The Anti GMO movement, is it the new Kony 2012?

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Thor

It just seems you are quoting this article a lot as consensus, when I am having a hard time finding any consensus.

It's a pretty powerful and in your face article. Are you finding any scientific rebuttals of the article? Nature news articles like this are deliberate litmus tests.

They are right out there, designed to provoke and invite discussion. A statement like "true" leaves little get out room.

Basically Nature is taking the podium and saying GM crops are causing superweeds. Discuss.

One would suppose it's only a matter of time before the papers come rolling in refuting the claim but in the meantime there's an awful lot of silence out there. The question is .... how long do you interpret this absence of rebuttals as concensus?

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Bagor

What are you talking about? I am referring to the Nature article I linked.

I have nothing to do with that natural news thingy.

Originally Posted by Bagor

ALL Nature articles be they papers or news articles are peer reviewed.

ok, I thought you were talking about the naturalnews.com article.

I have no idea which article you are referring to though, as I must have missed it when it was posted when this topic was previously discussed, and cannot locate it in a quick scan of the last few pages.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Bagor

It's a pretty powerful and in your face article. Are you finding any scientific rebuttals of the article? Nature news articles like this are deliberate litmus tests.

Woah, nature posts a lot of provocative articles, and one article is not anything close what you seem to think it is.

They are right out there, designed to provoke and invite discussion. A statement like "true" leaves little get out room.

Basically Nature is taking the podium and saying GM crops are causing superweeds. Discuss.

No "Nature" is not taking the podium and saying GM crops are causing superweeds, its an article by 1 writer who suggest they are (sort of).

I think that is a very important distinction, I have had a subscription to Nature for a long time and there are articles that come up like this which can end up being laughed at later, this is after all a journal, and a weekly one at that.

One would suppose it's only a matter of time before the papers come rolling in refuting the claim but in the meantime there's an awful lot of silence out there. The question is .... how long do you interpret this absence of rebuttals as concensus?

This was posted May 1st, 2013.

For the pace of peer review, I would give it a year or two to reply. But again this is ONE article, that takes a number of studies and interprets them generously by many commentators standards.

Even within the article it mentions factors in superweeds (uggh I should stop using this term myself lol)

But herbicide resistance is a problem for farmers regardless of whether they plant GM crops. Some 64 weed species are resistant to the herbicide atrazine, for example, and no crops have been genetically modified to withstand it

I still think this is the KEY paragraph as it points at the culprit being monoculture, repeatedly varying spraying.

Still, glyphosate-tolerant plants could be considered victims of their own success. Farmers had historically used multiple herbicides, which slowed the development of resistance. They also controlled weeds through ploughing and tilling — practices that deplete topsoil and release carbon dioxide, but do not encourage resistance. The GM crops allowed growers to rely almost entirely on glyphosate, which is less toxic than many other chemicals and kills a broad range of weeds without ploughing. Farmers planted them year after year without rotating crop types or varying chemicals to deter resistance.

What I am still unsure of is are you blaming GMO on the increase in resistance, because this is happening in non GMO crops as well. It is in part cases like the farmers being overconfident, not rotating crops, not varying spraying, etc.. That seems to be the key point.

The reason so many comments do no like the "True" comment is because its not being quite honest, even the writer goes to further explain in the article itself, so its more like yes&no, not "True"

GMO is not the cause of superweeds, it seems to have in some cases caused farmers to become overconfident and careless which has contributed to this problem. But we are looking at a massive increase in large scale monoculture farming world wide since 1996, you would expect resistances to jump up as well.

So I don't find this article compelling, it raises concerns but also does not blame GMO on the problem, more like it makes the point that what we have known for decades is to rotate crops, to vary spraying, and other tried and tested farming techniques.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Rathji

ok, I thought you were talking about the naturalnews.com article.

I have no idea which article you are referring to though, as I must have missed it when it was posted when this topic was previously discussed, and cannot locate it in a quick scan of the last few pages.

http://www.nature.com/news/case-stud...-crops-1.12907

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Bagor

It's a pretty powerful and in your face article. Are you finding any scientific rebuttals of the article? Nature news articles like this are deliberate litmus tests.

They are right out there, designed to provoke and invite discussion. A statement like "true" leaves little get out room.

Basically Nature is taking the podium and saying GM crops are causing superweeds. Discuss.

One would suppose it's only a matter of time before the papers come rolling in refuting the claim but in the meantime there's an awful lot of silence out there. The question is .... how long do you interpret this absence of rebuttals as concensus?

So, I re-read the nature article and while it certainly says that GM crops are causing glyphosate resistant weeds, it also says pretty clearly that all forms of herbicide cause resistant weeds to develop.

Disregarding any inaccuracies, or bias in the wording of the statement, Is your stance that we should be using no herbicides? or something else?

As I am reading, it seems that despite any issues with developing roundup resistance, these crops are generally better for the environment.

On balance, herbicide-resistant GM crops are less damaging to the environment than conventional crops grown at industrial scale. A study by PG Economics, a consulting firm in Dorchester, UK, found that the introduction of herbicide-tolerant cotton saved 15.5 million kilograms of herbicide between 1996 and 2011, a 6.1% reduction from what would have been used on conventional cotton2. And GM crop technology delivered an 8.9% improvement to the environmental impact quotient — a measure that considers factors such as pesticide toxicity to wildlife

[Thor]

Also a rebutal to that article, by two seemingly well educated guys.


http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2013/05/superweed/


Brian A. Mealor

Assistant Professor
Extension Weed Specialist

Department of Plant Sciences
University of Wyoming
College of Agriculture Room 1010

Education
B.S. – Biology 1999. North Georgia College and State University
M.S. – Rangeland Ecology and Watershed Management 2003. University of Wyoming
Ph.D. – Rangeland Ecology and Watershed Management 2006. University of Wyoming
My extension, research and teaching program focuses on: 1) investigating long-term impacts of non-native invasive weeds on native plant communities, 2) developing and improving management strategies to reduce the ecological and economic impacts of invasive weeds, and 3) understanding the inherent resilience of native populations to biological invasion. My work is done primarily in extensively-managed rangelands of the western United States.

Andrew R. Kniss
Assistant Professor, Weed Biology & Ecology

Education:
2006 Ph.D. Agronomy (Minor: Statistics) – University of Wyoming
2003 M.S. Agronomy – University of Nebraska – Lincoln
2001 B.S. Agroecology – University of Wyoming

Research:
My research program focuses on developing sustainable weed management programs in agronomic crops, especially sugarbeet, winter wheat, corn, and dry beans. Recent research projects include:

shade avoidance responses in sugarbeet
long-term management of jointed goatgrass in imidazolinone-resistant (Clearfield) winter wheat
synergistic herbicide combinations for management of feral rye
new herbicide options in proso millet
effect of long-term glyphosate use in glyphosate-resistant (Roundup Ready) cropping systems
use of ethofumesate in glyphosate-resistant (Roundup Ready) sugarbeet
management of volunteer corn in dry beans and sugarbeet
economics and eco-efficiency of conventional and glyphosate-resistant (Roundup Ready) sugarbeet production systems
statistical modeling of herbicide absorption into plants

Going to a movie, will read this all later.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Thor

Also a rebutal to that article, by two seemingly well educated guys.

The fella can't even differentiate between evolved and documented.

e.g.

One deficiency in the above graph is that it doesn’t indicate where the weeds first evolved. Perhaps they evolved in GM crops, but then moved to infest other sites represented in the bar chart above. So instead, let’s take a look at WHERE the glyphosate-resistant weed species FIRST EVOLVED. Of the 24 glyphosate-resistant species documented worldwide, 11 of these superweeds first evolved in GM crops; compared to 13 superweeds that have evolved in non-GM crops/sites. Read those numbers again. And check out the figure below, looking at where and when glyphosate-resistant superweeds first evolved.

He uses the word evolved SIX times, even capitalizing FIRST EVOLVED for emphasis.

The problem however commences once you check out the figure he directs you to. Guess what? There is NO figure looking at where and when glypsosate-resistant superweeds first evolved. NONE!

There is a figure looking at where and when glyphosate-resistant superweeds were "first DOCUMENTED".

But no doubt being the good scientist that he is, he will be submitting his "blog" to his peers for scrutiny.

I'm asking again for the umpteenth time for scientific literature. I'm not replying to any more blogs.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Thor

But we are looking at a massive increase in large scale monoculture farming world wide since 1996, you would expect resistances to jump up as well.

Resistance to glyphosate? Yes.
http://www.weedscience.org/Graphs/SpeciesbySOA.aspx

[Peanut]

Good lord. I got lost about 5 pages ago when the discussion turned to the logistics of properly arguing about science. The summary I'm taking away is that we should all learn how to grow our own food just in case super weeds take over the world and/or we all die from herbicide/pesticide/fecal matter ingestion. Excellent.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Bagor

I'm asking again for the umpteenth time for scientific literature. I'm not replying to any more blogs.

I'm curious I replied in depth to you before the blog posts, will you get to them, and if you can't take blogs seriously from professionals in the field, you will have to wait at least a year or two before you can talk about this further. Unless there are any incoming research papers on this exact subject.

However I still don't know if you are suggesting this rise is only due to GM or are trying to argue that GM can lead to superweeds, based on the practices around the use of GM, the overconfidence of 1 type of spraying, the monoculture, etc...

I'm very curious to hear your responses.

Also from that blog, this hits the nail on the head regarding this subject and the responses I keep getting from experts in the field.

Certainly, Roundup Ready crops have increased the amount of glyphosate used in cropland, and this increased glyphosate use has contributed to the evolution of some new glyphosate-resistant weeds. No one can dispute that. But glyphosate-resistant weeds evolved due to glyphosate use, not directly due to GM crops. And to date, there have been more new cases of glyphosate-resistant superweeds documented in non-GM crops/sites than in GM crops. So it is difficult to make the case that GM crops are any more problematic than other uses of herbicides with respect to superweed development. Unless, of course, you rely on dogma and speculation.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Thor

I'm curious I replied in depth to you before the blog posts, will you get to them, and if you can't take blogs seriously from professionals in the field, you will have to wait at least a year or two before you can talk about this further.

You serious? You question that I can't take blogs seriously from a so called professional when I present to you that they can't even interpret a graph. First documented does not equal first evolved. Not even close. It's garbage. I have better things to do than read and point out the obvious faults in stuff like that. Critically read it for yourself.

You wait a year or so, then ask yourself the question why no-one has challenged the assertion in the literature. Your last quote basically agrees with the assertion that they cause superweeds but has a "yeah but ....."

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Bagor

You wait a year or so, then ask yourself the question why no-one has challenged the assertion in the literature. Your last quote basically agrees with the assertion that they cause superweeds but has a "yeah but ....."

Again if you read my initial point by point reply to yours, GM is not the "cause" of strain resistance, its only part of the problem and we see this happening with non GMO crops as well.

This is what you do not seem to agree upon, you put the blame on GMO crops, and if this was the case why is this happening in non GM crops at the same levels?

[Thor]

Brian Scott the guy I posted a link to earlier, the Farmer who blogs about his experiences did an OUTSTANDING response to a greenpeace blogger who tried to suggest he was a parody by supporting GMO, after her rather insulting blog he replied in the comments and continued to do so responding to questsions by the very anti GMO crowd.

This is how you debate people who see you as hostile before you even speak:

http://understory.ran.org/2012/03/06...omment-1129591

In the lead up to Occupy Our Food Supply, I published a blog post titled, “Monsanto and Cargill: The Thugs of Big Food.” Someone named Ben left a comment. He said I was misguided for suggesting that family farmers are negatively impacted by Monsanto and Cargill and asked me to read a blog post about Big Ag by a farmer named Brian Scott to “get a clue.” So I did.

I found the article to be hilarious, in a sad kind of way. In fact, it was so “hilarious” that I wanted to see what you thought: Does Brian’s post read like a parody or paid media? You be the judge (see the underlined sections) and let us know in the comments if you think he is on the Monsanto payroll or just drinking glyphosate in his Kool-Aid…

His intial reply in the comments, I recommend your read through them all, excellent stuff.

Or maybe I’m just your average everyday farmer. It’s not a parody, although I do tend to have a sarcastic wit about me. It’s not paid media either. If my check from Monsanto shows up in your mailbox, let me know because I haven’t received one yet. The point of this post was to lay out for people what I actually agree to when I use biotech seeds. You left out the link to my PDF of an actual copy of the agreement we signed last year. That’s what I really want people to see so they can read it word for word for themselves. I’ve got nothing to hide from anyone.

Why would I be worried about Monsanto checking my storage? I might not particularly care for it, but they wouldn’t find anything out of line. Even if we went with all non-GMO crops it change virtually nothing about the way we farm. We would have to alter our weed, disease, and insect management a bit differently, but most of what we do would remain the same.

We grow non-GMO popcorn. If fact we are upping our contracted acreage nearly 50% for 2012. This is probably the crop that has the most corporate control attached. Understandably so because it goes into your mouth basically the way it comes out of the field. We don’t farm it much different than the rest of our corn though other than taking extra special care at harvest not to damage the kernels and to delivery a pure product. We raise the corn cutting head a bit higher along the roadsides to avoid the errant glass bottle, etc, and we might even leave a couple rows standing in the field if we feel the neighboring corn is a bit too close. The place we supply doesn’t tolerate dent corn in the popcorn.

I’m not ignorant to issues of resistance from pests, and I do question my own farm’s methods from time to time. I just want to do the best job I can like anyone else. I did right about Bt sweet corn because the subject interests me and thought it might be of interest to others. Two posts directly correlated to Monsanto out of 130+ so far does not an agenda make. If I have an agenda it’s debunking scare tactics with real world experience.

I am certainly neither of the options you have given your readers to choose from. I’m just doing the social media thing for ag in my spare time. I hope the people who read this post read the parts you haven’t underlined. And if they came to this post via your homepage, I hope that misleading picture of a syringe getting ready to inject an ear of corn with something scary doesn’t cloud their judgement. I would hope that like me, they’ll do their homework and come to their own conclusions.

Here’s the entire post should anyone care to read it. http://thefarmerslife.wordpress.com/...pply-everyday/

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Bagor

You serious? You question that I can't take blogs seriously from a so called professional when I present to you that they can't even interpret a graph. First documented does not equal first evolved. Not even close. It's garbage. I have better things to do than read and point out the obvious faults in stuff like that. Critically read it for yourself.

You wait a year or so, then ask yourself the question why no-one has challenged the assertion in the literature. Your last quote basically agrees with the assertion that they cause superweeds but has a "yeah but ....."

I hate answering for others, so I asked Andrew to reply to your concerns, here is his response:

Originally Posted by Andrew Kniss writes

Thanks for the note. It is always interesting to see who is reading our blog and the various criticism. I was amused reading through the forum thread. I have only a few comments. Feel free to use as you see fit.
1) there is a certain subset of people who will simply not be swayed from their ideological stance, even when faced with data to the contrary.
2) Herbicide resistant weeds on the weedscience.org website were "documented" where they first "evolved" which is why the terms are both used in the blog post. The weedscience.org website is simply a repository of information. The information is submitted by scientists around the world who are experts in this area. When a new case is submitted, and they only list "soybean" or "vineyard" then it is safe to assume that the new case evolved due to herbicide use in that particular system.
3) the piece by Natasha Gilbert is a Nature News piece, not a peer reviewed research article. It is journalism, not science. She presents no data and cites no peer-reviewed research to support the claim that GM crops have bred superweeds. Because there is none (at least not that I'm aware of). Which is why I wrote the blog post. I wanted to see if the best available data actually supported her claim. It appears the data do not support it.
4) the discussion (or debate) about "superweeds" is almost sure to be fruitless, unless this silly term is defined. Most who are really worried about "superweeds" don't really have a functional definition of the term. Which makes it impossible to discuss the real issues related to herbicide resistance.

Thanks for reading the Control Freaks blog, and we appreciate the note.
Andrew

[The Fonz]

Bagor...

I've made a point numerous times, and as far as I know, you've chosen to ignore it each and every time.

Originally Posted by The Fonz

how do explain tribenuron resistant kochia, fluroxypyr resistant kochia, and clodinafop resistant wild oats? This resistance developed despite there never being a GMO seed with a tribenuron or fluroxypyr or clodinafop tolerant trait.

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Are you implying that without the introduction of RR crops, we wouldn't have glyphosate resistant weeds today?


If yes...


when did we introduce ExpressReady crops, which lead to the outbreak of group 2 resistant weeds today?


when did we introduce HorizonReady crops, which lead to the outbreak of group 1 resistant weeds today?


when did we introduce PerimeterReady crops, which lead to the recent reports of group 4 resistant weeds today?


We didn't. There is no need, as the crops these brands are applied on are already naturally tolerant of the chemical being used. Yet weeds are still developing resistance.

Originally Posted by The Fonz

...there is not a single GMO crop developed to be tolerant of group 1 herbicides. Yet group 1 resistant wild oats are the biggest weed concern we are facing right now and will be facing going forward.

And I will ask one more time. If herbicide resistant weeds are the result of GMO seed, how is it possible that we have weeds resistant to herbicides for which a crop has never been genetically modified to be tolerant of?

[Bagor]

LOL. Documented where they first evolved. It's documented where they are first observed and that's it. Fella is telling stories. Ask yourself the question Thor, how does one get from observing a plant somewhere for the first time to the conclusion that that must have been where the plant evolved? How?

I presume you asked Mr Kniss what journal he submitted this reply to. Which one? I'd love to read the methodology where he determines that the plant first evolved there.

The fact is this. He took a graph of first documented cases and decided to tell a story with it by taking a HUUUUGGE leap of faith saying well they must have first evolved there . It's laughable and frankly worrying that you're buying into it. It's garbage.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bagor

LOL. Documented where they first evolved. It's documented where they are first observed and that's it. Fella is telling stories. Ask yourself the question Thor, how does one get from observing a plant somewhere for the first time to the conclusion that that must have been where the plant evolved? How?

I presume you asked Mr Kniss what journal he submitted this reply to. Which one? I'd love to read the methodology where he determines that the plant first evolved there.

The fact is this. He took a graph of first documented cases and decided to tell a story with it by taking a HUUUUGGE leap of faith saying well they must have first evolved there . It's laughable and frankly worrying that you're buying into it. It's garbage.

Do you have a rebuttle to his asertion that the Nature piece is NOT a peer reviewed peice of liturature but instead just a journalistic piece.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Bagor

LOL. Documented where they first evolved. It's documented where they are first observed and that's it. Fella is telling stories. Ask yourself the question Thor, how does one get from observing a plant somewhere for the first time to the conclusion that that must have been where the plant evolved? How?

I presume you asked Mr Kniss what journal he submitted this reply to. Which one? I'd love to read the methodology where he determines that the plant first evolved there.

The fact is this. He took a graph of first documented cases and decided to tell a story with it by taking a HUUUUGGE leap of faith saying well they must have first evolved there . It's laughable and frankly worrying that you're buying into it. It's garbage.

Why is that so huge of a leap?

If someone has a herbicide that is not doing anything against the weeds it is supposed to kill, wouldn't they complain to the vendor and in the process be creating documentation of its existence?

Or are you thinking that farmers had weeds resistant to Round up for weeds for many years but never mentioned it to anyone?

I guess it could be either, I am not a farmer and I don't know how they operate in situations like that.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by GGG

Do you have a rebuttle to his asertion that the Nature piece is NOT a peer reviewed peice of liturature but instead just a journalistic piece.

Scroll to the top of the page where I described it as a news article designed to provoke scientific discussion. Not blogs. It's an opinion piece. You're aware that Nature allows responses to these news articles? Have you seen any?

I see you thanked his articles therefore I can only assume you agree with it. Do you have an opinion on his graph interpretation? Maybe you can share what sort of methodology he would use to come to the conclusion that the plants were first documented there, therefore by default they must have evolved there?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Scroll to the top of the page where I described it as a news article designed to provoke scientific discussion. Not blogs. It's an opinion piece. You're aware that Nature allows responses to these news articles? Have you seen any?

I see you thanked his articles therefore I can only assume you agree with it. Do you have an opinion on his graph interpretation? Maybe you can share what sort of methodology he would use to come to the conclusion that the plants were first documented there, therefore by default they must have evolved there?

So before I reply I would like you to clarify your argument.

Do you believe that scientific data supports that GMO crops are the sole cause of herbicide resistant weeds?

Do you believe that the spraying of glysophate on non-gmo crops leads to the creation of glysophate resistant weeds?

Do you believe that the increased glysophate overall is the primary cause of the glysophate resistant weeds?

If none of these apply can you state clearly what you believe is the cause of glysophate resistance in weeds.

As to the graphs I agree with your criticism of the evolved vs. discovered problem. But I think the reverse is also ture, how can you be sure that all glysophate resistant weeds are due to GMOs. I don't think you can without a very detailed look at all of the crops surrouding where these discoveries took place. However the first graph which charts the discovery of glysophate resistance weeds vs the introduction of GMO crops to me is very telling. The rate of discovery of glysopahte resistant weeds has not increased since the introduction of glysophate resistant crops. This to me throws up some flags into what I generally believe to be true which is that increased use of glysophate whether on GMO or non-GMO crops leads to a increase in the development of resistant weeds and that the current increase is glysophate use is partially due to people using resistant crops and partially due to its low cost.