The following was stated: "Are you just simply going to ignore it because I'm not going to go search around Google for links? You couldn't even "keep up" in that thread (because it's out of your realm of study/knowledge), yet you chose to dismiss all of it because I didn't hunt down some Google links for you." H.Kuska comment. Yes, without scientific documentation, it is merely your opinion. Please note how the Podevin and du Jardin, 2012 paper was commented on in this very recent review reported in Google Scholar: PDF][PDF] SCOPING REPORT C Marris, C Jefferson - 2013 - kclpure.kcl.ac.uk 169 days ago - ... Document Version Preprint ��" the version submitted for publication Link to publication record in King's Research Portal Citation for published version (APA): Marris, C., & Jefferson, C. (2013). ... This report should be cited as: Marris, C. and Jefferson, C. (2013). ... "One reason for the scepticism displayed by some actors in response to such declarations is that at the time when genetic engineering first merged, strong claims were also made by proponents of the field about the precision of the new techniques. Thus, molecular biologists in the 1980s emphasised the lack of sophistication of previous techniques to emphasise the enhanced predictability of the then new recombinant DNA (rDNA) techniques, as exemplified in the seminal OECD report of 1986 (OECD, 1986)11:" H.Kuska comment, the following is a quote from the 1986 report. "While rDNA techniques may result in the production of organisms expressing a combination of traits that are not observed in nature, genetic changes from rDNA techniques will often have inherently greater predictability compared to traditional techniques, because of the greater precision that the rDNA technique affords to particular modifications. […] It is acknowledged that additional research and experience with rDNA micro-organisms, plants, and animals, should certainly increase our ability and precision to predict the outcome of introductions of rDNA organisms into the many varied ecosystems." (H.Kuska comment, end of 1986 quote, now back to recent review quote.) "Despite these claims of greater predictability and precision, studies have now found that unintended additional fragments of DNA are often present (Rang et al., 2005; Windels et al., 2001), and that unintended re-arrangements of sections of the host genome flanking the genetic insert were present in GM crops that have been placed on the market (Hernández et al., 2003; Windels et al., 2001). Also, a recent study by scientists from the European Food Safety Authority demonstrated that some long versions of the cauliflower mosaic virus 35S promoter, very commonly used in genetic constructs and present in a number of GM crops on the market, unexpectedly contain an overlapping viral open reading frame which, when expressed, might result in unintended phenotypic changes (Podevin and du Jardin, 2012). This demonstrates that even seemingly well-characterised and routinely used noncoding regulatory DNA sequences can produce unpredicted, unintended effects, yet such sequences are commonly assumed to present little risk when assessed within the EU regulatory framework, and “intergeneric microorganisms resulting only from the addition of well-characterized, non-coding regulatory regions” are excluded from the US Biotechnology Coordinated Framework. Opinions among scientists and other stakeholders are sharply divided about whether any future forms of genetic engineering, including synthetic biology, could ever result in the creation of organisms with reliably predictable behaviours, especially when released into complex, diverse and variable natural ecosystems; and this is directly related to divergent evaluations of the prospects for GMMO products that would need to be released into the environment in order to perform their intended function" H.Kuska comment. Please notice the use of the word "opinions" in the following: "Opinions among scientists and other stakeholders are sharply divided........" i.e. it is my "opinion" that the public is being used as beta testers. ------------------------------------------ Here is a link that might be useful: link to above review

These two chemicals are also formulated into products for brush and blackberry control. Crossbow is a well known product used just for that purpose. Other products are also used for these target weeds Ginny, Any herbicide you may decide to use will have label instructions that will detail appropriate use. Herbicides should always be targeted specifically to the plants you wish to control. They can be used in gardens without affecting nearby plants, but they must be used carefully, and exactly according to the label. Here is a link that might be useful: TNC information source

Thanks rhizo! But, as I recall, the shelf-life of those concentrates could be anywhere from 2 to 8 years. shelf-life...that is the term I couldn't remember, thus couldn't research it very well. Cool, dark, and dry pretty much sums it up. Yes, has been stored well. Ok, in doing some more searching using 'shelf life' I found where the question was asked on another site and a Consumer Response Representative from The Scotts Company and replied. He said: Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Concentrate has a shelf life of a minimum of eight years. The product may last beyond the minimum time period though. Many variables in storage conditions can affect the shelf life of a product. Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Concentrate will not be fully effective one day and ineffective the next; the product will gradually lose its effectiveness over time. Store both unopened and opened product containers in a cool, dry place and protect them from extremes in temperature. Freezing temperatures, for example, won't affect the product, but may cause damage to the container and could result in a chemical spill. Stored correctly, your product will last at least the minimum number of years and probably longer. ------------------------------------------- It's a good policy for all of us to purchase only the amount of certain products that we are reasonably sure we'll use in one year. Going forward, when purchasing I'll consider a smaller container, or else maybe opt to split it with a neighbor who also has a high usage every year. Thank you again. Sue

The plants are moving poison all throughout the plant. Personally I would pull up all the plants and throw them away off my property. of course this simply spreads the poison all over the world. Stop using poisons and pesticides. Learn to go Organic. Why do you use poisons. Do you want to die early of cancer. Do you want to kill your wife and children. You can not kill life on earth without killing yourself. If you poison your garden then you poison your self and your family. What is there about Organic you do not understand. There is an Organic forum here on garden web. Who wants to eat poisoned tomatoes that will give them cancer later in life. You, your wife, your children ??? Not me that is for sure. I have been growing for over 40 years without a drop of any poison. My garden grows like crazy. big huge no watering no fertilizing all natural huge crops no bug problems no chemical fertilizers.