Weeds are becoming resistant to herbicides in the same way bacteria are becoming resistant to our anti-biotics. Due to over-use.
This is not a new issue, it was not created by genetic modification, and it will never go away. This is why the world is and always will be in a constant search of the next great pesticide/anti-biotic. It's simply evolution. Weeds evolve, bacteria evolve, and thus our technology will evolve.
For anyone who missed it, here's a couple mins from arguably one of the smartest men on the planet:
Ok, love me some NDT, but this is an off the cuff response from an astrophysicist, not a biologist.
Secondly, what he is talking about is Mendellian genetic modification or "trait selection". It is about as relatable to what Monsanto does as burning gasoline is to nuclear reactors.
It's a very arrogant response towards the masses as well. Of course people are concerned about new technologies, there are always a lot of unintended consequences that come with them. Sometimes the concerns are well founded and sometimes not. It doesn't mean you should disparage people for being concerned in the first place.
I tend to think that GMOs are ok for the most part, but there is going to be a long term consequence to this as there always is when you change the way your environment works. It's probably benign, but it has the potential to be catastrophic, so it's ok to ask questions and push for answers.
It's important, the way it was/is with climate science, to not belittle someone for not understanding and actually teach them what is going on around them, and show them what is definitely NOT going on (dispelling conspiracy theories). You rarely get someone to change their mind if you talk down to them.
__________________
"You know, that's kinda why I came here, to show that I don't suck that much" ~ Devin Cooley, Professional Goaltender
Weeds are becoming resistant to herbicides in the same way bacteria are becoming resistant to our anti-biotics. Due to over-use.
This is not a new issue, it was not created by genetic modification, and it will never go away. This is why the world is and always will be in a constant search of the next great pesticide/anti-biotic. It's simply evolution. Weeds evolve, bacteria evolve, and thus our technology will evolve.
First of all, that's a hell of an assumption in your last sentence. You may be right, but we are not there right now and I can tell you that doctors, and especially hospitals, are becoming very concerned about antibiotic resistant strains. Heck, even prisons, schools, and other institutions are increasingly worried about these strains as they have had some very serious infections in their population spread through the most innocuous of means, a dirty towel and a scrape/cut. The technology might evolve but only after we have an epidemic of infections that are not treatable with any known antibiotic and a lot of people die.
It's a very real problem that puts us back about 100 years in terms of fighting infection. I wish people weren't so blithe about it.
__________________
"You know, that's kinda why I came here, to show that I don't suck that much" ~ Devin Cooley, Professional Goaltender
First of all, that's a hell of an assumption in your last sentence. You may be right, but we are not there right now and I can tell you that doctors, and especially hospitals, are becoming very concerned about antibiotic resistant strains. Heck, even prisons, schools, and other institutions are increasingly worried about these strains as they have had some very serious infections in their population spread through the most innocuous of means, a dirty towel and a scrape/cut. The technology might evolve but only after we have an epidemic of infections that are not treatable with any known antibiotic and a lot of people die.
It's a very real problem that puts us back about 100 years in terms of fighting infection. I wish people weren't so blithe about it.
Of course it is an issue, but how long has it been an issue? 25-30 years that I can remember personally. I recall hearing it being an issue right from the initial use of antibiotics, and that has been quite a bit longer than that. Someone else could verify my vague understanding, though.
Does that mean it is a very slow developing issue? Or are we dealing with ways to avoid it by developing new drugs and changing the way drugs are prescribed?
Compare that to herbicides, the problem of resistant strains has been around for as long as I have understood what a herbicide was, so I wouldnt consider it a new thing, but maybe this isn't the same issue.
Anyone who knows more about the specific history of these 2 situations can feel free to clarify or correct me, I just recall very elementary details.
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
Of course it is an issue, but how long has it been an issue? 25-30 years that I can remember personally. I recall hearing it being an issue right from the initial use of antibiotics, and that has been quite a bit longer than that. Someone else could verify my vague understanding, though.
Does that mean it is a very slow developing issue? Or are we dealing with ways to avoid it by developing new drugs and changing the way drugs are prescribed?
Compare that to herbicides, the problem of resistant strains has been around for as long as I have understood what a herbicide was, so I wouldnt consider it a new thing, but maybe this isn't the same issue.
Anyone who knows more about the specific history of these 2 situations can feel free to clarify or correct me, I just recall very elementary details.
As far as my understanding goes, it's more that resistant strains are found in the wild more and more, making containment and treatment more difficult. It used to be found primarily in health care settings, and maybe that's what you're referring to 25-30 years ago, but the big concern is that these strains are everywhere and becoming the norm, not the exception. While there are new antibiotics now and then there aren't a lot of them being created and some of them are fairly toxic to humans.
Most hospitals are resorting to screening incoming patients, especially in ICU where an infection would be more likely to kill someone. A lot of people are colonized with staph aureus, but more and more are colonized with MRSA, the resistant strain, including the health care professionals themselves.
It's a complex problem that is being contained at the moment, but has a very real risk of turning us into a 19th century medical system again without the ability to fight infection. What is considered a routine bladder infection today may end up destroying your kidneys tomorrow.
BTW, I don't want to compare the herbicide argument with antibiotics. That was the point of my post. I don't think they are on the same level in terms of public health.
__________________
"You know, that's kinda why I came here, to show that I don't suck that much" ~ Devin Cooley, Professional Goaltender
The Following User Says Thank You to Cali Panthers Fan For This Useful Post:
Dr Tyson added to his original off the cuff comment which made some people's head explode. Apperantly being a scientist in another field doesn't qualify one of our brightest scientists on commenting on how science works in another field... lol, didn't see Motherjones readers up in arms when he and Bill Nye commented on climate change...
Here is his further response to his critics:
Quote:
Neil deGrasse Tyson
August 3 at 12:14pm ·
*** August 3, 2014 -- Anatomy of a GMO Commentary ****
Ten days ago, this brief clip of me was posted by somebody.
It contains my brief [2min 20sec] response to a question posed by a French journalist, after a talk I gave on the Universe. He found me at the post-talk book signing table. (Notice the half-dozen ready & willing pens.) The clip went mildly viral (rising through a half million right now) with people weighing in on whether they agree with me or not.
Some comments...
1) The journalist posted the question in French. I don't speak French, so I have no memory of how I figured out that was asking me about GMOs. Actually I do know some French words like Bordeaux, and Bourgogne, and Champagne, etc.
2) Everything I said is factual. So there's nothing to disagree with other than whether you should actually "chill out" as I requested of the viewer in my last two words of the clip.
3) Had I given a full talk on this subject, or if GMOs were the subject of a sit-down interview, then I would have raised many nuanced points, regarding labeling, patenting, agribusiness, monopolies, etc. I've noticed that almost all objections to my comments center on these other issues.
4) I offer my views on these nuanced issues here, if anybody is interested:
a- Patented Food Strains: In a free market capitalist society, which we have all "bought" into here in America, if somebody invents something that has market value, they ought to be able to make as much money as they can selling it, provided they do not infringe the rights of others. I see no reason why food should not be included in this concept.
b- Labeling: Since practically all food has been genetically altered from nature, if you wanted labeling I suppose you could demand it, but then it should be for all such foods. Perhaps there could be two different designations: GMO-Agriculture GMO-Laboratory.
c- Non-perennial Seed Strains: It's surely legal to sell someone seeds that cannot reproduce themselves, requiring that the farmer buy seed stocks every year from the supplier. But when sold to developing country -- one struggling to become self-sufficient -- the practice is surely immoral. Corporations, even when they work within the law, should not be held immune from moral judgement on these matters.
d- Monopolies are generally bad things in a free market. To the extent that the production of GMOs are a monopoly, the government should do all it can to spread the baseline of this industry. (My favorite monopoly joke ever, told by Stephen Wright: "I think it's wrong that the game Monopoly is sold by only one company")
e- Safety: Of course new foods should be tested for health risks, regardless of their origin. That's the job of the Food and Drug Administration (in the USA). Actually, humans have been testing food, even without the FDA ,since the dawn of agriculture. Whenever a berry or other ingested plant killed you, you knew not to serve it to you family.
f- Silk Worms: I partly mangled my comments on this. Put simply, commercial Silk Worms have been genetically modified by centuries of silk trade, such that they cannot survive in the wild. Silk Worms currently exist only to serve the textile industry. Just as Milk Cows are bred with the sole purpose of providing milk to humans. There are no herds of wild Milk Cows terrorizing the countryside.
5) If your objection to GMOs is the morality of selling non-prerennial seed stocks, then focus on that. If your objection to GMOs is the monopolistic conduct of agribusiness, then focus on that. But to paint the entire concept of GMO with these particular issues is to blind yourself to the underlying truth of what humans have been doing -- and will continue to do -- to nature so that it best serves our survival. That's what all organisms do when they can, or would do, if they could. Those that didn't, have gone extinct extinct.
In life, be cautious of how broad is the brush with which you paint the views of those you don't agree with.
Respectfully Submitted
-NDTyson
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
Weeds are becoming resistant to herbicides in the same way bacteria are becoming resistant to our anti-biotics. Due to over-use.
This is not a new issue, it was not created by genetic modification, and it will never go away. This is why the world is and always will be in a constant search of the next great pesticide/anti-biotic. It's simply evolution. Weeds evolve, bacteria evolve, and thus our technology will evolve.
I have never argued against GMO seeds as a food source or if they are healthy or not. My issue, from the start, has always been with the environmental impact of it all.
And, like I have said, it is a problem and is creating problems. Doesn't mean that GMO seeds should be banned. It just means that RR seeds are not the savior people thought they would be years ago when Monsanto came out with the first seeds. Its time to come up with something new. Which is exactly what Monsanto is doing.
I knew he had more to say on the subject, but sound bytes tend to spread more than a full argument with both sides represented fairly. Like it or not, he's a bit of a rockstar in the scientific community, and whatever he says will be analyzed deeply. I have no doubt that he understands the main issues at hand with GMOs, but I would rather have a geneticist, biologist, botanist etc. (there are many relatable fields) make those kind of comments with their full depth of knowledge. Unfortunately, Americans know like 2 or 3 scientists if you're lucky, so NDT is forced to answer on behalf of the entire scientific community. It's not really fair, for either side of the debate.
__________________
"You know, that's kinda why I came here, to show that I don't suck that much" ~ Devin Cooley, Professional Goaltender
I knew he had more to say on the subject, but sound bytes tend to spread more than a full argument with both sides represented fairly. Like it or not, he's a bit of a rockstar in the scientific community, and whatever he says will be analyzed deeply. I have no doubt that he understands the main issues at hand with GMOs, but I would rather have a geneticist, biologist, botanist etc. (there are many relatable fields) make those kind of comments with their full depth of knowledge. Unfortunately, Americans know like 2 or 3 scientists if you're lucky, so NDT is forced to answer on behalf of the entire scientific community. It's not really fair, for either side of the debate.
Right except he comments all the time on global warming, vaccination, and plenty of other issues the left chooses to trust the science on. It only happens when he says something they are against mostly ideologically that there is this uproar, which says everything about the state of science denial and how bad it really is across the political spectrum.
I have never argued against GMO seeds as a food source or if they are healthy or not. My issue, from the start, has always been with the environmental impact of it all.
And, like I have said, it is a problem and is creating problems. Doesn't mean that GMO seeds should be banned. It just means that RR seeds are not the savior people thought they would be years ago when Monsanto came out with the first seeds. Its time to come up with something new. Which is exactly what Monsanto is doing.
With the way technology evolves these days, where as soon as you buy something it's outdated, I'd say RR has been everything Monsanto and farmers could of asked for. We've got almost a generation of use out of a new product. Where in any market place can you say you've used one original creation for 20+ yrs.
Right except he comments all the time on global warming, vaccination, and plenty of other issues the left chooses to trust the science on. It only happens when he says something they are against mostly ideologically that there is this uproar, which says everything about the state of science denial and how bad it really is across the political spectrum.
Gotcha, so politics and science are hopelessly intertwined? Pretty sure I knew that already from historical evidence saying exactly that.
__________________
"You know, that's kinda why I came here, to show that I don't suck that much" ~ Devin Cooley, Professional Goaltender
Right except he comments all the time on global warming, vaccination, and plenty of other issues the left chooses to trust the science on. It only happens when he says something they are against mostly ideologically that there is this uproar, which says everything about the state of science denial and how bad it really is across the political spectrum.
there is plenty of distrust of science on the left with regards vaccinations...plenty
there is plenty of distrust of science on the left with regards vaccinations...plenty
Yeah like 90% of all anti-vaxx stuff is from crunchy granola types. Leftists are just as guilty of being anti-science/anti-intellectual as rights. The difference is, leftists disguise it in a gaia/nature/BIG PHARMA GONNA GETCHA, while rightists cover it in jesus/murica/are freedums.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm
Settle down there, Temple Grandin.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to PsYcNeT For This Useful Post:
You may be right, but we are not there right now and I can tell you that doctors, and especially hospitals, are becoming very concerned about antibiotic resistant strains. Heck, even prisons, schools, and other institutions are increasingly worried about these strains as they have had some very serious infections in their population spread through the most innocuous of means, a dirty towel and a scrape/cut. The technology might evolve but only after we have an epidemic of infections that are not treatable with any known antibiotic and a lot of people die.
It's a very real problem that puts us back about 100 years in terms of fighting infection. I wish people weren't so blithe about it.
I wasn't meaning to sound like I believe resistance is a non-issue. That's not the case at all... it's a huge problem in my line of work. It's arguably the single largest issue I face day-to-day, agronomically speaking.
The point I was making was that this resistance is not a result of genetic modification... It's a result of our own over-use. Bacteria is developing resistance because we over-use anti-biotics, not because scientists created a genetically modified strain (has this ever been done?)... much like weeds are developing resistance because we over-use herbicides, not because scientists created a genetically modified crop.
Being that herbicide use is in no way exclusive to GMO crops, people need to stop blaming GMOs for herbicide resistant weeds ("super weeds"). That is my argument.
An example of a common crop rotation here in Western Canada would be:
Year 1 - Oilseed (ex: Canola/Mustard)
Year 2 - Pulse (ex: Pea/Lentil)
Year 3 - Cereal (ex: Wheat/Barley)
Year 4 - Chemfallow
Using this rotation, I'll show glyphosate (Roundup) use over that 4yr period, for both GMO canola and Conventional canola:
Year 1 - RoundupReady Canola = 1L/ac Pre-seed, .75L/ac In-crop, 1L/ac Post-harvest = 2.75L/ac
Year 2 - Lentil = 1L/ac Pre-seed, 1L/ac Dessicant or Post-seed = 2L/ac
Year 3 - Durum = 1L/ac Pre-seed, 1L/ac Dessicant or Post-seed = 2L/ac
Year 4 - Chemfallow = 1L/ac x 4 applications = 4L/ac Total = 10.75L/ac glyphosate over 4 year rotation (GMO included)
Year 1 - Conventional Canola = 1L/ac Pre-seed, 1L/ac Post-harvest = 2L/ac
Year 2 - Lentil = 1L/ac Pre-seed, 1L/ac Dessicant or Post-seed = 2L/ac
Year 3 - Durum = 1L/ac Pre-seed, 1L/ac Dessicant or Post-seed = 2L/ac
Year 4 - Chemfallow = 1L/ac x 4 applications = 4L/ac Total = 10L/ac glyphosate over 4 year rotation (Non-GMO)
You can see in the total numbers, very little of the glyphosate use across the prairies is being applied on RR crops. It's a chemical that we use liberally in a variety of different situations. It's this over-use that is causing the glyphosate resistant weeds, and so eliminating RR GMO crops from the rotation will do little to nothing in regards to slowing down the rise in glyphosate resistant weeds.
To rid ourselves of the resistant weeds, and prevent future resistance, farmers need to be more responsible in their herbicide selection and herbicide group rotation.
The Following User Says Thank You to The Fonz For This Useful Post:
Yeah like 90% of all anti-vaxx stuff is from crunchy granola types. Leftists are just as guilty of being anti-science/anti-intellectual as rights. The difference is, leftists disguise it in a gaia/nature/BIG PHARMA GONNA GETCHA, while rightists cover it in jesus/murica/are freedums.
exactly they all suffer from the same un logical conclusions, it's just dressed up differently...it's just human nature
I wasn't meaning to sound like I believe resistance is a non-issue. That's not the case at all... it's a huge problem in my line of work. It's arguably the single largest issue I face day-to-day, agronomically speaking.
The point I was making was that this resistance is not a result of genetic modification... It's a result of our own over-use. Bacteria is developing resistance because we over-use anti-biotics, not because scientists created a genetically modified strain (has this ever been done?)... much like weeds are developing resistance because we over-use herbicides, not because scientists created a genetically modified crop.
Being that herbicide use is in no way exclusive to GMO crops, people need to stop blaming GMOs for herbicide resistant weeds ("super weeds"). That is my argument.
An example of a common crop rotation here in Western Canada would be:
Year 1 - Oilseed (ex: Canola/Mustard)
Year 2 - Pulse (ex: Pea/Lentil)
Year 3 - Cereal (ex: Wheat/Barley)
Year 4 - Chemfallow
Using this rotation, I'll show glyphosate (Roundup) use over that 4yr period, for both GMO canola and Conventional canola:
Year 1 - RoundupReady Canola = 1L/ac Pre-seed, .75L/ac In-crop, 1L/ac Post-harvest = 2.75L/ac
Year 2 - Lentil = 1L/ac Pre-seed, 1L/ac Dessicant or Post-seed = 2L/ac
Year 3 - Durum = 1L/ac Pre-seed, 1L/ac Dessicant or Post-seed = 2L/ac
Year 4 - Chemfallow = 1L/ac x 4 applications = 4L/ac Total = 10.75L/ac glyphosate over 4 year rotation (GMO included)
Year 1 - Conventional Canola = 1L/ac Pre-seed, 1L/ac Post-harvest = 2L/ac
Year 2 - Lentil = 1L/ac Pre-seed, 1L/ac Dessicant or Post-seed = 2L/ac
Year 3 - Durum = 1L/ac Pre-seed, 1L/ac Dessicant or Post-seed = 2L/ac
Year 4 - Chemfallow = 1L/ac x 4 applications = 4L/ac Total = 10L/ac glyphosate over 4 year rotation (Non-GMO)
You can see in the total numbers, very little of the glyphosate use across the prairies is being applied on RR crops. It's a chemical that we use liberally in a variety of different situations. It's this over-use that is causing the glyphosate resistant weeds, and so eliminating RR GMO crops from the rotation will do little to nothing in regards to slowing down the rise in glyphosate resistant weeds.
To rid ourselves of the resistant weeds, and prevent future resistance, farmers need to be more responsible in their herbicide selection and herbicide group rotation.
Thanks for that, although it seems we have two totally different backgrounds in science, I do appreciate what you understand and are saying here. I don't disagree, however, I do think still that there will be a consequence to using GMO crops that is in no way related to herbicides. There are reports of illegal GMO seeds being used so regularly that they are now overtaking the wild crops of each food item. There may be a time within our lifetime that we can no longer even grow the organic option because it will be extinct. Just food for thought.
__________________
"You know, that's kinda why I came here, to show that I don't suck that much" ~ Devin Cooley, Professional Goaltender
Ok, if not him, then what about Bill Nye the science guy?
Ok, even worse, a mechanical engineer by training (some ecological education). I'm not saying that other scientific people can't discuss these topics intelligently, of course they can. They just aren't the experts that I would defer to on this particular topic.
__________________
"You know, that's kinda why I came here, to show that I don't suck that much" ~ Devin Cooley, Professional Goaltender
Well that's the problem, the noise from the science deniers is so loud and filled with with horrible information that its necessary for public speakers for science like Nye and Tyson to speak up, their job has long ago gone way beyond their specific field of science but with being popularizers of it and in this instance standing UP for science.
