face of an expanding human population and a warming climate, we should leave all the possible plant breeding solutions on the table. The organic farming community wholeheartedly endorses the biotechnology of “marker assisted selection” [12], yet arbitrarily draws the line at the directed insertion of desirable genes. This may sound like heresy, but as an environmentalist, I suggest that GE holds great promise for developing more nutritious plants that don’t require pesticides, fertilizer, or irrigation—all of which would be wins for organic farming.

From a biological standpoint, I simply don’t see GM crops as being any more inherently dangerous than conventionally bred crops. Our domestic plants today are often far from “natural”—you wouldn’t recognize the ancestors of many. Be aware that even conventionally bred cultivars of several crops (beans, potatoes, celery, etc.) often turn out to be too toxic for humans.

This is not by any means a fluff piece for Monsanto or agribusiness. Farming is not what it used to be. In the U.S., 85% of farm sales are produced by less than 10% of farms, which hold 44% of farm acreage [13]. A mere six companies collectively control around half of the proprietary seed market, and three quarters of the global agrochemical market [14]. I abhor such corporate domination; neither do I see today’s high-input agricultural practices as being either sustainable or ecologically wise.

That said, human demands upon the Earth’s finite ecosystem are growing. There are only about 4.5 acres of biologically productive land on the surface of the Earth available for each current human inhabitant. Depending upon the culture’s lifestyle, we use anywhere from 25 acres (U.S.) to as little as 1 acre (Bangladesh) to feed and clothe each person. Unfortunately for the bee (and many other species), due to human population growththere are over 200,000 additional human mouths to feed every single day—each requiring the conversion of another couple of acres of natural habitat into farmland!

It doesn’t take a mathematician to figure out that if we wish to conserve natural ecosystems that we need to get more yield out of existing cropland! And one of the best ways to do that is to breed crops that are more productive and pest-resistant. The plant scientists in the corporate labs are making huge strides in developing such cultivars, both by GM and conventional breeding. If they manage to file a patent [15], so what?—other breeders can easily “steal” the germplasm away from the patented genes, and in any case, the patents expire after 20 years!

Monsanto has seen the writing on the wall—farmers and consumers are demanding not only more food production, but also more eco-friendly agricultural practices. Monsanto research is heading in that direction with their conventional breeding programs, the development of “biological” insecticides [16], and the goal of producing pesticide-free dsRNA crops. Add to that that the company could actually bring to market dsRNA medications against bee viruses, nosema, and perhaps varroa. All would be huge wins for the honey bee and beekeepers!
 
Purpletrain

Purpletrain

810
143
People have expressed concern about a poisonous substance being introduced into plant tissues, and to them I highly recommend the paper “Misconceptions about the Causes of Cancer” . The reality is that plant tissues are naturally awash in poisonous substances. Plants have needed to repel herbivores throughout their evolution, and since plants can’t run, hide, or bite back, they do it chemically. Many of our most popular fruits, nuts, grains, and vegetables (and especially herbs and spices) contain powerful phytotoxins. Their wild ancestors required cooking or leaching before the plant was edible to humans. Plant breeders systematically select for cultivars with lower levels of (the often strongly flavored) toxins.

Plants that are naturally resistant to pests contain more phytotoxins, often produced in response to damage from insects. For example, the sprouts of wheat, corn, and rye produce potent mutagens (enjoy that cup of wheatgrass juice!) . And some plants naturally contain symbiotic bacteria and fungi in their tissues, which produce non-plant chemicals [20]. There is absolutely nothing biologically novel about insecticidal toxins in plant tissues.

The toxicity (or lack thereof) of Cry proteins to non-target organisms, especially upon two “charismatic” species—the honey bee and the monarch butterfly—has been well studied , A recent and very well-designed experiment on the effect of GM Bt corn pollen upon the growth and survival of honey bee larvae was recently performed by a team of independently-funded German researchers . They added pollen from four different sources to a standard semi-artificial larval diet.

Results: surprisingly, the larvae fed the pollen from the “stacked” GM corn containing a combination of three different Cry proteins exhibited a higher survival rate (100%), than those fed non-GM corn pollen! To me, a big plus for this study was that they also included a positive control of pollen from a wild plant said to be harmful to bees—only about 30% of those larvae survived! This finding confirmed that even some natural pollens are quite toxic, and that we should compare any toxicity trials of pesticides with those of the natural phytotoxins in nature.

Analysis: CCD and colony mortality occur even in the absence of GM Bt crops; feeding GM Bt pollen to adult bees or larvae does not cause observable adverse effects.

Verdict on Bt crops: The specific Bt cry proteins used in GM crops were intentionally chosen to not cause harm to bees. There is no evidence to date that they do. On the other hand, Bt crops require less use of insecticides that are clearly toxic to bees [25].

Roundup Ready
Monsanto’s pitch is that Roundup Ready® (RR) crops allow farmers to practice weed-free “no till” farming, which saves both topsoil and money. The catch is that farmers must then douse their fields with Monsanto’s flagship product, Roundup (ensuring sales of that herbicide—a great marketing strategy). Bayer CropScience has followed suit by introducing crops resistant to its Liberty herbicide, which has a different mode of action.

Herbicide-resistant crops do indeed address several major environmental problems:

  1. No till farming does in fact require less labor and reduces soil compaction.
  2. Farmers get greater production due to less competition from weeds.
  3. No till also reduces the amount of petrochemical fuel involved in tillage.
  4. No till greatly reduces soil erosion, which has long been a major environmental concern.
  5. No till may help to sequester carbon in the soil, and to rebuild soil.
So what’s not to love about Roundup Ready? There are a few main complaints—(1) the massive spraying of the active ingredient, glyphosate, for which there is questionable evidence that it may be an endocrine disruptor [26], (2) claims of intimidation by Monsanto of farmers who choose not to plant RR seed, and (3) the environmental impact and sustainability of the sort of weed-free monoculture possible with RR crops.

So how do Roundup and RR crops relate to honey bees?

Direct Effects of Roundup Use
Biological plausibility: either the active ingredient (glyphosate), or the adjuvants could cause bee toxicity.

The EPA has thoroughly reviewed the research and found glyphosate to be practically nontoxic to bees (and humans). They have found the same for Roundup’s adjuvant polyoxyethylene-alkylamine. However, some beekeepers tell me that they see increased bee mortality following the spraying of glyphosate (Fig. 3), but are not sure whether it was a generic product, or perhaps contained additional ingredients (surfactants, fungicides, or insecticides) added to the tank mix.
 
Natural

Natural

2,536
263
@Purpletrain You just want to sell everybody lies from Monsanto, as it relates to your bottom line. Only a greedy person or a very un-intelligent person would try and promote spraying poisons on edible plants.
Banned in so many countries and yes folks are sick of it..except greedy lazy farmers and of course the poison maufacturers.
As a friend I suggest you get a canadian license to grow organic cannabis and quit your other work.
http://kindredmedia.org/2013/06/the-horrifying-truth-about-round-up/
 
Purpletrain

Purpletrain

810
143

@Purpletrain Do you even read man..it's clearly speaking to pesticides/herbicides. But I'm glad you agree..people are sick of it.

No what i am saying is if this is the case ask your self how come bee population are on the increase ,/???
One would clearly see since the introduction of GMO what year was that again ??? if it was the cause we would see a steady decline even up to today are we ..
I know for a FACT that last years bee harvests were @ record high this tells me one thing
What a crock of BS again being spewed by the media in there attempt to put fear or try to start something ...

Never let a good crisis go to waste right ???
That’s what we’re seeing currently in Washington and Brussels, where government regulators, deprived of one environmental calamity–by, of all things, data–are scrambling for a new narrative.

For years environmentalists have been raising alarms about the “bee-pocalypse”–a supposed catastrophic decline in honeybee populations–and calling for an immediate ban of a new class of state-of-the-art “systemic” pesticides called neonicotinoids (“neonics” for short) which they blamed for the die-offs.

The media were all over the story, endlessly replaying the environmentalist meme that without bees to pollinate our crops, “one-third of every bite of food we eat” would disappear. Banning neonics and saving bees was tantamount to saving the world from starvation.
The science supporting a ban was questionable, to say the least. Poorly designed experiments that overdosed bees in the lab were contradicted by large-scale field studies that confirmed real-world experience–honeybees actually thrive in neonic-treated crops. But those lab studies were enough for the regulators in Brussels, who ignored their own scientists and the loud objections of the British, among others, and passed an EU-wide ban which started at the end of 2013.

Always alert for ways to emulate bad policy, the White House wasn’t far behind. Within months, the president set up a Pollinator Task Forcemandated with stemming the “continued loss of commercial honey bee colonies…which could have profound implications for agriculture and food.” Meanwhile, the U.S. EPA took steps to severely restrict neonic use, and the provincial government of Ontario, Canada, announcedplans for an 80 percent reduction in neonics by 2016.

But then the regulatory juggernaut hit a pothole. A few independent journalists decided to find out just how bad the “bee-pocalypse” was. Turns out it wasn’t the usual environmentalists’ exaggeration. It was a complete fabrication.

Hidden in plain sight on the websites of USDA and other regulatory organizations, official honeybee counts showed rising numbers of hives. In the United States, Canada, Europe and indeed the world as whole, honeybee counts have been rising–sometimes dramatically–since neonics first came on the market 20 years ago.
 
Purpletrain

Purpletrain

810
143

Yes cut and paste but post link
Like insaid
Many people are under the impression that The Huffington Post is some form of newspaper or news publication. In fact, The Huffington Post is a news aggregation and blog system. The content published on The Huffington Post includes articles by bloggers, celebrities and simply those with an opinion to share. In recent years, the online magazine has been criticized for lacking scientific support for many of its posts. The core problem with The Huffington Post is the vast spectrum on which its contributions lie. Some articles on the website are random blog contributions that have not been fact checked at all, while others are Pulitzer Prize winning articles by professional military correspondents.
 
chickenman

chickenman

Premium Member
Supporter
10,698
438
NaturalHealth365) The most popular herbicide worldwide is called Roundup and it uses an active ingredient called glyphosate. Foods stuffs that are produced in fields that are sprayed by glyphosate carry residue of the chemical into the marketplace where they are consumed. In North America, bioengineered foods are ubiquitous and it is quite challenging for the average consumer to avoid them.

Glyphosate cannot be washed off of plants and it has the ability to penetrate the roots and be taken up by the plant where residue sits inside the cellular material. All commonly sprayed foods such as soy, corn, cottonseed, canola, wheat, sugar, etc. carry glyphosate into our bodies. Animals raised on GM corn and soy carry glyphosate into their meat, dairy and eggs.

Are you eating glyphosate in your food – without knowing it?

Glyphosate is a powerful weed killer due to its ability to disrupt the shikimate pathway in plants. This pathway does not exist in mammals but it does exist in the progenic microorganisms that populate the mammalian gut and mucous membranes. This pathway produces a group of aromatic amino acids including phenylalanine, tyrosine and tryptophan that are required for the survival of plants and many bacterial species.

Glyphosate has the ability to create major genetic changes in the human microbiome. The microbiome is the microorganism colonies that live on and in the body. They densely populate the skin, mouth, nose, stomach and digestive system. The microbiome is made up of progenic (life giving) and pathogenic (disease causing) microbial species of bacteria, yeasts, viruses and various other parasites.

How glyphosate can mess up your digestive system

Progenic microorganisms are absolutely essential for mammalian health. They function to digest food, synthesize vitamins, optimize immune response, maintain gut permeability and metabolize toxic substances. We have ten times more microbial species in our gut than we have cells in our body.

Therefore, anything that interferes with the shikimate pathway is indirectly destructive to human health by altering the balance of gut flora.

Glyphosate has been shown to preferentially kill enterococcus, bacillus and lactobacillus. Certain pathogenic species such as pseudomonas are able to break down glyphosate and produce phosphate which it then uses for amino acid synthesis. As a byproduct of this it produces neurotoxic formaldehyde.

Other pathogenic strains, such as salmonella and clostridium, have been found to be highly resistant to glyphosate as well.

Enterococcus and lactobacillus proliferation is the best defense against an overgrowth of salmonella and clostridium. This glyphosate induced dysbiosis is causing salmonella outbreaks in commercial chicken facilities and botulism in industrial raised beef. It has also led to an over-use of antibiotics and the resultant development of antibiotic resistant infections.

Clostridium difficile overgrowth is thought to be the leading cause of ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease and irritable bowel syndrome. C difficile infection has increased substantially in North America in the last 10 years. A Wisconsin study showed that C difficile infection was found in 3% in 2003 but went up to 7% in 2004 and 16% in 2005.

Are GMO crops destroying the human race (genetically)?

Bacterial species commonly adapt to their environment through a process called “conjugation,” that involves gene transferring. This is how bacteria become antibiotic resistant by taking on certain genetic traits that are no longer vulnerable to the antibiotic’s course of action. When intestinal bacteria transfer GMO gene properties they begin producing the same active proteins of the GMO.

This would mean they would produce Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) pesticide toxin that is highly carcinogenic.

Insertional mutagenesis is a term used to describe the mechanism when a gene inserts itself into another coding gene and disrupts the genetic code. This is a well-known course of action by which viruses cause cancer, cell dysfunction and death. This process can not only affect intestinal bacteria but if it gets into the bloodstream it can literally modify the very genetic code of the humans consuming them.

Looking for natural health solutions? Sign up now – for our free, weekly show featuring the greatest minds in natural health and science plus a free gift!

About the author: Dr. David Jockers owns and operates Exodus Health Center in Kennesaw, Ga. He is a Maximized Living doctor. His expertise is in weight loss, customized nutrition & exercise, & structural corrective chiropractic care. For more information – visit: DrJockers.com. Dr. Jockers is also available for long distance phone consultations to help you beat disease and reach your health goals.

References:
http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/2013-04-26/xxx-3/
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/gm...ic-basis-serious-concern-and-immediate-action
http://www.naturalnews.com/033321_GMOs_avoid.html
http://www.naturalhealth365.com/author/dr-david-jockers
 
chickenman

chickenman

Premium Member
Supporter
10,698
438
Nothing in our house on the list..
Monsanto
 
smokedareefer

smokedareefer

1,773
263
theres a "cheap food policy" that has been in place for years.

food is power, power is food.

i sold beans and corn at todays prices 20 years ago.
 
LocalGrowGuy

LocalGrowGuy

2,497
263
just like you did in beginning of this thread cut n paste right
Thank you for admitting that you are incapable of having a conversation and that you are unable to form your own worldviews or even explain why you think what you do.

I think you should take your uninformed shitty attitude somewhere else. If it's not obvious there aren't many that agree with you, but you knew that going in, and you are enjoying the attention.

You are a troll, you bring nothing to this site, except blind ignorance. This community is about growing together even if we are competing in some cases. At the end of the day, this membership on this site and around this community are not in it for profit. A lot of members here help each other out, donate time, herb, fishing trips, meetups, trim help, whatever someone needs we will find a way. This site is also about getting people together, your decisive and insulting dismissal of any post someone has against monsanto only serves to drive new members away.

You do nothing to further this website's popularity, you are simply making everyone dumber by your presence. You ignore when you are challenged, then you acknowledge that you did copy/paste your post, but you immediately provide an excuse. I'm confused why you are so quick to judge, so quick to excuse your actions, yet you refuse to explain what you post.

It is obvious to me that you are just trying to get attention, and nothing more. You search this site for gmo and monsanto, and you troll the thread with entries like, 'oooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh yyyyyyyyyeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaahh monsanto fo eva yall, nothin wrong with monsanto, yall suck.'
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom