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

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Azure

You seem to be missing the point. The issue isn't that GMOs are evil, bad or cancerous, but that they require an extreme high use of chemicals to be sustainable, which in itself is not sustainable at all.

There have been numerous studies done to show that while genetically modified crops have higher outputs, it comes at the ever increasing costs of using more herbicides, fertilizers and other chemicals that are not at all healthy for the environment.

Spoiler!

From a great study here.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC34218/



Scientific enough for you?

Ah yes, roll those eyes, how dare someone ask you to provide a scientific basis for your scientific claim. It's almost like I wanted you to support your point

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Do you even know what science means? Picking one study/journal article/blog post and wave it around as gospel is not "science."

If you actually read peer reviewed journals you would realize that different researcher rarely agree with each other (come to the same conclusion), each new article to the body of literature goes back and forth with previous work in the study area, usually expands only on a bit of knowledge and is most likely counter-argued in following articles. Only relatively small portion of the knowledge is actually thought to be set in stone.

Science is about searching for truth, not hand-picking research results that happen to support your position when you misleadingly present them without proper context.

Can you point me to any source that wa provided to support the initial claim? Oh, what's that? There wasn't one? Hmm, I wonder why I asked or one.

[The Fonz]

Azure...

What do all of these pesticides have in common:

2, 4-D
metsulfuron
tralkoxydim
bromoxynil
fluroxypyr
dicamba
fenoxaprop
thifensulfuron
MCPA
clodinafop
mecoprop
tribenuron
dichlorprop
flucarbazone
florasulam
clopyralid
pyrasulfatole
pyroxsulam
pinoxaden
dimethoate
chlorpyrifos
cypermethrin
deltamethrin
lambda-cyhalothrin
lannate
malathion
permethrin
GLYPHOSATE (Roundup)

Every single one is sprayed in-crop on non-GMO wheat. Wheat is naturally tolerant of every single one of those pesticides, with the exception of glyphosate. Yet it's still used...how? It's used as a pre-harvest dessicant, essentially killing and drying down the plant so that we can get in sooner with the combine.

So many of those chemicals I listed above are exponentially more harmful than Monsanto's glyposate, so why is the target on their back? Or here's a better question, why are you targeting GMO crops, when every single pesticide I listed gets sprayed on non-GMO?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by flamefan74

This is downright wrong. The cost of the seed has gone up, but the cost of the chemical has gone down. The money for these companies is in selling the seed, not in the chemical. When the chemical is cheap, farmers don't mind paying the higher cost of seed. On top of that, Roundup is off patent which means anyone can use it. There is no money left in it. Margins on seed for these companies is huge.

You really need to watch where you get your info from.

The cost of the chemical has gone done, but as I have indicated in this thread the amount of chemical needed to control the ever increasing resistant weeds has gone up, therefore the cost of spraying is going up.

You are right though that ever since the Roundup patent ran out in 2000, everyone and their dog got in on the game driving prices down. The problem is that usage is increasing year over year, which still increases costs.

Farmers don't care because even with the high costs, the yields are enough that with the prices in todays market, they can turn a pretty penny.

Alberta farmers had record years in 2011, again in 2012, and weather permitting, will have another record year in 2013. Especially in the St. Mary's irrigation districts some record crops are being grown year after year.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by flamefan74

So are the non GMO types. In canola for example, you have the Clearfield system which is considered non GMO but is actually sprayed with worse chemicals than roundup. It is considered non-GMO due to how it is bred. The Clearfield chemicals can actually have residual effects in the soil, so what residue is still on the crop?

If you are comparing GMO to organic, then I would agree with you to a certain extent. But GMO to non-GMO there is no difference.

There needs to be a better understanding of what is GMO, non-GMO, and organic. Most consumers link non-GMO and organic as the same, but there is a huge difference. For example, the company I work for sells a non-GMO (Clearfield) canola oil into the US health market as non-GMO. The health stores know what is involved with the non-GMO canola, but if the consumer is clueless, they will sell it a higher markup and keep quiet about it. And it is legit as the product they are selling actually is non-GMO, it is the consumer assuming non-GMO=organic.

Wasn't the original point of the RR ready variation supposed to be that because the plant wouldn't be affected by the glyphosate, it would allow the farmer to get away with less herbicide usage year over year, while at the same time increasing yields?

This plus an increased focus on no till crops, which was also supposed to be made possible with RR, would really cut costs, increase soil fertility, and even cut the carbon emissions that are actually a pretty serious problem in the farming industry.

I agree that more information is needed. I just think people are far to willing to accept GMO because they have a very limited understanding as to how the complete farming process works. Testing GMO seeds in a lab does not in any way analyze the complete process. Far too much emphasis has been and STILL is being put on lab science versus the trials being done by the USDA on test crops out in the field. Of course, pretty tough to properly analyze those crops when funding is being cut.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Azure...

What do all of these pesticides have in common:

2, 4-D
metsulfuron
tralkoxydim
bromoxynil
fluroxypyr
dicamba
fenoxaprop
thifensulfuron
MCPA
clodinafop
mecoprop
tribenuron
dichlorprop
flucarbazone
florasulam
clopyralid
pyrasulfatole
pyroxsulam
pinoxaden
dimethoate
chlorpyrifos
cypermethrin
deltamethrin
lambda-cyhalothrin
lannate
malathion
permethrin
GLYPHOSATE (Roundup)

Every single one is sprayed in-crop on non-GMO wheat. Wheat is naturally tolerant of every single one of those pesticides, with the exception of glyphosate. Yet it's still used...how? It's used as a pre-harvest dessicant, essentially killing and drying down the plant so that we can get in sooner with the combine.

So many of those chemicals I listed above are exponentially more harmful than Monsanto's glyposate, so why is the target on their back? Or here's a better question, why are you targeting GMO crops, when every single pesticide I listed gets sprayed on non-GMO?

Wasn't the original point of this thread GMO crops? Perhaps I missed the part where we talked about non-GMO crops and how the chemicals used on them are harmful as well.

Monsanto is the largest seller of GMO seed, the thread was started to talk about GMO seeds, and therefore I brought up the points about how GMO seeds are being farmed. Monsanto being the obvious target. Hell, there was a video in the OP of how someone loves Monsanto. Someone who has no bloody clue what they're talking about.

Trying to deflect the point away towards non-GMO crops doesn't change anything that was said here, outside of the obvious. That being that most people on here that posted in support of GMO crops obviously had no clue what the farming process was, and instead just choose to focus on the supposed scientific evidence of how safe the GMO seed was.

For the record, I do acknowledge increased use of dangerous chemicals on ALL crops, not just GMO is a problem. There is too much focus on increasing yield even perhaps at the expense of food safety, and not enough focus on sustainable healthy farming, with natural methods of controlling weeds.

Unfortunately that is the world we live in. The overwhelming majority of our food supply comes from sources that are not sustainable, and at some points perhaps pose a danger to humans. The outbreak of E. coli at the XL plant this past year is a great example of that.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by valo403

Ah yes, roll those eyes, how dare someone ask you to provide a scientific basis for your scientific claim. It's almost like I wanted you to support your point

Perhaps before you and others come here claiming the superiority of GMO seeds you ought to do some more 'scientific' research on how they affect the complete food cycle, not just the end consumer.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by Azure

Wasn't the original point of this thread GMO crops? Perhaps I missed the part where we talked about non-GMO crops and how the chemicals used on them are harmful as well.

Yes, it's about the anti-GMO movement and trying to understand reasons for being anti-GMO.

You citing pesticide usage and it's effects on food safety is completely irrelevant, as herbicides and insecticides are not unique to GMO seeded crops.

That is the point I am making.

[Azure]

Except research has shown that GMO crops have resulted in increased usage of those chemicals.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by Azure

Except research has shown that GMO crops have resulted in increased usage of those chemicals.

What are you saying here?

Are you telling me that because we now have RoundupReady volunteer canola growing in our wheat, we need to spray it with more Roundup? Cause that's wrong, as Roundup is not and never has been applied on wheat to control weeds.

Or are you saying that because we now have RoundupReady volunteer canola growing in our wheat, we need to spray more 24-D/dicamba/mcpa/tribenuron/bromoxynil/etc? Cause that's wrong too. Being glyphosate tolerant does not make the weed tolerant to those chemicals. It's completely unrelated.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Azure

Perhaps before you and others come here claiming the superiority of GMO seeds you ought to do some more 'scientific' research on how they affect the complete food cycle, not just the end consumer.

And perhaps you should present the science you claim supports your position without being asked for it. What nerve I had to actually expect support, right?

[ripTDR]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Azure...

What do all of these pesticides have in common:

2, 4-D
metsulfuron
tralkoxydim
bromoxynil
fluroxypyr
dicamba
fenoxaprop
thifensulfuron
MCPA
clodinafop
mecoprop
tribenuron
dichlorprop
flucarbazone
florasulam
clopyralid
pyrasulfatole
pyroxsulam
pinoxaden
dimethoate
chlorpyrifos
cypermethrin
deltamethrin
lambda-cyhalothrin
lannate
malathion
permethrin
GLYPHOSATE (Roundup)

Every single one is sprayed in-crop on non-GMO wheat. Wheat is naturally tolerant of every single one of those pesticides, with the exception of glyphosate. Yet it's still used...how? It's used as a pre-harvest dessicant, essentially killing and drying down the plant so that we can get in sooner with the combine.

So many of those chemicals I listed above are exponentially more harmful than Monsanto's glyposate, so why is the target on their back? Or here's a better question, why are you targeting GMO crops, when every single pesticide I listed gets sprayed on non-GMO?

exponentially??? please elaborate

[Azure]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

What are you saying here?

Are you telling me that because we now have RoundupReady volunteer canola growing in our wheat, we need to spray it with more Roundup? Cause that's wrong, as Roundup is not and never has been applied on wheat to control weeds.

Or are you saying that because we now have RoundupReady volunteer canola growing in our wheat, we need to spray more 24-D/dicamba/mcpa/tribenuron/bromoxynil/etc? Cause that's wrong too. Being glyphosate tolerant does not make the weed tolerant to those chemicals. It's completely unrelated.

If you honestly can't take the time to read through the research I have posted that quite clearly pointed out that the roundup ready variations have led to increased use of herbicides, mostly due to the rise of the superweed....then there is no point in explaining anything.

The data is there. Choosing to stick your head in the sand won't make it go way.

This thread is actually hilarious.

The drum beating in favor of GMOs has gone strangely quiet after it became evident that the drum beaters are clearly not familiar with the complete farming process, and instead just choose to focus on supposed lab tests that claim GMO seeds are safe for humans.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by valo403

And perhaps you should present the science you claim supports your position without being asked for it. What nerve I had to actually expect support, right?

Considering how easy it is to find the research yourself, I would think that anyone who is involved in a discussion about GMOs has at least researched what they are arguing about before they start making claims.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by ripTDR

exponentially??? please elaborate

Chlorpyrifos, for one. We spray it on wheat/durum/barley as an insecticide, often times for killing wheat midge.

The LD50 in rats is 300mg/kg

Here is the msds:
http://msdssearch.dow.com/PublishedL...romPage=GetDoc

The LD50 in rats for glyphosate is >5000mg/kg.

Roundup msds:
http://roundup.ca/_uploads/documents...ax_msds_en.pdf

Originally Posted by Azure

If you honestly can't take the time to read through the research I have posted that quite clearly pointed out that the roundup ready variations have led to increased use of herbicides, mostly due to the rise of the superweed....then there is no point in explaining anything.

#1 Weeds becoming tolerant to glyphosate is not a result of GMO crops, its a result of glyphosate being sprayed on weeds for nearly half a century. Resistance happens when you continually do it, and it was happening before the introduction of RoundupReady crops.

Just like we are having serious issues with group 1 (clethodim, fenoxaprop, clodinafop, pinoxaden, tralkoxydim) resistant wild oats in the prairies. There has NEVER been a GMO crop produced to tolerate these herbicides, yet we have weeds restistant to every single group 1 herbicide out there, because they've been used in our fields for decades.

Originally Posted by Azure

The drum beating in favor of GMOs has gone strangely quiet after it became evident that the drum beaters are clearly not familiar with the complete farming process, and instead just choose to focus on supposed lab tests that claim GMO seeds are safe for humans.

And what is your familiarity with the farming process? I can tell from your posts in this thread it's extremely limited, as you can't argue for yourself. You simply link someone else's research.



What's your opinion on our GMO wheat varieties that are wheat midge tolerant? The trait developed in this seed makes the plant unsuitable for the wheat midge, thus eliminating the application of chlorpyrifos, which as I showed above is more than 10 times as toxic as glyphosate.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

#1 Weeds becoming tolerant to glyphosate is not a result of GMO crops, its a result of glyphosate being sprayed on weeds for nearly half a century. Resistance happens when you continually do it, and it was happening before the introduction of RoundupReady crops.

Here, Nature takes a look at three pressing questions: are GM crops fuelling the rise of herbicide-resistant ‘superweeds’? Are they driving farmers in India to suicide? And are the foreign transgenes in GM crops spreading into other plants? These controversial case studies show how blame shifts, myths are spread and cultural insensitivities can inflame debate.

GM crops have bred superweeds: True

Jay Holder, a farming consultant in Ashburn, Georgia, first noticed Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in a client’s transgenic cotton fields about five years ago. Palmer amaranth is a particular pain for farmers in the southeastern United States, where it outcompetes cotton for moisture, light and soil nutrients and can quickly take over fields.
Since the late 1990s, US farmers had widely adopted GM cotton engineered to tolerate the herbicide glyphosate, which is marketed as Roundup by Monsanto in St Louis, Missouri. The herbicide–crop combination worked spectacularly well — until it didn’t. In 2004, herbicide-resistant amaranth was found in one county in Georgia; by 2011, it had spread to 76. “It got to the point where some farmers were losing half their cotton fields to the weed,” says Holder.


Some scientists and anti-GM groups warned that GM crops, by encouraging liberal use of glyphosate, were spurring the evolution of herbicide resistance in many weeds. Twenty-four glyphosate-resistant weed species have been identified since Roundup-tolerant crops were introduced in 1996. 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.


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.


This strategy was supported by claims from Monsanto that glyphosate resistance was unlikely to develop naturally in weeds when the herbicide was used properly. As late as 2004, the company was publicizing a multi-year study suggesting that rotating crops and chemicals does not help to avert resistance. When applied at Monsanto’s recommended doses, glyphosate killed weeds effectively, and “we know that dead weeds will not become resistant”, said Rick Cole, now Monsanto’s technical lead of weed management, in a trade-journal advertisement at the time. The study, published in 2007, was criticized by scientists for using plots so small that the chances of resistance developing were very low, no matter what the practice.


Glyphosate-resistant weeds have now been found in 18 countries worldwide, with significant impacts in Brazil, Australia, Argentina and Paraguay,

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


https://www.pioneer.com/home/site/us...phosate-resis/

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Azure

Wasn't the original point of this thread GMO crops? Perhaps I missed the part where we talked about non-GMO crops and how the chemicals used on them are harmful as well..

So if I understand you correctly, if non-GMO crops require different, more toxic chemicals in greater quantities, and GMO crops require less toxic chemicals in lesser quantities, this means GMO crops are bad?

I lost track of all the times you've moved the goalposts, put up and then knocked down straw men, and asked other people to do their research when you're the one making all kinds of claims that turn out to be (at best) misleading or false.

Let's see:

Originally Posted by Azure

The amazing Roundup Ready is causing the same problem that the blanket use of antibiotics in the livestock industry is causing. Resistant forms of weeds, or as farmers will call them, superweeds. This is a major problem, especially with GMO crops like Canola, where as soon as they finish off one bug with the new and improved pesticide, a new superbug comes along, which costs the farmer even more to spray.

Misleading. Regardless of whether or not a crop is GMO, farmers spray their crops and thus pests and weeds evolve to resist those pesticides and herbicides. So, straw man #1 "GMO crops evolve superweeds!"

Originally Posted by Azure

In the end, it costs the farmer more because they constantly have to pay more for the newest and latest chemical to kill off the superbugs, and it costs the consumer more because the cost of farming is constantly going up. This much is pretty evident today.

Wrong, because GMO crops are designed so that you can use less herbicide, not more. The whole point of roundup-ready crops is that you can use one, cheap herbicide on all such crops instead of targeted, expensive herbicides tailored to your particular crop. Also, the cost of food is not going up any more than other goods, so that claim is also wrong.

Not only are you wrong, you've argued this point several times - this is just one example, which is still wrong no matter how many times you repeat it.

Originally Posted by Azure

Problem is, Soybeans are becoming genetically altered as well, and as such more and more farmers will use them as the financial benefit is higher. The use of herbicides is also higher, which brings us back to the reason why companies alter the seed in the first place. Read any study done on the financial benefits of using GMO seeds. The biggest benefactor financially is almost always the seed company.

The bolded sentence says the opposite of what you usually claim, like in the example directly preceding this, and is actually correct, for once. However, right after that you back to claiming the use of herbicide is higher, which is, again, wrong. Then you bring up the straw man (#2) of "financial benefits" accruing to the seed company most, as if this has anything to do with whether or not GMO crops are safe and sustainable.

Originally Posted by Azure

Have enough tests been done to show that humans are not in harms way from the chemicals being applied to the food we eat, or are we going to trust those evil capitalists that their chemicals are safe?

Another straw man, because - yet again - you ignore that GMO foods and non-GMO foods both have "chemicals" applied to them. Also, the rhetorical-question-as-argument-against has some technical name which I might remember if I wasn't drunk, but it's nevertheless a tactic of bad journalists and other hacks.

Originally Posted by Azure

You seem to be missing the point. The issue isn't that GMOs are evil, bad or cancerous, but that they require an extreme high use of chemicals to be sustainable, which in itself is not sustainable at all.

Misleading and wrong. GMO requires less chemicals, as previously noted, and also you are moving the goalposts because you indeed have implied that GMOs are evil, bad and possibly cancerous. You know, with that "rhetorical question" we just discussed, among other claims.

Originally Posted by Azure

The science behind GMOs might be solid, and quite frankly I have never done enough research on the subject to know whether or not eating GMO wheat will give me cancer 20 years faster than normal

You claim you don't know, yet you imply in quite a few posts that since we "don't know", this could be happening. Well, here's my theory - maybe GMO wheat will give me super-powers! Nice! If I repeat this completely unsubstantiated theory enough times, being careful to state it's "just a theory, I dunno! LOL!", that will prove.... nothing. Just like your continual asides prove - absolutely nothing.

Originally Posted by Azure

The cost of the chemical has gone down, but as I have indicated in this thread the amount of chemical needed to control the ever increasing resistant weeds has gone up, therefore the cost of spraying is going up.

Here we have, just for a change, a non sequitur.

If I used to spray 100 litres/acre of chemicals that cost me 40 cents/litre, and now I spray 200 litres/acre of chemical that costs me 10 cents/litre, my costs are halved. Therefore, your "logic" fails, and does not follow. It's *possible* that the cost of spraying is going up, but only if the increased usage is great enough to overcome the reduced cost.

Originally Posted by Azure

I just think people are far to willing to accept GMO because they have a very limited understanding as to how the complete farming process works.

This is rich coming from someone who continually mistakes GMO as a method of farming. It's not, it's a way of adding positive and reducing negative features of a crop. That's it. It can enable certain methods of farming, but that's not at all the same thing as being a method of such in itself.

Not only that, but I've pointed this out before, and you just went merrily along with your irrelevant studies, analogies, and arguments, building your straw man bigger and bigger. Until you grasp the fact that "How GMO crops are generally being used now" is not the same as "GMO's uses", you will continue to blather on uselessly on the subject.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Azure

This thread is actually hilarious.

The drum beating in favor of GMOs has gone strangely quiet after it became evident that the drum beaters are clearly not familiar with the complete farming process, and instead just choose to focus on supposed lab tests that claim GMO seeds are safe for humans.

That is probably aimed at me? Anyhow I'm camping and enjoying the long weekend, I'll be happy to reply when I get back into town.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Azure

Considering how easy it is to find the research yourself, I would think that anyone who is involved in a discussion about GMOs has at least researched what they are arguing about before they start making claims.

what claim did I make? You stated something as fact, I requested scientific support, you were somehow offended.

[Bagor]

Where are you folks getting your information from that GMOs are requiring less chemicals?

Background: Genetically engineered, herbicide-resistant and insect-resistant crops have been remarkable commercial successes in the United States. Few independent studies have calculated their impacts on pesticide use per hectare or overall pesticide use, or taken into account the impact of rapidly spreading glyphosate-resistant weeds. A model was developed to quantify by crop and year the impacts of six major transgenic pest-management traits on pesticide use in the U.S. over the 16-year period, 1996– 2011: herbicide-resistant corn, soybeans, and cotton; Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) corn targeting the European corn borer; Bt corn for corn rootworms; and Bt cotton for Lepidopteron insects.


Results: Herbicide-resistant crop technology has led to a 239 million kilogram (527 million pound) increase in herbicide use in the United States between 1996 and 2011, while Bt crops have reduced insecticide applications by 56 million kilograms (123 million pounds). Overall, pesticide use increased by an estimated 183 million kgs (404 million pounds), or about 7%.


Conclusions: Contrary to often-repeated claims that todays genetically-engineered crops have, and are reducing pesticide use, the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds in herbicide-resistant weed management systems has brought about substantial increases in the number and volume of herbicides applied. If new genetically engineered forms of corn and soybeans tolerant of 2,4-D are approved, the volume of 2,4-D sprayed could drive herbicide usage upward by another approximate 50%. The magnitude of increases in herbicide use on herbicide-resistant hectares has dwarfed the reduction in insecticide use on Bt crops over the past 16 years, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

Full article. http://www.enveurope.com/content/pdf...4715-24-24.pdf

Originally Posted by jammies

Misleading. Regardless of whether or not a crop is GMO, farmers spray their crops and thus pests and weeds evolve to resist those pesticides and herbicides. So, straw man #1 "GMO crops evolve superweeds!"

The concern is that the explosion of superweeds in the last 10 years can be attributed to monocultures and the overreliance or indeed overuse of roundup. Consider the above report that suggests the significant increase in herbicides, then consider that within that increase roundup is the very dominant herbicide used.