Roundup to be banned in the UK, ?

[skyhuck]

That would be 14 portions of brown rice so it gets even cheaper, especially if you add some beans and a bit of mincemeat plus some chilli

 

[Billhook]

Ironed your own shirts!!!

 

I lived in a trailer (caravan), so no airs and graces, even I paid a woman to do my washing and ironing.

 

I feel right posh now.

 

[ame]

[/ame]

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

The autos environmentalists drive are related to scores of pollutants and residual chemicals to make every component of the cars they drive. If the screamers about Monsanto were truly honest, they would all walk. The fact that so many won't pry their fingers from their cars, means their heads may be a long way up their dark bohunkas

 

On the face of it, one could accept the premise of your counter point...

 

However, it fails to recognise and acknowledge the consensual sins of mankind - and the (sometimes effective, sometimes not so effective) attempts at amelioration.

 

Perhaps with a relative very few exceptions, we all leave a negative footprint on the planet by our very existence.

 

Do I drive a car? Yes of course. Does it have a negative effect on the planet? Yes of course. Do i recognise and acknowledge the negative effect? Yes of course.

 

What does national and international government "DO" to disincentivise my car use? They tax me. They tax me on the purchase price, they tax me annually for the privilege of using it, they tax me for the fuel etc, etc.... Through taxation I am dissuaded from excessive use and some of the money raised may be used to ameliorate the negative impact.

 

So, cars = bad, manufacturing = bad, construction = bad, chemical processing in farming = bad.

 

Of course the difference being, that which we know to be "bad" is generally recognised as such and taxed to minimise unreasonable or excessive use.

 

Not so glyphosate. One could suggest even the opposite, a weed control measure which has been misapplied, in excessive and damaging quantities, as a crop desiccant so as to maximise yield, accelerate harvest and subsequent replanting, and so the economic cycle of maximising profit continues and bugger the consequences.

 

If the model of taxation to dissuade excessive use was applied in equal measure to glyphosate - tax it to the point where less damaging techniques would be more attractive economically - I'm quite certain that the frivolous use of what, only a fool couldn't recognise as a dangerous chemical, would simply disappear.

 

So, I'm afraid, I reject and dismiss your flawed justification just as I would that of someone who suggested we use asbestos in building, lead in water pipes, tankards and the paint on children's toys because "it's makes it easier...."

 

I'd also ask, do you profit from the use of glyphosate? If yes, can you have an unbiased opinion?

[scotspine1]

[ame=

]

[/ame]

[Gardenscape]

There are some really great informative videos on youtube about Monsanto and their GM crops. They are an absolute gigantic company and they produce around 80/90% of the worlds food. They basically own the worlds food supply. Don't believe anything Monsanto tell you. Their herbicides and pesticides are used on their crops, but the crops have been modified not to die. Doesn't take a scientist to work out that somewhere down the line the chemicals will be absorbed into the food chain and people will start getting ill. Their chemicals have also been linked to cause cancer in humans. Go right ahead and use Round-up, but make sure you wear a gas mask and a full body suit.

 

Do your research on the products you use. It should be banned.

[mdvaden]

On the face of it, one could accept the premise of your counter point...

 

However, it fails to recognise and acknowledge the consensual sins of mankind - and the (sometimes effective, sometimes not so effective) attempts at amelioration.

 

 

It's not a counterpoint ... it's more a fact, and points to reality.

 

People buy roundup or monsanto products because they want them, or pay for services that use them. It's very similar to how old growth forests were wiped-out not because of loggers, but because tens of thousands wanted the wood or products from the wood. So to avoid the complexity you seemed to insert ... it's easy to deal with simpler matters.

 

If environmentalists don't want old growth trees cut, then simple logic means they won't buy products that accelerate that type of cutting. If they want organic gardens or just landscaping without roundup, then obviously they should hand-weed or other alternatives. If they are being logical, consistent and honest, then they should not buy cars or drive them, because of all the toxins and pollutants caused by manufacture, etc.. On the other hand, if they have no problem making the exception to use products of one kind that trigger some contamination, then they should go easy on companies like monsanto and users of those products.

 

There's nothing wrong with people having an opinion about products they like or dislike. It's just that there are so few who are consistent about what they say, do, purchase, etc.. There are so many people who try to demonize certain products, but use other pollutant causing things that they treat as if angelic.

Edited January 17, 2017 by mdvaden

[markieg31]

Running back to cheap eating. Meat is usually the most expensive part of the meal. Just a reminder that you don't have to have meat every day- i know it's hard to get your head round. Growing your own would also keep it cheap- especially meat.

 

Sent from my SM-G900F using Arbtalk mobile app

[Billhook]

Running back to cheap eating. Meat is usually the most expensive part of the meal. Just a reminder that you don't have to have meat every day- i know it's hard to get your head round. Growing your own would also keep it cheap- especially meat.

 

Sent from my SM-G900F using Arbtalk mobile app

 

 

 

How to feed a family of four for a week on £28 by a French Chef

 

Instagram chef Miguel Barclay creates 28 gourmet dinners for £1 each | Daily Mail Online

[openspaceman]

How to feed a family of four for a week on £28 by a French Chef

 

Instagram chef Miguel Barclay creates 28 gourmet dinners for £1 each | Daily Mail Online

 

These will be tried along with Flatyre's parsley and ginger soup which is very fast and cheap to make.

[D Mc]

The problem with products like Roundup is they propagate the myth that we can successfully and indefinitely live outside the laws of the natural world. Gravity is not a suggestion and neither are life cycle systems.

 

For anyone interested in a simple and truly sustainable farming method, check out some of the videos in Gabe Browns collection.