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

[GGG]

Originally Posted by 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.

From your article you just linked

"The biggest problem is that it (Palmer amaranth) emerges throughout the season," Sprague said.

This is why popular herbicides like Roundup aren't effective in total control of the weed. Sprague added, "Even if you put your best foot forward to try to control it there are going to be some escapes."

No where does the article mention that the Palmer Amaranth in Michigan is immune to glysopahte. In fact in mentions that due to the fact it constantly emerges throughout the season you don't kill it all in a single application of a herbicide.

So is this a result of GMO born overuse resistance or a weed that grows differently? Now I admittedly don't know the first thing about Palmer Amaranth so I am basing this purely on the article linked.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Bagor

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.

There is this in all of science, if you want to counter consensus you will have to yell and scream and present study after study until the consensus is swayed. You have presented some links to studies supporting your position, but as I have said before, I have to go with the broad view scientific consensus, a few studies either way doesn't help me, I want to know what the consensus *if there is any* says about this. That's what I'm having trouble finding out, and have asked people on that FB group if they can help with that, no luck so far.

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.

He writes an excellent blog, skeptical raptor and has decades of experience in bio medical field, he's a biochemist.

Not sure what you expect, people are debating you and putting for counter arguments, did you expect to post a few links supporting your claim and BAM everyone jumps to agree with you?

Anyhow I for one hope you all continue, its very enlightening and I don't get how you all take this so personally, this is a discussion, a debate, not some personal attacks on yourselves. I wish people could remember that

[Bagor]

No, honestly, I don't take it personally. Thank you. Just too time consuming talking about Saskatchewan seed patterns when honestly I don't give a flying fata about nor is it relevant. It reeks of deflection and nothing more than a time wasting exercise. I've asked for responses backed by hard evidence, all I've got so far is random statements and supposed pers comms with farmers.

I've finished for the moment. I'm more than happy to consider the opinions of Nature and peer reviewed science over bloggers. I just don't get, like in the CC debate why these bloggers don't submit for publication and refute through the proper medium. Actually, I do. I refuse to be drawn into a discusion on that effort of a blog. It's really really not worth my time.

I await your peer reviewed science from your FB group. But I am curious why you of all people are reluctant to accept the opinions of Nature and Benbrook over that of blogs and self proclaimed experts on FB? Isn't this junk science? I'm waiting to see if these opinions/findings are challenged through the scientific process. Unlike CC, the argument cannot be made that science represses pro GM science.

As I said, there has been a load of merde spread about the risks of GMO crops but that doesn't necessarily equate to everything being merde.

It doesn't have to be black and white.

Originally Posted by Thor

but as I have said before, I have to go with the broad view scientific consensus,

Present to me the scientific concensus that GM crops don't create superweeds and that this has not led to an increased chemical use. No blogs. Regarding the first matter. So far, nature says yes. The Fonz says no.

[Thor]

One article in nature does not a scientific consensus make though, this is why I'm looking for more on the subject before I feel comfortable holding an opinion on this.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Present to me the scientific concensus that GM crops don't create superweeds and that this has not led to an increased chemical use.

You don't need scientific consensus - this question contains the ever-present logical fallacy that "GM crops" *do* anything. The question would be far better put, "Do weeds evolve to carry the same herbicide-resistance as crops designed or bred to resist those same herbicides?"

Of course, since the answer to that question is both obvious, and can be shown to be true, it doesn't resonate as well as "OMG super-weeds!" So, I have a question for you: do you understand that "GM crops" is not a monolithic entity that can have motives and behaviour ascribed to it, and that the current collection of "GM crops" is no more than a tiny sub-group of the almost limitless possibilities of this technology?

[The Fonz]

I apologize for bringing up seeded acres in Saskatchewan. But are herbicide resistant weeds in Saskatchewan relevant atleast? They have to be, otherwise there is no point in discussing these matters outside of Michigian, or wherever the article posted by Bagor was located, as it is local to them and not effecting the rest of the world. But that's wrong, herbicide resistance is everywhere.

In regards to RR weeds, it'd be more accurate to call them "group 9 resistant", and not "glyphosate resistant". Group 9 chemicals contain inhibitors of EPSP synthase, and these group 9 resistant weeds are no longer controlled by that mode of action. Glyphosate just so happens to be alone in this group 9, which is where the "glyphosate resistant" name comes from, but that is not to say that it always will be alone as chemical companies are developing new products in new groups every single year. And if/when they do develop another group 9 chemical containing EPSP synthase inhibitors, it will not kill the above mentioned weeds either.

I honestly just had a customer call me about an hour ago, and her concern directly relates to the discussions in this thread:

Customer: "I just sprayed Odyssey on my peas, and I don't think it's killing the kochia. Do I need to re-spray?"

Me: "Odyssey doesn't kill kochia anymore. It's a group 2 chemical, and 90% of the kochia in our fields have become resistant to group 2"

Customer: "Well my brother used Viper on his, and it doesn't seem to have killed it either"

Me: "And it won't, unfortunately. Viper is also a group 2. There is no way for us to kill kochia once peas or lentils are out of the ground because all of the chemicals we use on peas and lentils are group 2s. It has to be controlled pre-seed/pre-emergence"

Kochia in AB/MB/SK are no longer controlled by products like Express, Solo, Odyssey, Refine, Viper, Pursuit, Muster, Triton, etc, despite there never being a group 2 resistant GMO crop developed. All of these products I listed are group 2s, meaning they all contain ALS/AHAS inhibitors, which kochia has evolved to be resistant to due to repeated use of this specific mode of action against it.

[Thor]

Fonz its been awesome to hear your perspective and knowledge, please don't even think of stopping.

[MaDMaN_26]

Great read... lots of back and forth... really for me as a lurker in this thread it has been very enlightening. I'll admit I was harboring some of the misconceptions and propaganda that’s out there as part of my belief system.

At one point this thread made fun of Organic buying consumers as though they were rich fools or simply buying into marketing nonsense, and perhaps they were not doing it for the correct reasons... ... Whatever my reason for buying organic when possible was, it seems that although there is no science to claim GMO products cause humans direct harm and that the jury is out or the debate still goes on about GMO vs. non GMO product being better for the environment or sustainable farming that buying organic is probably the friendliest thing I can do for the good of the environment and sustainable farming... at least that was my take away. Along with I don't think I'll worry about avoiding GMO foods much anymore.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by MaDMaN_26

Great read... lots of back and forth... really for me as a lurker in this thread it has been very enlightening. I'll admit I was harboring some of the misconceptions and propaganda that’s out there as part of my belief system.

At one point this thread made fun of Organic buying consumers as though they were rich fools or simply buying into marketing nonsense, and perhaps they were not doing it for the correct reasons... ... Whatever my reason for buying organic when possible was, it seems that although there is no science to claim GMO products cause humans direct harm and that the jury is out or the debate still goes on about GMO vs. non GMO product being better for the environment or sustainable farming that buying organic is probably the friendliest thing I can do for the good of the environment and sustainable farming... at least that was my take away. Along with I don't think I'll worry about avoiding GMO foods much anymore.

I don't know about Organic being the most friendliest to the environment. Maybe just on the pesticide level it is but the production of organic food is just as industrialized as the production of Non-Organic food. Its back to that fundemental problem with Organic is that people tend to believe it means fresh produce grown on a small scale without chemicals instead of just being grown without chemicals.

I really thought the Omivores Dilemma and In Defense of Food by Micheal Pollen handled the food choice process quite well and went beyond labels of Organic and Free Range.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by MaDMaN_26

Great read... lots of back and forth... really for me as a lurker in this thread it has been very enlightening. I'll admit I was harboring some of the misconceptions and propaganda that’s out there as part of my belief system.

At one point this thread made fun of Organic buying consumers as though they were rich fools or simply buying into marketing nonsense, and perhaps they were not doing it for the correct reasons... ... Whatever my reason for buying organic when possible was, it seems that although there is no science to claim GMO products cause humans direct harm and that the jury is out or the debate still goes on about GMO vs. non GMO product being better for the environment or sustainable farming that buying organic is probably the friendliest thing I can do for the good of the environment and sustainable farming... at least that was my take away. Along with I don't think I'll worry about avoiding GMO foods much anymore.

All depends if you are buying it in Calgary and it's farmed in California with cow manure...it's not all that great for the environment in terms of greenhouse gasses

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by jammies

The question would be far better put, "Do weeds evolve to carry the same herbicide-resistance as crops designed or bred to resist those same herbicides?"

Of course, since the answer to that question is both obvious, and can be shown to be true,

Let's put it even better and be more specific: "Are weeds likely to evolve to carry the same resistance to glyphosate as crops designed or bred to resist glyphosate?

16 years ago the general concensus answer to this question (although there are many documented concerns) would have been "highly unlikely".

Today of course, the answer to that question is both obvious, can be shown to be true and has shown the general concensus of 16 years ago to be wrong.

February 10, 1997 - In Volume 8 of Resistant Pest Management, the biannual newsletter of the Pesticide Research Center at Michigan State University, there were two articles discussing the development and existence of weed populations that are resistant to glyphosate herbicide. Given the interest that Iowa growers have expressed in the use of Roundup Ready soybeans, and the general feeling that there is a low risk of weeds developing resistance to glyphosate, these articles are extremely interesting.

http://www.weeds.iastate.edu/weednews/roundup.htm

Originally Posted by jammies

So, I have a question for you: do you understand that "GM crops" is not a monolithic entity that can have motives and behaviour ascribed to it, and that the current collection of "GM crops" is no more than a tiny sub-group of the almost limitless possibilities of this technology?

Yes and Yes.

Not directed at you specifically. Just a couple of choice snips from another paper where the author suggests that GRCs are creating superweeds.

Weed populations shifts have occurred in response to the adoption of GRCs. The evolution of resistance to glyphosate is now an accepted fate of recurrent use of glyphosate in GRCs. It is now apparent that there were fewer constraints on the evolution of glyphosate resistance than originally proposed, and resistance to glyphosate has evolved in many species and is widely distributed

The adoption of GRCs does not directly impart selection pressure on theweed community. However, the production systems used in GRCs increase selection pressure on the weed community owing to the predominance of conser-
vation tillage and the limited number of herbicides (glyphosate) used to control weeds. Increased selection pressure increases weed population shifts.

The selection pressure imparted by glyphosate will cause weed shifts attributable to the natural tolerance of a particular species to glyphosate or the evolution of glyphosate resistance within the weed population.

http://www.ask-force.org/web/Herbizi...hifts-2008.pdf

[MaDMaN_26]

Originally Posted by GGG

I don't know about Organic being the most friendliest to the environment. Maybe just on the pesticide level it is but the production of organic food is just as industrialized as the production of Non-Organic food. Its back to that fundemental problem with Organic is that people tend to believe it means fresh produce grown on a small scale without chemicals instead of just being grown without chemicals.

I didn't intend to imply I thought organic meant small scale farming or local. I only meant in the sense of herbacide/pesticide use. Superweeds etc...

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

All depends if you are buying it in Calgary and it's farmed in California with cow manure...it's not all that great for the environment in terms of greenhouse gasses

If a person can do the 100 mile diet all the better, I don't think that is for me. If I see an option between local and CA or Mexico etc... I take local. That said, all farming has some kind of impact... I just think if you try and go organic, while you may not have the time to research every product you buy, overall you will be on the side of better for the environment.

I guess that absolute best is growing veggies it in your back yard... I'm not that guy though.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Let's put it even better and be more specific: "Are weeds likely to evolve to carry the same resistance to glyphosate as crops designed or bred to resist glyphosate?

Well I can agree that this is an important question, and although I don't know about the "same resistance", I would be very surprised if weeds didn't evolve for some resistance at least. Thing is, if a plant can have it bred or programmed into it, it can evolve, because those are just different ways of doing the same thing: editing the DNA.

This has very little to do with GMO, however, but more in the way we approach farming. GMO crops are designed to be easy for farmers to use with current or derivative techniques, so of course they will have the same problems as conventional crops. People who approach the issue as if "GMO" is some bugbear that threatens our food supply are not attacking the right opponent, and it's especially annoying because GMO likely will be the way we get OUT of non-sustainable farming, due to it being a technology that we have barely begun to master, and which has almost infinite potential.

That being said, super-weeds are not that serious an issue - evolution is never going to come up with ways to stop us killing things faster than we can think of ways to kill them. I'm not saying it's not an issue at all, but we are far more likely to figure out a way to drive some weeds to extinction than we are to be overcome by them - mankind's ability to exterminate species is, sadly, one of our special talents.

[corporatejay]

http://www.naturalnews.com/040841_gm...riculture.html

Other countries still in acceptance of GMOs, which include the U.S. and Canada, will hopefully take the lead of both Venezuela and Denmark in protecting their own food sovereignty. Besides the fact that GMOs are owned by a small cohort of multinational corporations with complete control over their use, GMOs have never been properly safety tested. And virtually all independent studies thus far conducted on them have revealed incredible dangers both to the environment and to humans.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040841_gm...#ixzz2WlulVfkO

Haven't we already established that GMOs have nothing to do with food sovereignty? This article seems totally ridiculous. And Canada should not take the lead from Venezuela on anything.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

http://www.naturalnews.com/040841_gm...riculture.html
Haven't we already established that GMOs have nothing to do with food sovereignty? This article seems totally ridiculous. And Canada should not take the lead from Venezuela on anything.

The article is from a website called "Natural News". It's probably about as reliable as a magazine called "Homeopathy Today!" or an article called "Healing Crystals, Reiki, and Healing Touch: What Your Doctor Won't Tell You!".

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

http://www.naturalnews.com/040841_gm...riculture.html




Haven't we already established that GMOs have nothing to do with food sovereignty? This article seems totally ridiculous. And Canada should not take the lead from Venezuela on anything.

I love the safety thing. Has any food been safety tested? Has organic food been safety tested?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I love the safety thing. Has any food been safety tested? Has organic food been safety tested?

Organic food: Because eating a surprisingly large amount of animal faeces is preferable to proven safe herbicides!

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Organic food: Because eating a surprisingly large amount of animal faeces is preferable to proven safe herbicides!

And they still use pesticides!

[Thor]

I saw a list recently of the worst anti science websites online, Natural News was number one, Huffington post was in the top 5 as well.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

http://www.naturalnews.com/040841_gm...riculture.html




Haven't we already established that GMOs have nothing to do with food sovereignty? This article seems totally ridiculous. And Canada should not take the lead from Venezuela on anything.

Plus even if you don't farm GMOs, you are still going to be buying your seed from a small group of companies.