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

[To Be Quite Honest]

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...light=monsanto

I was talking about Monsanto with a friend of mine today. Did a search and found this thread while searching for this thread.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Unfortunately he wouldn't post his argument towards Monsanto and other corporations like Monsanto which sucks because my friend is brilliant...

I haven't read this thread all the way through so if this comment has been posted please forgive me.

One of the really concerning issues with round up and topical round up like products are equal to the problems with antibiotics. Resistant pest-plants will become a bigger problem world-wide.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Unfortunately he wouldn't post his argument towards Monsanto and other corporations like Monsanto which sucks because my friend is brilliant...

I haven't read this thread all the way through so if this comment has been posted please forgive me.

One of the really concerning issues with round up and topical round up like products are equal to the problems with antibiotics. Resistant pest-plants will become a bigger problem world-wide.

There have been a few posts that have covered this concern, the most recent, and quite frankly, easiest to understand, of which is here

Originally Posted by The Fonz

"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

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Azure

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

That is pretty much par in any high tech bio fields, but again what is the issue. The reason farmers buy these seeds is for what they offer, not because they have no choices.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Rathji

There have been a few posts that have covered this concern, the most recent, and quite frankly, easiest to understand, of which is here

Do you honestly expect to be taken seriously with a stunt like that? Is it that you're just forgetful re. what evidence was presented towards both sides of the debate or is it that you're just trying to be downright dishonest in recapping the presented evidence. Present a recap of both sides of the debate and let the poster make an informed decision of his own.

Scientific literature claiming it does create superweeds .... ignored. A Calpuck poster claiming it doesn't .... presented.

Originally Posted by The Fonz

"Are GMO crops breeding superweeds?"
No.

Originally Posted by Nature

GM crops have bred superweeds: True

TBQH, the coles notes is this. Scientific publications are stating that GMOs have indirectly led to the rise in superweeds. Bloggers, tweeters and forum posters with pers comms with farmers say it hasn't. Scientific literature has been requested to support their position that it doesn't.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bagor

TBQH, the coles notes is this. Scientific publications are stating that GMOs have indirectly led to the rise in superweeds. Bloggers, tweeters and forum posters with pers comms with farmers say it hasn't. Scientific literature has been requested to support their position that it doesn't.

Within the nature article it specifically states that gmo doesnt breed superweeds. Meaning that the gmo gene is transferred from the gmo crop to the weed. What the nature article does say is that superweeds have increased as a result of herbicide use.

I think you are agreeing with the arguement that the fonz is making. It is that wether a gmo gene is present in the plant has nothing to do with wether or not superweeds are created.

However, the RR crops have allowed for an increased application of glysophate which therefore increased the rate of the appearance of Glysophate resistant crops. The use of glysophate as the primary herbicide is the reason for resistance not the crop being gmo.

It might be arguing semantics but I think its important to focus the resistance issue on herbicide application practices rather than just gmos. Because herbicide resistance is an issue across all crops not just gmo ones. It isnt genuine to suggest that superweeds is only an issue because of gmos. It is accelerated by gmos but nit caused by them.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Do you honestly expect to be taken seriously with a stunt like that? Is it that you're just forgetful re. what evidence was presented towards both sides of the debate or is it that you're just trying to be downright dishonest in recapping the presented evidence. Present a recap of both sides of the debate and let the poster make an informed decision of his own.

He has no requirement to do so. This could be the balance fallacy.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Balance_fallacy

Not all opinions deserve equal coverage.

http://www.skepticblog.org/2013/06/1...ce-journalism/

False Balance and Token Skepticism

The balance of the article should generally reflect that balance of scientific acceptance. If 95% of the scientific community accepts one consensus, then that is what the bulk of the article should reflect. If you feel the other 5% deserves a mention, then it should be given appropriate space, and also put into context (as above).

Stories about politics and social issues requires obsessive balance, because these are mostly based on value-judgments and opinions. For these stories a journalist needs to get the facts right, and make sure that all credible sides have their say.

Science does not work like that. In science, some opinions are objectively better than others. Science stories are about the evidence and the process of science – about finding the best current answer. Science articles need to reflect that.

[Bagor]

Yes he does by the very criteria you presented.

Science stories are about the evidence and the process of science – about finding the best current answer. Science articles need to reflect that.

He deliberately ignored the best current answer and did exactly what the very next paragraph in your article suggested.

As soon as you put a pseudoscientist up against a genuine and respected scientist, you have elevated the pseudoscientist to a stature they likely do not deserve. You have framed the story in a very deceptive way that does not reflect the reality.

[troutman]

Maybe. I have no idea what the best current answer or consensus is. Just saying "balance" does not always have to be provided in a scientific debate.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Thor

That is pretty much par in any high tech bio fields, but again what is the issue. The reason farmers buy these seeds is for what they offer, not because they have no choices.

I never said it was an issue. I just said that most of the food supply in the world is controlled by a few companies.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Do you honestly expect to be taken seriously with a stunt like that? Is it that you're just forgetful re. what evidence was presented towards both sides of the debate or is it that you're just trying to be downright dishonest in recapping the presented evidence. Present a recap of both sides of the debate and let the poster make an informed decision of his own.

Scientific literature claiming it does create superweeds .... ignored. A Calpuck poster claiming it doesn't .... presented.





TBQH, the coles notes is this. Scientific publications are stating that GMOs have indirectly led to the rise in superweeds. Bloggers, tweeters and forum posters with pers comms with farmers say it hasn't. Scientific literature has been requested to support their position that it doesn't.

edit: To give this some background, I came into this thread as someone who was in a general and mostly uninformed sense, against the use of GMO crops.

I gave him the coles notes as I had digested them. I didn't feel the need to regurgitate the entire argument in the thread, but just my synthesis of that argument as it related to the point that he made.

Here is my issue with the bolded section:

If GMO crops lead to Roundup resistant weeds, which are also caused by regular non-GMO roundup use, then there is not a strong enough relationship to determine that GMO crops are causing the RoundUp resistant weeds.

The link is hardly causal.

[PsYcNeT]

Since this was obviously ignored a few pages back, I'll re-quote myself.

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

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

Horizontal Gene Transfer from GMO crops is a very much less likely (again, nearly impossible chance) suspect for Roundup-Resistant weeds than common evolutionary exposure, similar to anti-biotic resist bacteria.

As Rathji said, Roundup is used on non-GMO crops as well.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Yes he does by the very criteria you presented.

Science stories are about the evidence and the process of science – about finding the best current answer. Science articles need to reflect that.

He deliberately ignored the best current answer and did exactly what the very next paragraph in your article suggested.

As soon as you put a pseudoscientist up against a genuine and respected scientist, you have elevated the pseudoscientist to a stature they likely do not deserve. You have framed the story in a very deceptive way that does not reflect the reality.

Addressing this, I don't think I deliberately ignored the best answer.

I read the Natural News article, which as far as I can tell is not peer-reviewed in any sense, and looked at all the references to articles which were peer reviewed and found nothing in any of those references which suggested to me that the claim that GMO crops being linked to the rise in RoundUp resistant weeds was made by anyone other than the article author, and not by anyone who backed it up with an actual study.

So I will admit, I put far less weight into the answer that had the least backing by the scientific community, which caused me to ignore it when I was giving a short answer to TBQH.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I didn't feel the need to regurgitate the entire argument in the thread, but just my synthesis of that argument as it related to the point that he made.

You didn't present a synthesis of an argument. You decided to present a singular pov on a thought with zero mention that there was an alternate thought on the issue raised by TBQH. Dishonest and misleading.

It wasn't necessary to regurgitate the entire argument, just necessary to mention that it had been discussed with differing views.

[PsYcNeT]

I'd say dishonest and misleading is citing any "study" or "report" by a non peer-reviewed, unaccredited source like "Natural News".

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Addressing this, I don't think I deliberately ignored the best answer.

Maybe not deliberately but .... Yes you did. Actually, you deliberately did.

Originally Posted by Rathji

I read the Natural News article, which as far as I can tell is not peer-reviewed in any sense, and looked at all the references to articles which were peer reviewed and found nothing in any of those references which suggested to me that the claim that GMO crops being linked to the rise in RoundUp resistant weeds was made by anyone other than the article author, and not by anyone who backed it up with an actual study.

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

Originally Posted by Rathji

So I will admit, I put far less weight into the answer that had the least backing by the scientific community, which caused me to ignore it when I was giving a short answer to TBQH.

I'm afraid you're terribly misinformed and confused. That is, unless you can back this statement up please. With ONE scientific paper that refutes the claim that GMOs have led to RR superweeds.

Or to help you, present ONE scientific paper that backs up your earlier post that they do not create superweeds.

The fact is this. The answer you posted has ZERO backing by the scientific community. Refute.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I'd say dishonest and misleading is citing any "study" or "report" by a non peer-reviewed, unaccredited source like "Natural News".

Agreed, but why stop there Let's add blogs and facebook groups to that list.

Which is why I'm presenting and asking for scientific articles.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Bagor

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

Peer reviewed by whom? Other nutjobs in the holistic medicine community? Surely they count as peers, but in the science publication sense.

Originally Posted by Bagor

Agreed, but why stop there Let's add blogs and facebook groups to that list.

Which is why I'm presenting and asking for scientific articles.

The article I cited was published in Nature, the definitive peer-reviewed journal.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Bagor

I'm afraid you're terribly misinformed and confused. That is, unless you can back this statement up please. With ONE scientific paper that refutes the claim that GMOs have led to RR superweeds.

Just so we're clear, all crops can lead to "superweeds" a terrible term by the way. Are you thinking that those of us pro GMO are suggesting they do not, and only normal non GMO crops do?

Because in that article the wording is very key:

"GM crops have bred superweeds: True" .. Is not to suggest its because they are GMO crops that have lead to superweeds. I want to make sure I get your argument here clearly.

Anyhow the comments in the article are interesting, especially this one:

Chris Yaren•2013-05-03 06:54 PM
Superweeds: Certainly perjorative! They are simply plants that have adapted to the conditions placed on the prior generations. Spray them with a different mode of action and these so-called superweeds perish...how super is that?

Correction: GM crops have bred superweeds: False

The first GM crop was introduced in 1996. There were hundreds of species resistant to other herbicdes at the same time according to the graph in same section. So based on the evidence in the article I am led to conclude that the answer must be false. The graph even shows the first occurnace of glyphosate resistant (GR) weeds around that same time. So it could not have been the GM crops that led to the GR weeds...there wouldn't have been enough time to select for the resistant biotype - in all likelihood.

Practices on farm lead to resistance not the crops themselves. This is an important distinction. If you put a plant under the same pressure year after year you will eventually select for the plant which is most adapted to that environment. This shouldn't come as a big surprise.

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

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Peer reviewed by whom? Other nutjobs in the holistic medicine community? Surely they count as peers, but in the science publication sense.

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

I have nothing to do with that natural news thingy.