Who tests food and feed samples with a soil test

[oneoff]

Zen Honeycutt (who posted the supposed GMO vs non-GMO corn nutrient analysis) also posted this quote on the Momsacrossamerica.com web site.

Quote
Everyone, as much as I appreciate free speech and self expression I also value empowerment, truth and my own peace of mind.Unfortunately I have not figured out how to set the site to pre approve comments like most other websites do, so I have a concern people will post offensive things, and that is not a concern that I want to make time for. I am disabling the ability to comment because of the offensive language, negativity and repetitious comments that this report is not what it says it is. I get that many scientist say this is a soil report and what has been explained to me is that it is a test that is usually done on soil, but the report says that this time it was done on corn. It is what it is.
I cannot offer more information on the source other than Profit Pro which is on the report. Feel free to call them.

Unquote

It is what it is; that is the source admits it is a soil test; done on corn samples.

But it also comes across as the weakest of weak admissions that it was inappropriate.

Scientific procedures abused to an extreme by people who obviously don't know how to apply anything except blind faith and personal beliefs. Will those "facts" ever be allowed to be questioned???

[oneoff]

Once agai for the last time

"I get that many scientist say this is a soil report and what has been explained to me is that it is a test that is usually done on soil, but the report says that this time it was done on corn. It is what it is.
I cannot offer more information on the source other than Profit Pro which is on the report. Feel free to call them..........direct quote from Zen Honeycutt."

[oneoff]

Now I submit that Zen Honeycutt jumped to conclusions that are far off base. Assuming that any credible analysis (soil test or an approriate food/feed analysis) was ever conducted....

It wasn't on corn (that presently is being commercially grown). Neither the purported GMO or non-GMO nutrient analysis makes any sense on soils that would grow hundreds of bushels per acre.

And please don't argue about USA average yields that year after year primarily come from GMO varieties.

Does anyone have anything from "ProfitPro" in the line of any explanation. I noted footnotes below their published results table that referred to whether or not and for how long GMO corn had been grown on supposed soil samples. So perhaps we have all been led down an alleged soil sample trail; and there is zero information or evidence in this report about corn whatsoever.

So maybe momsacrossamerica.com was just duped; and did the mathematics on soil samples. Pretty bad error. Not any contrition.

If so; were the soil samples representative samples. I would suggest that the purported GMO sample came from a terribly calcium deficient area and perhaps other soil constituents not in normal ranges. Did anyone deliberately poison the soil area or sample with glyposate too.

You'll note that Zen Honeycutt could't/wouldn't give any explanation to some pretty serious flaws in her original conclusions drawn from allegedly leaked data. Time to withdraw those conclusions; or come clean with the details of the "experiment".

While she/he may have many supporters; this is an example of how to never ever attempt a reasoned argument that can not be defended before rational people.

[rkaiser]

Alrighty then Jack. I guess that means you are "right". About this one test.

Now maybe ---- as all good scientists should -- you need to dig a little deeper; and in fact test the soil that this corn is grown in. Maybe we could get to the bottom of this yet.

Since you seem to have the time to do all of the digging, get your shovel busy and see if there is a test on the soil that this false tested corn grew outa. Bet you would find some interesting stuff there. Or not.

I would predict the "or not". Only way to grow this wonderful GMO corn of yours any more is to add a whole bunch of stuff to the soil that has been destroyed by all the chemicals needed to grow the shit in the first place.

[oneoff]

Maybe there is hope for you Kraut.

The problems being that no one knows where those soil samples came from.(if even that is what they were; or even if any tests were ever done).

I'll also share with you that I have never knowingly grown any Monsanto seed; and probably never will. Well maybe some first generation soybeans could be tempting in the distant future; if longer growing seasons ever do become consistant.

Further; I certainly prefer less pesticides and herbicides over more. But for the life of me; I can't see how a couple of ounces of 2,4-D (early in weed plant development) wouldn't do a world of good; compared to relatively little harm on those yellow fields that rob "organic" farmers.

And for those who are paranoid about germs and chemicals and the air we all breathe; you may just as well enjoy a meal at the neighbors; or once in a while splurging at a tasty restaurant; without checking out and freting about if it is all 100% organically pure.

Nothing is (not even in the last century); and if you stay well below LD50's (thats lethal dose to kill 50% of those fed the poison as I remember) the probability is that one will live just as long and be just as healthy as someone who frets over every morsel ingested.

I do hope you were sincere in what you wrote. That momsacrossamerica.com did a great diservice to both science and any cause that a person might believe in. I trust you will agree that science has provided us all with advancements that we just don't want to do without.

And if RoundUp or anything else is causing significant increases in tumors; or lowering soil calcium etc. etc. then I assure you I would be the first one to add my voice to press for remedies.

And no one should be owning genetic material; and alalfa need not be contaminated with RoundUp genes. Anything further we can agree on?
Peace?

[oneoff]

Please reread the original test data and square that with what we have both concluded.

We first both have to agree that in all probability; there is not one shred of evidence that corn of any kind ever saw the inside of a "test tube" in any part of this purported "experimental study"

Agreed or not??

[riders2010]

Well I m certainly fn glad this all got cleared up!

[rkaiser]

First off Jack --- what the hell is your name anyway?

I am not an organic guy, but will not deny anyone a chance of marketing on consumer demand.

Glad to hear that even though you support the GMO / "Mon" boys, you still see the potential in a more natural process. Very typical. Most feedlot owners and other protein factory producers eat products "not" grown in their facilities.

Read a book that talked of a group of executives from the factory farm industry who were asked to present "utopia". They all designed value chains in the food industry that reflected organic and natural food production. Your defense of the factory farm is a lemur mentality born from a profit driven mission statement, that will take all mankind over the cliff if we don't change the mission statement to include love and compassion for all of mankind and the earth on which we live...

LMAO. That last statement will take most of the "Kaiser is crazy" supporters over the edge....

[oneoff]

Thanks for helping "clear it all up" rider. Just like everyone else; not one ray of light was added to what should have been considered a very serious set of errors.

And I seriously doubt if many still see that (what now looks like) passing off supposed soil samples and soil tests as the nutrient analysis of corn is totally fraudulent or at least a gross mistake or deception.

And in all my life I've never been called Jack.

[oneoff]

Jut how does buying generic glyphosate (especially after the patent expired) and only now contemplating growing first generation Roundup ready soybeans support Monsanto.

My suspicion would be that others have unknowingly supported Monsanto to a much greater extent.

[rkaiser]

Actually oneoff, maybe it is time to pull in the horns again. It seems that the old me who used to fight for this planet, still rears his ugly head from time to time...LMAO

Actually working on giving people a choice rather than fighting the status monquo actually works.

When you really dig into it, Monsanto could be defined as "one saint" Maybe my ego is totally out to lunch and the purpose of Monsanto is divine, saintly and holy.

"one off"? I am not sure what that means and would like you to explain. Or tell us your name. Don't worry, less radical people, (like the one who lies under my soul), than people who support one saintly idea, have a master plan.
Other than a conscious / altruistic plan which I am not sure Monsanto has in mind now either>>> LOL>>> since I really looked into the meaning behind their name.

I really think you have a loving side like Monsanto, one off. It shows up in your name. One... just not sure why the off?

Thus my reach out to you to not fight and move on with kindness and compassion. Thinking about the good in every "one" rather than "one" company, "one" farm, "one" country, "one" religion and so on and so on.

Shall we move forward my friend, and use the gifts that just keep giving from the Mon's of the world to build a healthy conscious food choice.

Gifts like ractopamine, ralgro, rumensin, glyphosates, GMO's and now possibly even irradiation in the Canadian beef industry. Somebody needs to fill the whole created in the consumers shopping basket when they choose not to eat these chemicals.

Amazing how people on this planet still love to choose. And will pay for that choice.

[Kathy]

Amen Randy!

[Kathy]

Here is a link to a video interview with Howard
Vlieger in regards to this analysis of corn, and
other matters about problems with glyphosate and
genetically engineered crops:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9E-Xd1xW59I

To find search you tube for "Howard Vlieger"