No oils should be in properly made nicotine vape juice…but there is glycerin that comes from vegetable oil and often still contains oils, propylene glycol that’s not safe to breathe, sugars, formaldehyde, acroline (used in herbicides/damages DNA), unregulated “flavorings” and more, all of which are carcinogenic when heated.
Also, there’s plenty of fly by night nicotine vape juice makers that use whatever smokes, including massage oil in some cases.

The only way to be SURE what’s in it is to make your own from ingredients you either produce or vet well. Don’t buy it by the gallon on eBay or Craigslist.

As I mentioned above, I vape live rosen, which has zero additives and is simply heat pressed from fresh flowers. I’m not saying that’s healthy, but it is free of all carcinogenic man made chemical adulterants unlike ANY nicotine or most cannabis juices, and free of nearly all cellulose unlike plain tobacco or marijuana.

Thank you for sharing your perspective, @MilkmanDan!

Here is a link from a farmer detailing what is in one of those license agreements, including a copy of one:

http://thefarmerslife.com/whats-in-a-monsanto-contract/

"That’s what we have to agree to in order to make use of Monsanto’s biotechnology on our farm. I don’t see anything in there that hurts my farm. Neither does Iowa farmer Dave Walton. I don’t have to buy their herbicides, and I don’t have to buy anything from them next year if I don’t want to. The biggest problem I have with seed companies is that it seems like they phase out a variety from time to time that is a really strong performer on our farm. "

**EDIT**
I'm finding other sources that say that sterile "terminator seeds" are a patented technique, but that Monsanto has promised not to use it. Straight from the horse's mouth:
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/terminator-seeds.aspx

So it appears that my info below is wrong. I will try to talk with my family and get the full story. That being said, I'll leave my original comment and the followup below unaltered.
*********


My firsthand knowledge of this stuff was from more than 10 years ago, and also when I was pretty young (early 20's). So I did some web searching to try to get updated since your question is a very interesting one:

http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/Monsanto/about.html

According to that, Monsanto is the company behind "Roundup Ready", and their corn (and other crops in the line) do use sterile "terminator seeds". It also mentions that farmers "must purchase the most recent strain of seed from Monsanto" each year.

I was never in the decision-making structure of my family farm, but I did remember that we couldn't just buy the Roundup Ready seed *once* and then hold a small amount back as seed for the next year and continue to get the benefits.

I'm not 100% sure exactly how the modification for sterility works -- I don't know if the plant will sprout if you plant the sterile seeds and just fail to produce any ears / fruit, or if it just won't germinate at all. I do remember that we had to be quite careful to fully clean out the corn grown from the GM seeds from our storage bins, and better yet to store our non-GM corn to be used for future seed in entirely different bins. That was done to make sure that we didn't end up planting any of the sterile stuff.

I'm sure that the seed dealers that sell the GM stuff really push farmers to buy and plant it every year, as hinted to in that link. But you certainly don't *have* to. On the other hand, if you go back to non-GM seed for a year or two or more, you can't use a strong herbicide like Roundup if you have an unexpected outbreak of weeds or other pest plants -- the Roundup would kill the non-GM crop along with everything else.

Basically, I don't specifically begrudge companies like Monsanto for their practices concerning these GM crops. The "terminator seeds" are controversial, but don't seem like a big deal to me. If you could buy GM seeds once and then just hold back some of your harvest for next season's seed, they'd only get your money once AND we'd probably lose the original strains. So I see that as kinda win-win, especially if you don't 100% buy into their sales department urging you to use GM seed every single year.

I don't want to sound like a shill for Monsanto -- some of their other practices are pretty shady, particularly political lobbying. But from the perspective of my family farm, the GM corn that we use was/is a real beneficial thing. Significantly less pesticide/herbicide use over time, and it allows for expanded low/no till farming. Before herbicides, tilling was one of the only ways to kill off pest plants. But, it also makes the fields lose some moisture and nutrients. Expanded farming and ubiquitous tilling was largely the cause of the "dust bowl" dirty 30's. Anyway, I'd say that a lot of good has come out of modernized techniques and technology like GM crops.

Some additional notes based on growing up in a wheat / corn farming family:

My family uses GMO herbicide/pesticide-resistant corn seed (Roundup Ready). It's a tradeoff, because:

1) Roundup Ready seed is somewhat expensive, especially compared to just holding on to a small amount of your own harvested crop as next year's seed.

2) Like the video mentioned, the GM seeds we used have been modified to be sterile, so the grain they produce can't be replanted. Part of the justification for that is not wanting the GM version to intermingle with unmodified strains. But, most is pure profit motivation -- they want you to be forced to buy that GM seed. I don't really see that as nefarious, just business -- but opinions differ.

3) My family discovered that for corn, we could us the GM Roundup Ready seed roughly once every 5 years while still benefiting from drastically reduced insect / plant pests. If corn is within pollination range of another less known crop plant called milo, the plants can hybridize and produce a plant called shattercane. Shattercane is essentially worthless as a food crop, but is very hardy, and can spread and in many cases outcompete the corn or milo that you really want.

Getting rid of it was a very difficult and intensive process -- until the GM seed came along. Now if we see shattercane starting to make incursions, we can plant the GM seeds the next year and then hit the field with a herbicide that kills the shattercane. It works so well that the field remains clear of the pest plants / insects for several years after that without having to use much if any herbicides / pesticides.

4) In our situation, we found that we used way less herbicide / pesticide per year on average once we started rotating in the GM seeds once every several years. That would be close to a wash, but still likely a net savings even if we used the GM seeds every year (seed companies will try to sell it to you every year). Factor in increased crop yields because of the reduced/eliminated pests, and it is a clear win.

5) I'm sort of worried about the potential for a "superbug" effect, similar to overusing / misusing antibiotics. If farmers buy into the GM seed thing 100% and use it every year, I think it will increase the chances / rate of the pests becoming resistant to the pesticides / herbicides used. That's a long-term concern, and in my opinion doesn't even come close to outweighing the "pro" side of the GM argument (at least from the perspective of my family's farm), but it is something to think about.

Perhaps the most important thing with anything that you buy from the store is to read the label, organic or not. There are brands that try to use clever labeling to try to mislead customers, as the video alludes to.

One of the ways labeling can be deceptive is that it is often extremely unclear where the ingredients come from. A box of cereal might be 100% organic, but if the ingredients are all from China you simply cannot know what quality you're buying, for a multitude of reasons, including poor regulation, poor water quality etc.

A couple of other points:

Farming traditionally, without synthetic (petrochemical) fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides is sustainable... forever.
Farming techniques that require oil will have to be phased out eventually, because it's a finite resource. So in this regard, the video is wrong (in regards to them both being able to sit side by side), at least in the long term.

Grow your own food (you don't need much space for a garden), or buy local. Transportation/shipping causes an unbelievable amount of pollution.

In first world countries....yes, or close to that much. Agreed. Not world wide.

Mechanized harvest is accepted in "natural" old school farming. Agreed, it would fall under the "industrial farming" methods, but is one of the least damaging.
>1000 acre farms do not count as "family farms" in my eyes, even if they are owned by a single family. So is Walmart, but it's not a mom and pop or family store.

Again, mechanization is not the same as industrialization, but does still do damage by over plowing, etc. I'm talking about monoculture crops, over application of man made fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides. Grain was farmed "by hand" since farming existed with few problems, but more work involved. The work it takes to rehab a river system because industrial farming runoff contaminated and killed it is FAR more work than the extra work involved in farming using old school methods (which does not mean everything is done with hands, tools and machines have been in use for eons).

Roundup doesn't "break down" completely, and doesn't break down at all if it's washed into river systems and out of the UV light.

Once again, machines aren't all of "industrial farming", they are one of the least damaging facets, and they are not unknown in old school, smaller farming techniques. BUT....overuse of heavy equipment either over packs the soil, making it produce far less, or over plows the soil, making it run off and blow away (see the dust bowl). If it was ONLY about machinery, and ONLY industrial farming used machines, you would have a point, but neither is true.

No, actually overproducing on a piece of land like that makes it unusable quickly and new farm land is needed to replace it while it recuperates (if it ever can). Chemical fertilizers add salts that kill beneficial bacteria, "killing" the soil, sometimes permanently. producing double or triple the amount of food on the same land is beneficial in the extreme short term, and disastrous in the barely long term. (See 'dust bowl')

Man power is far less damaging to the environment than fossil fuels for the same amount of energy. Also, the people would use no more resources because they're in the field than they would anywhere else, so there's NO net gain to the energy used or demand on the environment if they farm instead of sit at a desk, but machines don't use energy when idle, so there is a net loss to the energy required if you replace them with pre-existing people.

Yes, you quoted it directly, buy your characterization of what that meant was insane. You claim they said Monsanto worked on the project (and other things) because they're evil and want to do evil and harm. The video actually said they do these things without much care for the negative consequences to others, and that makes them evil. I hope you can comprehend the distinct difference in those statements, and that your portrayal of what they said is not honest.

@newtboy

If you are only growing twice what you can eat yourself, you are describing a large garden, not a farm.

More over, what you class as 'industrial' farming is in fact the entirety of all grain farming. If there is a place in farming for wheat, corn, soy, canola and so on, 99% of it is done on what you class 'industrial' farming.

Your typical family farm is over a thousand acres today. If I go out and start naming the family farms of just friends and family I know, I can come up with 30-40+. They all farm over a thousand acres, they use tractors and combines and they make a fair bit more food than twice what they can eat. They aren't the ultra rich land barons that your 'industrial' moniker would imply either, at most they have a singular hired hand to help out with the work. The ones with children interested in taking over often don't need to hire anyone at all.

If you want to abandon that agricultural production and the methods used you mean raising the cost of production more than 100 times over. I can't even fathom the cost of weeding a thousand acres of wheat by hand, let alone removing grasshoppers from a corn crop that way. I'm sorry, but what works for your garden doesn't scale to grain crops.

Oh, and the conflation of herbicide and pesticide was done by the fear monger crowd. Listing round-up as a chemical that only kills plants and not insects and animals didn't fit their agenda so now everything is supposed to be called a pesticide across the board. Maybe that's just a Canadian thing, but the bottom line is that if you had a crop completely over run with insects you could spray it once a day with stupidly high concentrations of round-up and the water in the sprayer would do about the same damage to the insects as would the round up.


As for the video's other claims, I stand by my characterisation. You can't honestly tell me the video is trying to put forward on open and honest picture of Monsanto's actions and history. For example, the Manhattan Project, here's a transcription for clarity:
"Monsanto head Charles Allen Thomas was called to the pentagon not only asked to join the Manhattan project, but to lead it as it's co-director. Thomas put Monsanto's central research department hard to work building the atomic bomb.Fully aware of the implications of the task the budding empire sealed it's relationship with the inner cicrcles of washington with two fateful days in Japan.
"
- queue clip of nuclear blasts-

I think I stand by my summation.

That is clearly not true. It may be one of the less toxic human made functioning, profitable herbicides, but that's not what you said by far.

Roundup is not a pesticide, it's an herbicide. Conflating it with pesticides is ridiculous and incredibly misleading. Roundup is used to control weeds and remove genetic 'contamination' of specific crops. EDIT: Many of those crops are genetically modified to act as pesticides without spraying chemicals, which is a good reason to want to limit cross contamination in either direction.

Other alternatives are no chemicals at all, or only ecologically safe (usually natural) chemicals. I don't use chemicals on my farm, I weed, I spray horticulture oil, I spread ashes, I grow twice what I can eat so some loss to insects won't matter, and I remove insects, slugs, and snails by hand. It takes more work, but the statement that the only alternative to Roundup is worse chemicals or agriculture collapse is completely and obviously false and indicates a total ignorance of the issue you speak about.

"Modern Agriculture" today means hydroponics, aeroponics, and aquaponics, none of which can benefit a whit from Roundup. You mean to say "Industrial Agriculture". The collapse of industrial agriculture might not be a bad thing, as it's incredibly destructive and produces a sub par product. More people farming on smaller farms puts more people to work, makes better product, and makes the people who work on the land feel responsible for it's upkeep, not consider it a resource to be exploited as efficiently as possible.

Mentioning Monsanto's involvement in the project is not the same as saying "neither Einstein or Openheimer or others were behind the Manhattan project, it was Monsanto all along that plotted to destroy Japanese cities with nuclear weapons". They clearly implied that Monsanto joined the project as a way to 'cozy up to' the political elite, and it worked.

Where did you hear this ridiculous hypothesis about their motive? Do you see and hear things that other people don't see and hear? It's clear that the motive in all cases was profit, either directly, or future profits secured by 'making friends' in government by cooperating with them or by forcing farmers into untenable contracts and positions where, in some cases, farmers that don't use Monsanto crops were sued because Monsanto said the pollen that pollinated the crops came from a neighbors Monsanto crops, so the seed belongs to Monsanto. Monsanto does not set out to cause damage and harm, they simply don't care if it happens as a side effect of their profit making methods, which they will protect with any means possible.

Just wow, a more deliberately misleading description of the video would be hard to create.

its really not that simple.

Can roundup cause cancer? Well, I wouldn't recommend drinking it.

WILL it cause cancer? Eh, not really.

His lady needs to understand the difference between "hazard" and "risk".
http://www.wired.com/2016/05/monsantos-roundup-herbicide-cause-cancer-not-controversy-explained/

And bacon doesn't cause cancer either.

"One thing is bad, so don't bother fixing the other?" What does that even mean. I was merely pointing out that one of Susan's go to boogeymen was a straw man instead. Glyphosate's bad rep is undeserved. I was pointing out relative toxicity, both caffeine and glyphosate are deadly in sufficient dosage but in any dosage that humans are normally exposed to they are harmless. Neither is bad and nothing needs to be fixed except the unscientific attitude of idiots.

As for your comment about "other consequences", you're right. Some herbicides may have other consequences than personal health or they may not. If you have something specific in mind spit it out, don't just make a vague comment and leave it at that.

One thing is bad, so don't bother fixing the other?


EDIT: also herbicides have far more consequences than just personal health.

My family owns and operates a farm, wheat and corn, in Kansas. We use Roundup herbicides sometimes.

Specifically, there is a GMO variant of field corn called "Roundup Ready" where the corn is genetically resistant to the herbicide. Plant a field of that corn, then after it emerges but well before harvesting (obviously) spray it with Roundup, diluted to an appropriate level. All of the pest plants in the field die. The corn looks a little wilted / harried for a few days after spraying, but bounces back and grows out just fine.

We use that specific kind (Roundup Ready) about 1 year out of every 4 or 5, only when pest plants are starting to become an issue. They'd love to sell it to farmers every year, but most only rotate it in when necessary, just like us, and use a small amount of normal seed (not GMO, just some of the normal corn we harvest) held in reserve from previous year(s) in the other years.

Before Roundup (and other major herbicides and pesticides), pest plants could be a major problem. From what my family says, corn can cross-pollinate or do some kind of hybridization with other crops like milo or sorghum or something, which results in a sterile cane-stalk plant like corn that produces no actual grain. Back 20+ years ago, that was a fairly major problem ... but it is very easily controlled nowadays with herbicides, and Roundup in particular.

Pure, concentrated Roundup is pretty nasty stuff. Then again, farmers still use or have used a lot of much nastier stuff during normal farm operations, like Malathion being sprinkled into grain bins to kill off insects and other small pests. I wouldn't want to chug down a glass full of any of that crap, BUT on the other hand I think we're way better as the human race off WITH all these things being used to control what can be or have been significantly damaging pests than how things would be WITHOUT them. Not to mention that all of these things are used in very very trace amounts compared to the actual amount of food produced itself, and usually a *really* long time before it becomes food. I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to detect any of them in the parts-per-multi-multi-billion scale by them time we eat them.


...That being said, the dude walked right in to this one. If his message was "this stuff is 100% safe and beneficial if used properly", I'd actually 100% agree with him. But when he's trying to oversell it by saying that it is perfectly safe to drink a glass of it ... of course somebody is going to call his bluff. Duh.

The only way of really knowing if glyphosate is safe is through good quality studies; ones that aren't funded by Monsanto in this case. Having a guy tell you he 'believes' it's safe carries zero weight - this Monsanto mouthpeice is simply trying to sway those that don't know how science works. In the same breath though, getting him to drink a cup of it takes away from the discussion that could be happening about the latest research results. Not that this Moore guy would want to discuss those issues anyway...

So in terms of the research - there's evidence now that it is harmful, and probably a carcinogen to humans, so common sense to me would be to limit it's use, replacing it wherever possible with farming techniques that minimise damage to both the environment, and humans. So I would basically echo what CSPI Biotechnology Director Gregory Jaffe says:

"farmers should reduce their use of glyphosate and practice integrated weed management, something many were doing before the introduction of glyphosate-tolerant crops but stopped when those crops became available. Such a change would have the added benefit of slowing the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds due to overuse of glyphosate".

from:
http://ens-newswire.com/2015/03/26/common-herbicide-glyphosate-a-probable-human-carcinogen/

Or maybe to give a better and more accurate view on round-up toxicity, this summary from a scientific journal article prepared by The Department of Pathology, New York Medical College, Valhalla, New York, link to full article follows:

Results from several investigations establish that
the acute toxicity and irritation potential of Roundup
herbicide in humans is low. Specifically, results from
controlled studies with Roundup showed that skin irritation
was similar to that of a baby shampoo and
lower than that observed with a dishwashing detergent
and an all-purpose cleaner; no dermal sensitization,
photoirritation, or photosensitization reactions were
148 WILLIAMS, KROES, AND MUNRO
observed. Furthermore, the incidence of occupationalrelated
cases involving Roundup is low given the widespread
use of the product. Data from these cases indicated
some potential for eye and skin irritation with
the concentrated product, but exposure to dilute spray
solutions rarely resulted in any significant adverse
effect. Most importantly, no lasting dermal or ocular
effects were noted, and significant systemic effects attributable
to contact with Roundup did not occur. Studies
of Roundup ingestion showed that death and other
serious effects occurred only when large amounts were
intentionally ingested for the purpose of committing
suicide. These data confirmed that the acute oral toxicity
in humans is low and consistent with that predicted
by the results of laboratory studies in animals.


http://www.ask-force.org/web/HerbizideTol/Williams-Safety-Evaluation-Risk-Assessment-RR-2000.pdf

You're right. I stand corrected. At first I thought this might be an example of an improper usage that is so common it becomes accepted but according to the EPA at

http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/about/

"Though often misunderstood to refer only to insecticides, the term pesticide also applies to herbicides, fungicides, and various other substances used to control pests."