"Dont you think this is just due to rigourous testing that is done on these chemicals? If there is more testing to see if they are dangerous then there would in theory be more problems found with them no?"

I think so. It certainly seems to work that way in the reverse Various segments of the food industry fund research to find health benefits of their food so that it makes it sound like you'll be much healthier if you consume more of their product.

Blueberries supposedly help you loose weight and improve cardio health. Apples reduce blood sugar, satiate hunger, prevent heart disease, etc. The tart cherry industry is promoting cherry juice for runners because it supposedly speeds recovery amongst other benefits.

What's really going on is that generally food is nutritious and has benefits to our body (if consumed reasonable proportions) so it's no surprise research demonstrates various health benefits for specific foods.

Likewise it's no surprise there are health risks from just about any substance if exposure is too great. It makes sense to me to try to determine what level of exposure constitutes a risk worthy of any concern (parts/million, parts/billion, parts/trillion?) for all chemicals, not just for pesticides.

Yes, one always has to be careful when reading some test results.

One of my favorites was that they found that some ingredient in soda could cause cancer in lab mice. Thing is, the chemical in question is present in such minute quantities that they were feeding the mice the equivolant of several hundred cans a day before they found anything. At that point, not only would the caffeine have killed you first from a massive heart attack, you would have died from drinking too much WATER as well.

Like a poster said already, follow the money. You'd be surprised how many times it leads back not to some well minded environmentalist, but to a rival corporation.

You know those protests outside of congress against GMO salmon a while back? They were funded by Alaskan fishing companies that were afraid that fast growing farm raised fish would put them out of business. Didn't have a thing to do with the safety of the product, or it's "natural" qualities, it was entirely a big corporation trying to drive an upcoming rival out of business. Nothing more.

Very good topic. I just want to mentioned that Aspartame is almost in all the food products out there. You and I comsumed it on a daily basis without knowing.

Aspartame is one bad chemical. What about the abulance chasers on TV that are ready to sue for you for taking various medications. Now its Lipitor? These are all pesticides in a way, aren't they?

I have to take Prednisone to keep my body from attacking itself. It would appear I am a pest to me and Prednisone is my pesticide. [ Just joking to keep to keep my chin up. A response is not indicated.]

We live in a very litigious society. To think that companies are dumping deadly toxins in to your Chef Boyardee ravioli is just moronic. Companies go out of their way to make sure the products they make are safe......because if they don't the lawsuits roll in and it costs them dearly. There is no upside to poisoning ones customers.

Yet all you see on this thread is people jumping on those evil corporations. Like the poster that claimed DDT was killing all the Eagles......utter nonsense. One person says something another one repeats it and to the weak of mind it becomes fact. It truly saddens me just how easily some people can be manipulated and led around by the nose.

Albert,

Lupus?

This post was edited by bamboo_rabbit on Tue, Apr 16, 13 at 9:04

Corporations are not at all evil, they are amoral and should be. The gov. must regulate them and the politicians who are supposed to make this happen take campaign contributions and cushy jobs after they leave office from these corporations. This doesn't make the politicians evil, just poor public servants trying to stay employed.

The fear of lawsuits is often inadequate (although helpful) in reigning in irresponsible behavior because corporations are generally short sited. Look again at the tobacco industry, (how they manipulated their research for decades) at the BP oil spill (other oil companies new they were doing shoddy work) and the banking industry which has made such a mess of Europe and our country.

Libertarians have things partially right but show me a place in the history of civilization where unregulated power didn't lead to a system that is terribly inequitable and exploitive of regular people. .

Corporations do not worry about anyone's safety, BR. Corporations only worry about the bottom line. It is what they are and any imagined function or scope beyond that is pure delusion. They will sell dangerous chemicals for a profit, sure.

The chemicals mentioned in this article are untested- not necessarily highly harmful. The idea that the companies making these products wouldn't sell them if they were dangerous is silly, because no one knows. Lead was in paint for hundreds of years before its danger was discovered. The government was the power that took it out of our gas and paint. Yes, I want the government to protect me and regulate industry this way.

Population Control??? Just a thought!

Cradle to grave right Harvestman? Sad how some so quickly and easily wish to be slaves.

Glib,

Selling knowingly harmful products is very bad for the bottom line. This anti corporation, corporations are evil nonsense is so anti American.....profit is a GOOD thing. Corporations have a responsibility to make a profit for those that own the stock of the company. Knowingly dumping harmful chemicals on the public would be simply stupid and would cost them money.

This post was edited by bamboo_rabbit on Mon, Apr 15, 13 at 20:53

I humbly beg to differ, as my daughter ate Lunchables for about ten years. Only for lunch, sure. Selling knowingly unhealthy products can be very good for the bottom line. My brother smokes. Others drink hard liquor. And somehow, elsewhere these things do not sell, or do not sell as much, in places such as most of Europe or East Asia,

They will push things that decrease your life expectancy, such as Lipitor, onto your doctor, and the doctor will push it to many. I don't think the problem is just corporations: studies have shown that dentists will cure cavities that need no treatment, and dentists are largely one-person shows. In my neighborhood homes built in the 1960s cost more than homes built in 1970-1980, due to a crooked builder, and his company had no more than 10 regular employees. It is the whole logic of profit, without buffers. It is very regrettable that our life expectancy is below that of a Third World country like Cuba.

Let me also add that, when it comes to determining whether something is safe or not, there are a lot of ways to prove something is safe. Cigarette companies produced their own science for decades, and cigarettes remained safe for a long time. Scientists and doctors are very pliable, and they will line up to prove safety of a given product.

"The chemicals mentioned in this article are untested- not necessarily highly harmful. "

There are no chemicals actually mentioned in the article. They painted with quite a large brush, except here:

"And once chemicals are in use, the burden on the E.P.A. is so high that it has succeeded in banning or restricting only five substances, and often only in specific applications: polychlorinated biphenyls, dioxin, hexavalent chromium, asbestos and chlorofluorocarbons."

Also we are using the word "harmful" in regards to companies making money. The word should be "cheap". The cheaper the product yet not so cheap people wont buy it makes the most money. Even ipads only cost liek 50 bucks to make.

Lastly no one has mentioned energy drinks here? Those are probably the least tested chemical drinks we ingest

Glib,

We all make choices... You are now veering off of potentially dangerous chemicals to unhealthy products. That my friend is a different subject. So what do you want to do.....have government tell you what you are allowed to eat and drink? People get hurt playing sports..want them outlawed too? Freedom means the choice to do things that are not healthy for you...... You have free choice to eat crap.....you have free choice to eat healthy.

So Lipitor helps 5000 people for every 1 it harms.......and that is a bad thing? I would point out that pharmaceuticals are HEAVILY tested and government scrutinized...they do a great job don't they? And you want more of that lol?

A builder is supposed to make a profit.if people are dumb enough to buy houses that are shoddily built and overpriced.....oh well.

This anti profit complete governmental control agenda you seem to be embracing has a name..it is called socialism. If you are for that fine......but that is not America. You mention Cuba.....you are free to move there.....of course those Cubans are not free to move here but if that is the style of government you want to embrace have at it.

I am an American CAPITALIST. Proud of it. Retired at 40...no silver spoon. Profit was my goal, agenda and driving force. I did not make chemicals but I sure tried to make as much profit as possible on every deal I did. Capitalism is what has made this country great. It has built this nation.

Something that gets lost in this whole discussion is how our DIET can significantly change the effects of all this stuff on us...

It's not just the lessening of the Bad stuff... It's also the presence of the good stuff... The Good Stuff helps your body exclude the Bad Stuff...

Here's one really good example...
Lead...

Lead substitutes in the body for several necessary metallic minerals... but ONLY IF those minerals aren't present in adequate quantities AND the Lead is.....

What this means is that if your body is low on Calcium - you naturally absorb more Lead.... and it goes into your bones... Same for several other important minerals.....

But... If your diet is adequate/high in these minerals - your bodily processes tend to naturally absorb MUCH LESS toxin...

Why does this matter? ... well... Look at the nutritional data... Every year - our Mass Produced crops are less and less nutritious... Nearly EVERY single one... Tomatoes have less Calcium, Spinach has less Iron, and right on down the list...

so yeah.. sure... A huge Tomato farmer will save a bundle if they can breed a Tomato that doesn't need the Calcium - so they don't have to lime Tomato beds to avoid Blossom End Rot... but WE get the short end of the stick when the produce we assume is full of nutrition is really actually empty...

Thanks

We're awash in a sea of 'natural' toxins, many of which are as as harmful, or more so, than any Man has sythesized. Think: botulinum toxin, aflatoxin, fumonisins, cicutoxins, tetrodotoxins, heavy metals, etc.

But, in most cases, the dose makes the poison. If known toxic effects are not seen below, say 2000 parts per million, are we really wise to pursue a 'zero tolerance' level?
And, at what expense? What detection level?
Even If we can detect down to parts per billion or parts per trillion, is it even salient to do so, when effects are not seen unless you are exposed to levels in the ppm range?

OK, so my 'organic' peanut butter contains, say, 10ppm aflatoxin - but FDA allows up to 20ppm. Should I forego all the health benefits of eating peanut butter, just because the aflatoxin level is not zero?
Sometimes you've just gotta consider the risk:benefit ratio. If you're averse to ANY risk, you may receive no benefit.

BR, what is social security, medicare, government control of economic policy by the Fed to avoid economic havoc? Sorry, the U. S. (along with the rest of the industrialized world, at least since after WWII) has been highly socialistic since the late '30s and we are a better country and better world for it.

Depressions used to occur much much more frequently before government became more regulatory. And these depressions often led to war.

You've made your bundle and probably think you'd have been just a successful if we still had the kind of unobtrusive gov of the 1890's, but those were not very stable times- even for people who made their bundles. There just wasn't much security for anyone.

Have you read much history? Now that you've made your money, perhaps you should take the time, and then preach.

"Even If we can detect down to parts per billion or parts per trillion, is it even salient to do so, when effects are not seen unless you are exposed to levels in the ppm range?"

That's right Lucky. I have a friend who is a retired pesticide chemist from Bayer Crop Science (They have a research farm about 5 miles away.) He now sells cut flowers with his wife at the farmer's market I attend. Interesting person to visit with, lots of stories.

He mentioned once some of the EPA regulations were worded in such a way that it was a zero tolerance. He said they were written when the best detection equipment was ppm. Now he said they have detection equipment sophisticated enough to measure ppb or even ppt. His complaint was just as you voiced, at some point the amount detected is so small, it's insignificant compared to what the framers of the regulations intended when they wrote the regs.

As you say, if a substance shows virtually no risk at 1 ppm, there is no reason to be concerned with ppb or ppt. It has to be determined however, what level is significant.

Whether that's ppm for something like Barium in drinking water (the federal standard is 2ppm or less) or Uranium (federal standard 30 ppb) or the botulinum toxin you mentioned (It doesn't have a federal standard for drinking water but it appears about 2 ppt in body weight is lethal.)

It is as you say, we are awash in a sea of natural toxins. Our drinking water here is tested for about about 40-50 different contaminates (according to their report). Everything from Radium 226 to Arsenic. Not one test result shows a zero. In other words, they all show some amount of the contaminate (although the levels are all below federal standards). It would be impossible to reduce all contaminants to zero. And when we are talking magnitudes of ppb or ppt, for many contaminants there's reason we should.

In terms of human health, the best (and really only feasible) approach is to try determine when the level, of any substance, is significant.

By the way, I'm thinking the amount of chocolate I consume, is significant :-)

This post was edited by olpea on Tue, Apr 16, 13 at 22:01

Olpea - I will have to say there are lots of natural toxins/poisons/organisms that make us sick. You ever hear of the walkerton Ontario incident? Im about 10 hours northwest of there, and 10 years ago we had high rain in spring and summer drought, which caused the "beaver feaver" parasite to flourish. Lets just say you wont be leaving the "throne" for a few months with that....

We were under a boil water advisory for almost 2 years. They spent 100 million switching water sources and adding new pumping stations.

Your and Luckys thoughts are pretty solid. John makes an excellent point we have all missed as well. The presence of certain minerals in certain levels will react with other minerals in different ways, and effect the uptake of said minerals. Gardeners do this with plants all the time. Think of composting.

I think we can all agree that the testing of chemicals, and their side effects on the environment, and us should be a top priority with food (at the least!), especially in regards to new synthetic compounds? We have been eating GMO foods for decades and we are only now seeing legitimate testing done (and so far, the results arent too good)

Harvestman,

What is Social security, medicaid and the rest? Socialism started by socialists. Before that people had to depend on themselves. Now you have over half the country dependent on the government to survive. The really sad part is you think that is a good idea.

More frequent wars? LMAO......are you kidding me? We still have constant wars all across the world. You think socialism has made us safer? Ask the people in Boston about that.

To quote a great lady that was just laid to rest....."The problem with Socialism is that you eventually you run out of other peoples money".

You can be productive member of society or you can be a parasite......the choice is ours to make. Your choice is to have big brother take care of you because you are unable to take care of yourself........that is not my path.

You think Socialism is a good thing???? Look at Europe and their debt, look at our debt..... Socialism is a failure everywhere it is tried. The further we move from the principles that founded this nation the worse off "we the people" become.

Socialism + Capitalist businesses + profit = No way to run a country.

Sorry BR, this is America and Americans as a group love their earned entitlements and also a system that has at least some kind of medical catastrophe safety net. No political party can survive trying to bring your agenda about because it's not what AMERICANS want.

I'm not saying it's unAmerican to have a different opinion than most Americans, but since you claim to know what America stands for (unfettered capitolism without any government constraint, apparently) I am drumming it into your mind that your definition of the REAL America is an extreme minority view. (Not really a put down coming from me as I hold many extreme minority view points).

Do public schools also fit into your definition of decadent socialism? AMERICA was way ahead of the rest of the world in providing its citizens with free education- truly a revolutionary socialistic idea!

The America you seem to perceive is not in any history book and I don't believe anything like it has ever existed anywhere on this planet.

You can talk about economic catastrophe in Europe (brought about to a large degree by the influence of deregulated American banks) , but if you divide the natural resources of most any European country by their population and see what kind of life style their citizens enjoy you might not be so derisive

The U.S has so much wealth in land, energy and all manner of resources, and yet there are many countries with a fraction of this wealth that provide their people with at least as much economic opportunity. This isn't opinion, it is data based fact.

HM,

Gosh you are saying that people like being given gifts? Really? A very deep and thought provoking idea (rolls eyes).

Earned entitlements.......... what a laughable statement.

Does it not bother you that others have to support you? Does it not in any way grate on you that you are basically still a child dependent on another for support?

What are you going to do when Social Security and other government giveaways end? It is not sustainable so I sure hope you have made alternate plans because you are not moving in with me. A shift is heading for this nation as we can't continue to beg money from the Chinese just so you and those like you can be supported. What will you do when the government teet runs dry?

Blaming American banks for Europe's problems is laughable. Europe's problems started long ago and they are now reaping the rewards from the socialism you embrace so tightly.

Another quote for you from a very smart man "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic". Benjamin Franklin.

I would like to know the "science" of why the fungicide
chlorothalonil is only SAFE to use on stone fruits no
later than shuck-split stage yet is considered SAFE to
be sprayed on my tomato plants for early blight prevention almost up to harvest?

Is this bad science, EPA bowing to the tomato industry or
is their a good reason it is safe on tomatoes? This topic
has puzzled me for a long time.

Anyone have inside info on this?

In Newport, RI we have unpotable water running out of our taps. When you smell a glass of 'Newport' water, it smells of chlorine. It is really bad. The rich are taxed, the poor are bussed in and given housing. We receive two to three notices a year explaing that we should not drink our own water. What we pay for water each month is exhorbitant. Most houses use bottled water for cooking. Bankruptcy of cities seems to add to the mix of folks on the dole. It all comes a cropper. I agree with Maggie Thatcher! Mrs. G

Europe is a horrible problem. People go to college without going bankrupt. People who get sick never go bankrupt. The government actually wants the people to be healthy, so they don't allow many toxic substances into their foods.

Here, we say "you're hurting business, you've got to allow these toxic substances in our foods and lives. The product will cost more".
The original point of the article is good: there are many toxic substances other than pesticides. I am amazed at how many people in the lunchroom put plastic wrap on top of their food and microwave it. We don't allow people to tell others about problems in food-there are actual laws, and people have been punished- if it hurts profits. Life is more relaxed in Europe. They stroll around the town in the evening as a family. That can't be promoted here because there are no corporate profits to be made. There are no capitalist countries and socialist countries. Everyone is in between. WE used to have companies bombing each other as a form of competition. No weekends. Blacks paid 1/5 what whites got. If you complained you're fired. If you get hurt, you're fired and it's your fault. Then the damn unions and government people stopped all our fun. Those bastards. Cancer causing substances are put into food because it happens much later and you can't prove it was the point cause. No one gets rich completely by themselves. Most bribe senators. We pay for roads, public education, safety, etc. Everything is cooperative by nature.

Just a few years ago, it was documented that a poor person in Europe has a much better chance of becoming prosperous than one in the United States, largely due to health care and education. They don't have enough stress, anxiety, sick people without insurance, bankruptcy, toxic waste,cancer, uneducated people and loud advertising in Europe.
John S
PDX OR

Myclobutanil is not used later because it is not adequately affective for the later stages of brown rot.

Sky, you are right, Europe has become a more meritocratic system than the U.S where wealth is not being as concentrated in the hands of very few. You won't find many citizens of its more prosperous countries clamoring to live here- just those that prefer to be able to concentrate their wealth- this is a wonderful country for plutocrats (my people, God bless them- without them I"m out of business).

Earned entitlements means that my social security is taken out of my taxes- did you not know this BR? Is your accountant so clever you don't pay taxes?

Germany has a much healthier economy then the U.S- people are always talking about the U.S Gov budget deficit but there is a much, much greater trade deficit here. Germany has a consistent trade surplus.

When the American gov. is in trouble we just "print" money and because the rest of the world is addicted to our importation of their products the dollar is still king. As a result of events following WWII we became the consumers of the worlds products.

This printing of new money can't be done with the Euro for a variety of reasons. We have tripled our capitol since the bank collapse and remarkably (and against all the predictions of people in BR's political corner) have not even suffered significant inflation.

It is, to a large part, countries whose large banks bought into the collapsed complicated American financial products that are in trouble now although the citizens themselves had nothing to do with it. Banks, the engine of capitolism that BR doesn't think the Gov should do anything to control.

Ireland, for example, was widely praised for its dynamic and rapidly expanding economy before it was brought down by its own banks with the citizens footing the bill for gambles the banks made.

I agree with Olpea here. A lot of the people in this thread could use some good tinfoil hats....

and a refresher on highschool chemistry/biology.

Bamboo Rabbit,

The problem is life has never beat your ass down. I hope it never does, but if so, it will cause you to rethink ideals that seem so certain now.

This comes from someone who hasn't exploited the gov. system, gets pissed about the amount of taxes I pay from a middle class income, and doesn't expect to be taken care of cradle to grave. When I can't take care of myself, I hope that's my last breath.

Spartan,

I've never understood why cholorthalonil is labeled for use up to harvest on tomatoes, while restricted after shuck-split on peaches.

I do know the EPA considers a lot of factors in labeling. What pesticide substitutes are available for the crop, uses and processing of the crop, harvesting methods, average amount of the crop consumed per capita, etc. (below is a link that discusses a little of the EPA methodology). It can be very complicated, more so than the link illustrates. I don't believe the EPA is easily bought off, so I'm sure there's some reason for the discrepancy b/t tomatoes and peaches.

Joppa,

I'm not sure what you mean, but I hope I'm not disappointing you with this post.

Here is a link that might be useful: Pesticide usage in the U.S.

Olpea, why do you assume it is not about efficacy? All pesticides are somewhat dangerous and the EPA certainly doesn't want pesticides being put down for no purpose.

Cornell calls for the use of myclobutanil for blossom blight only and in the past suggested it was not very affective after that stage, as I recall.

Hman,

The question was about chlorothalonil, not myclobutanil.

On the other, off topic subject, I believe a lot of the political conflict between those that want to shrink gov and those that want a broader expanded government in terms of things like social security and health care has to do with the conflict between urban and rural cultures.

In rural culture people tend to pull together through their churches and other local community groups to take care of each other and resent the idea of Big Government from far away taking their money and then deciding how to take care of them. It is quite understandable and, in many ways, highly commendable.

However, the modern world is becoming increasingly urban and suburban and small town America is slowly dying off. In this more modern form of society people tend to see much more advantage to having a government that takes an active role in providing a safety net that protects them in a wide range of ways.

Most of them work for corporations that they can decreasingly rely on for any protection and many live in neighborhoods where they are not in close contact with their neighbors. They are also having fewer children which decreases security in some ways.

Add into this mix, a very politically powerful group of ultra-wealthy Americans who feel they've earned every penny they own and don't feel like paying money into the gov that far exceeds what they take out of it (quite a rational deduction from where they sit). Some of this group has very strong influence in the media as well as over congress- people like Rupert Murdoch who finance think tanks that come up with the talking points BR seems to think are his own ideas (ok, it's possible he comes up with them independently). Ideas like, that Americans that want the Gov to provide a safety net are simply trying to get something for nothing, Or that the estate tax is a death tax (a death tax is only something God could impose). I call it the silver spoon tax and feel if you are going to tax my hard work you should also tax the money that falls to you from the advantage of your birth.

H-man we are all born into different economic backgrounds. There really isn't a need for the 'chip on your shoulder' as to being a 'have or a have-not'. It is just the lucky sperm club, thats all. They didn't have choice at the time. That said, those who have worked their way up deserve to keep what they earned. (earned honestly). Mrs. G

When did this become a Political Forum? For what its worth: Without chemicals you would also get your Protein in your fruit in the form of wiggley worms. Organically, when buying from the food stores you don't know for sure if what you buy was fertilized with human waste (poop) I have witnessed that! Domesticly Grown fruit and veggies are probably ok. So---"Hug a Tree & Kiss a Bee"

galaga, just because it is fruit-centric doesn't mean a conversation shouldn't spill over into different subjects. You have to go pretty far down the thread to be faced with these political comments. I'm sorry if you come here to escape this BS but be wary of anything posted about pesticide safety- it almost always goes political.

Mr's G, I don't hold anyone's birth situation against them, of course. I was born lucky enough and have no jealosy issues.

I was mostly trying to express how people logically come to different political conclusions based on their own situation, but believe they are the ones with the only logical conclusion. We use logic to justify what we feel, first of all.

I also happen to be a strong believer in a robust inheritance tax to keep the country leaning towards overall meritocracy. Opportunity is a finite comodity (every company has only one boss) and being born rich should not excessively favor ones advantage in a country or there is a downward spiral of competence throughout. Some think this is what happened in big banking.

Being born rich should not be held against the person either. Same as how many trees you own in your orchard. You either inherit a plot of land with trees, or you buy the land and buy the trees. A rotten apple is the same in either orchard.

Harvestman, Sorry if I touched a sore spot with my comment. I was only trying to add my 2 cents to the forum.I know that you are one of the more knowledgeable people on the forum, and I respect your tree fruit imformation! Speaking of warndering over to politics, you sound like a leaning Socialist which is your right, but you believe in more taxes. You must be very happy with "Frick & Frack-------more tax money to "Blow"----I'am Through

So then dear reader, what does any of this mess have to do with going organic? The original post stated that I was supposed to be given pause. That statement made less sense than some of the political drivel that followed.

HM,

I will educate you :)

Definition of ENTITLEMENT

1
a : the state or condition of being entitled : right
b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract
2 : a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program
3 : belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain

Definition of EARN

earn 1 (ûrn)
tr.v. earned, earn·ing, earns
1. To gain especially for the performance of service, labor, or work: earned money by mowing lawns.
2. To acquire or deserve as a result of effort or action: She earned a reputation as a hard worker.
3. To yield as return or profit: a savings account that earns interest on deposited funds.

They are polar opposites. If you still don't understand why I laughed well........

The money you pay in to Social security is very quickly returned to you once you start drawing benefits. It is nothing more than a government sanctioned ponzi scheme that is now upside down. It is unsustainable.

To educate you further......the reason the dollar is king has nothing to do with your ridiculous assertion that it is based on our importation of products. The reason the dollar is king is because world wide commodities are traded exclusively in US dollars. When that ends and it will at some point the gravy train will end. I sure hope you are not depending on SS, medicaid or a free cell phone. Think it can't happen? Look at Greece.

I understand where you are coming from HM....you mow the lawns and care for the trees and grounds of quite a few rich people. Jealousy is a normal and understandable human emotion. For what it is worth the silver spoon club annoys me also though I don't let it bother me the way it seems to eat at you. To educate you just a bit more.....did you know that Benjamin Franklin put forth and supported the idea of a 100% death tax? When a person would die all of their estate would go to the government. While unworkable in the real world it was his way of trying to prevent an American aristocracy from arising. That all people would have to start out from nothing and sink or swim on their own. With your jealousy of those you work for I just thought you might like that bit of history.

Bamboorabbit - If you pay taxes you take care of those people, and they take care of you, as in roads and upkeep in your city

"Does it not bother you that others have to support you? Does it not in any way grate on you that you are basically still a child dependent on another for support?"

In the west we are all "children dependant on another for support"

Hman - "When the American gov. is in trouble we just "print" money and because the rest of the world is addicted to our importation of their products the dollar is still king. As a result of events following WWII we became the consumers of the worlds products."

Your dollar is below the canadian and australian dollar for a long time, The only real thing you guys import to other countries is food, and sell back canada its own oil at a premium, due to the unfair tariffs and "Free trade" agreements.

"I'm sorry if you come here to escape this BS but be wary of anything posted about pesticide safety- it almost always goes political."

Hey, it could be about vegans or christianity :D (this is a joke guys, trying to lighten up the mood)

Here is my quick blurb on taxes, from a canadian context

IF no one here has heard about the quebec student strikes, basically the quebec university and college students went on strike and protested because of a small raise in there tuition fees. They already had the lowest in the country, one of the lowest in the world. They wanted FREE education, and keep taxes the same. Then on top of that the students would riot, block people rom going to school, and even after they won against the tuition hike, they are STILL protesting to a point.

Taxes pay for your well being. It pays for your cities whole infastructure, and educatiuon. It pays for your police, and doctors/medicine. It goes towards your food.Oh wait, this is the states, it almost all goes to military..... IF anything is the problem in the states, it isnt the amount of taxes or whom pays, its the allocation of such, due to politicians which probably half have been LOBBIED into place.

Again, I bring about the point about Monsanto not willingly giving out its test results (what little they do) in regards to their gmo foods, namely the round up resistant crops. There are obvious bias in politics

http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/lobbying-and-advertising.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#False_advertising

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/04/15/3345892/criticism-of-sen-roy-blunts-role.html

Things are tested, but are they tested without bias?

BR, Really, I mow the lawns of the rich, that's a new one on me. At my pay scale I think you would be more accurate as describing me as a kind of artisan for people who can afford my rates. I have a bearing age fruit tree nursery, am an estate orchard consultant and sell and tend fruit trees exclusively for all of my income. Never plowed driveways either.

There is nothing in what I wrote that should indicate that I resent my clients, I am very good friends with some of them and we socialize- many of them share most of my political perspectives (lots of wealthy liberals in the northeast) very few remotely share yours, but the two who do are actually good friends- one of them lets me use some property to expand my nursery. Both enjoy a good political argument. Their talking points pretty much parallel yours and both are self-made multi-millionares- but then most of my customers are.

Because you seem to have derived so little from what I've offered, and absolutely misinterpret where I'm coming from in what seems a rather mean spirited way, I won't bother to rebut your most recent comments.

I wasn't really expecting to sway you in any way anyhow. It was an opportunity to put out my "silver spoon tax" coinage. I'm hoping the Dems will pick up on it eventually- they aren't always very good at product messaging like the Repubs. Business people know how to sell stuff.

You should learn not to be so angry with people who hold different opinions than you- life would probably be more enjoyable and your heart might work longer (I won't make any jokes about your heart).

BR, maybe I shouldn't assume your comments are mean spirited, maybe you have an affectionate and humorous twinkle in your eyes as you type them out... maybe.

Speaking of all this stuff GMO's get a bad rap. I think gene splicing is one of mankind's greatest accomplishments. We should be able to alter plants to take up vitamins, minerals and other nutrients we could use. We could make watermelon's extremely healthy to eat. We could bring cold tolerance to tropical fruit, and heat tolerance to temperate fruit. This could even save mankind one day. the fact it is being used for selfish reasons should not take away from the fact this technology has unlimited potential. I don't care if it's not natural, The Black Plague is totally natural. Nature doesn't care what we do. Narrow minded small thinkers please move out of the way.

As far as politics, no doubt all parties suck, I think history shows us though that the government is bad at whatever it does, so the less it has to do the better. The problem is nobody in the government has to answer to losses, so nobody cares. You take you paycheck and go home. If it's your money on the line, you care. No doubt the US government is going to fall, and fall hard. As is Europe, we are in fascinating times for sure.

This post was edited by Drew51 on Fri, Apr 19, 13 at 12:45

..."I think history shows us though that the government is bad at whatever it does, so the less it has to do the better."

Even if I were to agree with you (and I don't), is there some entity that you would trust to do better at providing all of the safeguards and opportunities that we enjoy as Americans?

People only love the government when they need it- like when some corporation poisons their communities ground water- doesn't matter how red the state is they then cry for help from the gov.

Same thing if you happen to have a child with a serious learning disability- then you take millions from the gov to help you with the child you love.

Lots of people who decry the size of gov become apopalectic when suggestions are made to reduce medicaid. And boy are people happy when they have elderly parents that can be taken care of without bankrupting them.

When you have a child that needs to go to college you are often grateful that you aren't dependent on the pricey private colleges and happy to take advantage of gov supported state schools

Business is always leaning on the gov to enforce whatever is their version of fair trade.

Of course profit incentives and competition are wonderful but there are still a lot of things government can do better. By any objective measure Canadians get nearly twice the bang for the buck through their single payer government run healthcare system- show me a single objective, qualified observer who argues this (I don't include BR in this category). Remember, I'm talking about relative value to the dollar- if you can afford it we have the best health care in the world.

I'm a business man and completely love a capitolistic system, but there is always a debatable balance and people will disagree on how much gov is optimum.

I think what is lacking today is a middle ground--moderation. The dwindling middle class is being asked to do it all, and there's growing frustration in having the American Dream. We're caught between bigger gov't or corrupt corporations. My generation was taught to go to college to have the good life, but I seriously doubt that's true anymore, what w/college debt and a system that fails to reward longevity. As a gov't employee, I have been forced to pay into two systems: one that has remained unfunded by the state for 22 years and another that I am forbidden to draw full "entitlement" from (Social Security) even though I pay into it. Granted, I do live in the most corrupt state in the nation. I got my first job at age 8 and have always worked at least 2 or 3 jobs at a time. I have never once taken a dime I didn't earn--and that includes unemployment. However, I'm not against helping those who are down, and there are many who are innocent of their circumstances. I think we, as a society, are better off in the long run by helping others than ignoring them. Most entitlements fail, but there are many cases where that "aid" kept enough hope alive to get some great people through some hard times. Still, I get pretty p#$%@d when I see some obese, cigarette-reeking, tattooed, cell phone addict flashing her LINK card as she buys more junk food that I can't afford. So where do I stand??--like most people--lost.

Drew - GMO get a bad rap, mainly because the company that produces the bulk we use comes from monsanto. Those GMO crops are where the problems lie. Genetics, used right can solve all sorts of problems...

And, I think for BR, and HM may be interested in this short video about allocation of wealth in america, if you havnt seen it already:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

CT, I did find it interesting but not surprising, although it should be shocking. When people talk about government redistribution of wealth, it is usually as a negative thing, but history shows that without pressure from government, wealth increasingly concentrates into fewer and fewer hands and a society becomes more and more stratified. Success becomes more based on who your parents are than how hard you work and how affective you are.

In my lifetime I've seen this huge shift and part of it is exemplified by extreme debt of many students coming out of college. Will these debt ridden students be in a reasonable positions to start their own businesses or pursue their own creative ideas- I don't think so. More likely they will have to work for someone else already established.

Dreams will be deferred and society will lose the benefits of their creative gifts.

If I'd had the kind of debts these kids do, I doubt I'd have the business I have today. Probably be a drone in an office. Not that that would have been a big loss for society- but you get my point.

One of the bi-products of WWII was that so many GI's were rewarded with a free education- funny how this socialistic program lifted all boats and created the greatest economic boom the world has ever seen. The rich did pay disproportianately for this gov. largesse. Tax rates were much more skewered against them at the time than they are now. That is how gov. redistributes wealth.

Things are changing quickly. Look at what has happened in the past year. I read that within 10 years from now you should be able to buy a robot that can do chores for you costing about $25,000 to $30,000.

Long before the computer I heard in my ear that if the government didn't help people there would be a lots of hurting people. It will be a rare privilege for someone to have a job. Everything will be done without people working. People will use their minds.

As chemicals are concerned people have choices as to what they eat. The average person eats what they want.
Fast food places have put healthier foods on their menu, but people prefer the fat foods. Businesses sell what people want to buy.

Even pre-prepared food is just like what people want to buy at a restaurant. Look at the ingredients and all the chemicals listed.

We should do everything in moderation.

Karyl

HM - THat is the particular reason why i have not got to uni or college yet. I would rather wait till I know I want to take a course, not just take one for the sake of it. I can tell you from experience ( i am indeed part of that group you mention by age) kids dont think of what to do. They take what is "cool" for the most part. Too many kids here take marketing. What are the odds you will get into marketing ? lol

Even in med school., where you dont have problems finding work you still end up in debt. The problem is, education in the US is expensive. People are reluctant to pay taxes, yet complain when things dont get done (for instance, universal healthcare).

There should be incentives for homesteading, or at least growing your own food. At the very least we should be encouraged to do so. It would negate the argument about GMO/non tested chemicals quite easily.