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

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Bagor

And that's fine and I'm happy that you find his observations interesting and helpful.

It's just that in the context of responding to a post that presents a paper on increased herbicide use and superweeds in the US by talking about seeding and fallow patterns in Saskatchewan could be considered a tad irrelevant.

It makes zero sense to "just do it" when evidence suggests this type of flippant sustained use is an invitation for a superweed invasion.

That is unless you feel that you can give a negative response to either or both of my two questions on post # 216 with evidence to back your response.

Well I'm not in the heads of any of these farmers, but I would guess that the factors to 'just do it' include disbelief in any potential future negative impacts or the degree of those impacts, ignorance and being in a position where today's returns are not worth risking on the basis of tomorrow's ifs.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Thor

Ok from the GMO FB group (if anyone is interested in joining PM me, its a fun little group with a great sense of humor about all this.)

Re Adam: Only guilty by association? What on earth does that mean? They're guilty .... period. If RR are hardly to blame then what does he suggest is?

Re Richard.

A good post earlier at GMOLOL plotted the incidence of new glyphosate resistant weeds before and after the introduction of RR trait - the trend continued unchanged, indicating no increase in the rate of resistance development.

And there, Thor, for me lies one of the biggest problems of the whole debate which I'll comment on briefly at the end. Sifting throught the crap. Can he back up this claim with evidence or ... is it bad science? My thoughts at the end.

From the Benbrook paper.

Glyphosate resistant (GR) weeds were practically unknown before the introduction of RR crops in 1996. The first glyphosate-resistant weed ( Lolium rigidum) emerged in Australia in 1996 from canola, cereal crop, and fence line applications [19]. In the mid-1990s, as the first glyphosate-resistant crops were moving toward commercialization and gaining market share, Monsanto scientists wrote or were co-authors on several papers ar-guing that the evolution of GR weeds was unlikely, citing the herbicide’ s long history of use (~20 years) and relative absence of resistant weeds [20,21].

Other scientists, however, challenged this assertion [22]. Dr. Ian Heap, long-time manager of the international database on resistant weeds, warned in a 1997 conference presentation that to limit glyphosate selection pressure in Roundup Ready cropping systems, the herbicide would need to be used in conjunction with proven resistance-management practices and with non-chemical weed con- trol methods [23]. A 1996 report by Consumers Union stated that HR crops are“custom-made ” for accelerating resistance and called for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to revoke approval of HR crops when and where credible evidence of resistance emerges [24].

Today, the Weed Science Society of America (WSSA) website lists 22 GR weed species in the U.S. [19]. Over two-thirds of the approximate 70 state-GR weed combinations listed by WSSA have been documented since 2005, reflecting the rapidly spreading nature of the GR-weed problem. According to the WSSA, over 5.7 million hectares (14 million acres) are now infested by GR weeds, an estimate that substantially underestimates the actual spread of resistant weeds [16,22], [and personal communi cation, Dr. Ian Heap]. Dow AgroSciences carried out a recent survey on the percent of crop acres/hectares in the U.S. impacted by glyphosate-resistant weeds [25]. Findings from the survey were provided to USDA in support of Dow AgroSciences’s petition for deregulation of 2,4-D herbicide-resistant corn, and suggest that around 40 million hectares (100 million acres) are already impacted by glyphosate-resistant weeds, an estimate that Heap considers inflated [personal communication]. The true extent of spread in the U.S. likely lies around the midpoint between the WSSA and Dow AgroSciences estimates (i.e., 20–25 million hectares), and by all accounts, will continue to rise rapidly for several years.

I feel that's one of the problems of social media, there's so much crap. I'm not suggesting Richard is guilty of creating it but someone somewhere down the line fabricated (imo at this time) this information, plotted a graph and posted it. It then feeds into people like Richard's confirmation bias (which we are all guilty of to some degree), he reposts it as a "good post", because he feels it is a good post and it is circulated again and again until it becomes a cornerstone argument. Just my 2c.

[Thor]

Well Bedtime for me, here's Richard's reply:

Richard : Here is a fuller look comparing resistance in gm crops vs. non-gm crops that I mentioned:
http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2013/05/superweed/

My memory was faulty, the graph was examining resistant weeds to all herbicides, not just glyphosate. But, your comment about confirmation bias is completely valid. We all must be on guard and at times, we fail.

If you are going to mention being careful about sources, Benbrook has a few issues, too.

To say that RR has not helped to create some resistant weeds is ridiculous. As I mentioned previously, any control technology has the capacity to select for resistance, and glyphosate is no exception.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by Bagor

It makes zero sense to "just do it" when evidence suggests this type of flippant sustained use is an invitation for a superweed invasion.

Finally, we agree.

Resistant weeds are not a product of GMO crops. They are a result of "flippant sustained use" of the same chemicals over and over and over. Unfortunately, flippant sustained use of herbicides has been a staple in the farming industry for many decades.

I appreciated these comments from Thor's post:

constant use of herbicides is much like just about anything else; you apply a selective pressure to a population, and eventually mutations occur that allow an organism to persist

Glyphosate use has "bred" "superweeds", and will continue to do so. GMO crops are only guilty by association

Any pest control technology has the capacity to select resistance in the pest population, so there is nothing special about glyphosate resistance developing. A good post earlier at GMOLOL plotted the incidence of new glyphosate resistant weeds before and after the introduction of RR trait - the trend continued unchanged, indicating no increase in the rate of resistance development

The risk of herbicide resistance developing is also very much dependent on the group that particular herbicide belongs to:

High risk - 1, 2
Moderate/High - 5
Moderate - 3, 8
Low/Moderate - 7, 22, Other
Low - 4, 6, 9, 10

Examples of group resist weeds developing local to us (yes, I'm talking about Western Canada again and not the US):

Wild Oats - confirmed group 1 resistance (clodinafop, fenoxaprop, clethodim, tralkoxydim, pinoxaden, tepraloxydim, quizalofop)
- the herbicides in brackets are what farmers have been spraying to kill wild oats in-crop for 20+ years
- there has never been a crop genetically modified to be tolerant of group 1 herbicides

Kochia - group 2 resistant (tribenuron, thifensulfuron, imazethapyr, metsulfuron) in AB/SK/MB
- first case of group 2 resistant kochia was in 1988. Now, 25 years later, 90%+ kochia is group 2 resistant
- there has never been a crop genetically modified to be tolerant of group 2 herbicides

For as long as we continue to spray chemicals on our crops, weeds will continue to develop resistance. And since the application of chemical is not specific to GMO crops, ceasing to develop GMO seed will not prevent the evolution of herbicide resistant weeds.


And I'm sure I made some more unbacked statements. Though if it helps, here's a link www.blogspot.com Anyone can feel free to register an internet blog, post my thoughts, then link to them in this thread, if they feel that will give them any more credence.

I don't plan on arguing this any further. I don't think anyone involved is open to changing their position.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Finally, we agree.

Resistant weeds are not a product of GMO crops. They are a result of "flippant sustained use" of the same chemicals over and over and over. Unfortunately, flippant sustained use of herbicides has been a staple in the farming industry for many decades.

And yet despite the flippant sustained use of herbicides over the years, the research Bagor posted points out that....

Glyphosate resistant (GR) weeds were practically unknown before the introduction of RR crops in 1996.

I have yet to see anyone post any evidence to refute this claim.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Azure

And yet despite the flippant sustained use of herbicides over the years, the research Bagor posted points out that....

I have yet to see anyone post any evidence to refute this claim.

Being the claimant, you're required to post evidence supporting your claim (as what's been posted is correlation, not causation).

More than likely, it's similar to the evolution of anti-bacterial-resistant bacteria in hospitals, rather than GMOs affecting the cell structure of weeds. I'm not sharing DNA with my cat by being in close proximity with it, and it's unlikely RR wheat or corn or whatever is doing the same with weeds. In fact, it's likely impossible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer

Theorized to have occurred often during the early evolution of plant species, and very uncommon in the current generations of plants. In fact, it's so uncommon it's undocumented in modern times.

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal...comms2148.html

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by Azure

And yet despite the flippant sustained use of herbicides over the years, the research Bagor posted points out that....

"Glyphosate resistant (GR) weeds were practically unknown before the introduction of RR crops in 1996."

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 1 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.



Here is something for you to consider...

I sold 185,757 litres of glyphosate in 2012. That is enough to spray 371,515 acres of RR canola.

I sold 880 acres of RR canola.

Is RR canola to blame for the resistance developing? Or is it the fact that we use glyphosate FOR AN EXTREMELY WIDE VARIETY OF USES.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

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

I'm not implying anything. The articles that Bagor posted, as well as a couple that I posted both pointed out that the introduction of RR crops led to the rise of the superweeds.

It is not MY claim. Is the the claim of someone who had done research that led him to that conclusion.

Your sales numbers do not refute this claim, even if you think they do. Strange that you think sales numbers from a Western Canadian chemical dealer are a way to disprove the research that was done in the US and other countries.

I will post the research again in case you missed it.

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.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Azure

It is not MY claim. Is the the claim of someone who had done research that led him to that conclusion.

Ok, but do you agree or disagree with it?

Because from a casual observer in your thread, it seems like you are in agreement, and then hiding from defending it behind this statement. I have't been following closely enough to say that's the case or not, but its my perception.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by Azure

I'm not implying anything. The articles that Bagor posted, as well as a couple that I posted both pointed out that the introduction of RR crops led to the rise of the superweeds.

It pointed out that glyphosate resistant weeds have become more common over the last 20 years. As is to be expected with a 40 year old chemical that has been applied liberally, in an extremely wide variety of circumstances (which I was trying to show you with my numbers. Glyphosate on RR GMO crop only accounted for .25% of my sales in 2012. What did we do with the other 99.75%).

It did not point out that the introduction of RR crops led to the "superweeds".

Honestly Azure, do yourself a favor and stick to arguing push-ups and protein shakes.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Ok, but do you agree or disagree with it?

Because from a casual observer in your thread, it seems like you are in agreement, and then hiding from defending it behind this statement. I have't been following closely enough to say that's the case or not, but its my perception.

Considering what I have seen over the past few years in the farming industry, I do agree with it.

Just last year local Canola crops were severely damaged by a superbug that nobody even knew was affecting the fields. This year it costs a bit more to spray because of that.

I wasn't aware that the problem was as serious though in other areas, which is why I find the research on crops in the US and the rise of superweeds very interesting.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by Azure

Considering what I have seen over the past few years in the farming industry, I do agree with it.

Just last year local Canola crops were severely damaged by a superbug that nobody even knew was affecting the fields. This year it costs a bit more to spray because of that.
.

What superbug?

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

What superbug?

No, you prove it.

[The Fonz]

Hopefully it's not manbearpig.

[GGG]

NASS surveys do not report pesticide use on GE and conventional crop hectares separately.

The volume of herbicides applied to HR hectares can be approximated by adding NASS-reported glyphosate use per crop year to an estimate of the volume of herbicides other than glyphosate (hereafter, “other herbicides”) ap- plied on HR hectares. The volume of “other herbicides” applied on HR hectares is estimated based on the average number of non-glyphosate herbicides applied per hectare, coupled with the average rate per application of non- glyphosate herbicides. In addition, the rate of “other herbi- cides” on HR hectares is adjusted to reflect changes from year to year in overall herbicide use and glyphosate appli- cation rates. For example in recent years, “other herbi- cides” have been applied to around one-half of HR soybean hectares at an average rate of ~0.34 kgs/ha (~0.3 pounds/acre), resulting in an average ~0.17 kgs/ha (~0.15 pounds/acre) of “other herbicide” applications on all HR hectares (0.5 × 0.34).

This is from the enveurope study. If I read this correctly there is no data available to determine how much pesticide or herbicide is applied to GMO corps vs Non-GMO crops. If I am reading this correctly it assumes that the the rate of Other Pesticides is assumed to be even between GMO and Non-GMO crops and it assumes that all Glysophate is applied to GMO crops.

Is this a correct read of how the study is applying the data? If not could someone correct me on how to interpret this data?

If this is a correct read of how the study interprets the data than all we know is that Pesticide use in the US in general has increased. We don't know if we can contribute this increase to an increase in GMO crops or an increase in pests, or lower cost of chemical, or higher prices for food or any number of other factors that could lead to the increase in pesticide application.

[flamefan74]

Originally Posted by GGG

This is from the enveurope study. If I read this correctly there is no data available to determine how much pesticide or herbicide is applied to GMO corps vs Non-GMO crops. If I am reading this correctly it assumes that the the rate of Other Pesticides is assumed to be even between GMO and Non-GMO crops and it assumes that all Glysophate is applied to GMO crops.

Is this a correct read of how the study is applying the data? If not could someone correct me on how to interpret this data?

If this is a correct read of how the study interprets the data than all we know is that Pesticide use in the US in general has increased. We don't know if we can contribute this increase to an increase in GMO crops or an increase in pests, or lower cost of chemical, or higher prices for food or any number of other factors that could lead to the increase in pesticide application.

That is how I read the data as well. So have other people.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentin...e-environment/

Also interesting to note that the author was the Chief Scientist at The Organic Center. The Organic Center provided funding for this story. And this is their vision.

"Vision
Conversion of agriculture to organic methods, improved health for the earth and its inhabitants, and greater awareness of and demand for organic products."

Kind of hard to take a report seriously when data has been estimated and the author is not the most unbiased person around.

[Bagor]

This thread has been quite enlightening and in an ironic way has succeeded in making its point although not exactly as intended.

I agree with the initial post of the thread that there is a lot of BS and lies spread by anti GMOers and a reluctance to let go of old beliefs.

But what has been clearly demonstrated here also is that the pro GM crowd are no different. Present the slightest bit of peer reviewed scientific evidence suggesting that all is not utopia, there are significant flaws in the technology and serious significant unforecast challenges to address regarding the sustainability of the whole thing and the hands go over the ears not unlike their counterparts.

Hell we even had a guest appearance from some fella from FB with a self confessed inability to read and interpret a simple graph who then proceeds to link a "blog" . And part of the original discussion and a recurring theme was junk science vs real science ..... right. Not to mention Saskatchewan seed patterns explaining US increased chemical use.

"What the human being is best at doing, is interpreting all new information so that their prior conclusions remain intact." - Warren Buffet.

My 2 questions remain. In the meantime some latest news.

http://www.farmers-exchange.net/deta...rticleID=12692

I eagerly await the bloggers publications in the peer reviewed journals.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by Bagor

My 2 questions remain.

Didn't I answer them?

"Has herbicide use increased since the late 90s?"

Yes.

As I pointed out previously, chemical pricing in general has decreased drastically, add to that strong grain prices, and you get very low economic thresholds, equaling greater incentive to spray.

I'm not saying this is the sole reason for the increase in herbicide usage. But it is a large variable, amongst many variables that have contributed to the increase.

"Has this increase in herbicide use been a result of GMO crops?"

No. And I gave my reasons above. I also showed an example of a GMO crop that gets treated with approx 6kg/ac less herbicide than a non-GMO.

"Are GMO crops breeding superweeds?"

No. Multiple applications of the same product year after year is breeding "superweeds"...
...which is why we have "superweeds" tolerant to herbicides for which a crop has never been genetically modified to be tolerant of (group 1, group 2, group 4)
....which is why in the UK they have glyphosate tolerant weeds, when they are not seeding RR GMO crops
...which is why my customers have found glyphosate tolerate kochia in their fields, even despite only .25% of the glyphosate I sold being sprayed on GMO acres, and the other 99.75% being used somewhere else


And why is what's happening in Western Canada irrelevant to the discussion? The problems don't stop at the border.

[The Fonz]

I do have a question for you Bagor

Hypothetically speaking, do you believe that had GMO RR varieties not been developed in the late 90's, we would not have glyphosate tolerant weeds today?

If yes, 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.

[Bagor]

Forget about whether or not RR crops had been developed in the 90s. According to Monsanto the answer was supposed to be the same. Unlikely. The Fact is .... this explosion of superweeds was not in their projections.

Monsanto scientists wrote or were co-authors on several papers ar-guing that the evolution of GR weeds was unlikely, citing the herbicide’ s long history of use (~20 years) and relative absence of resistant weeds [20,21].

So ... using Monsanto as a baseline who weren't expecting GR weeds even WITH the technology then it is only fair to assume that it is even LESS likely without the technology.