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

[The Fonz]

Get in line GGG, he still hasn't answered my question... which I have now asked 4 separate times.

[Rathji]

I have a couple of mine still in the queue as well.

[jayswin]

I thought of this idea for message boards. Whenever you get a guy like this, everyone involved to should just agree to stop posting and stop interacting with the guy until he starts actually answering questions. Otherwise, he'll just keep dodging, but still create more questions with more rambling, and we'll never get anywhere.

[Bagor]

Jeez folks it's a beautiful summer's evening and I'm sorry to say this thread is not on my priority list.

All I've asked for and continue to ask for is some scientific literature that refutes the oft repeated claims in scientific papers that GRCs and the production systems associated with it have led to superweeds. That's it. Not bloggers misrepresenting graphs, and pers comms with Farmer Frank straight science.

I'm not saying this is limited to GM crops, simply saying that it has occured despite predictions at the onset of the technology that resistance was unlikely.

No one is suggesting GM crops is evil. What is being suggested by many people in many different papers is that GRCs are responsible for GR superweeds. This is despite the claim at the onset of the technology that the evolution of GR superweeds was unlikely.

The evolution of resistance to glyphosate is now an accepted fate of recurrent use of glyphosate in GRCs.

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

Pretty strong statement from 2008. (1) an accepted fate and (2) it singles out GRCs. Scientists have had 5 years to respond to this so no doubt there must be literature out there to refute this claim. So for the umpteenth time, I'm asking for the literature.

GGG I will respond tomorrow sometime to your questions. The Fonz ... I won't. I'm sorry dude. After that last fiasco with Saskachewan seed patterns and your conversations with farmer frank explaining increased pesticide use in the southern US, I simply am not prepared to waste my time on you. Present some literature.

Rathji, your questions are speculative. To answer quickly, it is a HUGE leap. You can't just say because something was first documented somewhere it by default must have evolved there. It's garbage science.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by flameswin

I thought of this idea for message boards. Whenever you get a guy like this, everyone involved to should just agree to stop posting and stop interacting with the guy until he starts actually answering questions. Otherwise, he'll just keep dodging, but still create more questions with more rambling, and we'll never get anywhere.

I am the only one that has backed up my statements with literature. I have continuously asked for literature to refute the claims in the literature presented. That too complicated for you?

Why don't you take your own advice and present some literature.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Scroll to the top of the page where I described it as a news article designed to provoke scientific discussion. Not blogs. It's an opinion piece. You're aware that Nature allows responses to these news articles? Have you seen any?

So a news article is solid, but scientists responding to the article is not. Because its a "blog" and not in Nature its worthless? It's an opinion piece but a "blog" is worthless, even if its from scientists and farmers.

The article is 2 MONTHS OLD. You keep bringing up "why all the silence, where is the response, etc..." Are you seriously suggesting that 2 months is a deafening quiet that makes you "wonder" or however you put it...?

But I'm with the rest, you have a lot of questions waiting for responses, the list GGG just posted and The Fonz are what most of us are waiting to hear back about. Consider me on hold debating you until you can address these, as we need to hear your positions on this to have any further serious discussion.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Bagor

I'm not saying this is limited to GM crops, simply saying that it has occured despite predictions at the onset of the technology that resistance was unlikely.

So what I'm confused at is what are we arguing about then? What predictions and made by whom, not that I really care about that, what I thought we had been arguing about all this time was that you seem to blame GMO for this increase in resistance, not that it was part of a general upward trend because of bad farming practices world wide.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by Bagor

GGG I will respond tomorrow sometime to your questions. The Fonz ... I won't. I'm sorry dude. After that last fiasco with Saskachewan seed patterns and your conversations with farmer frank explaining increased pesticide use in the southern US, I simply am not prepared to waste my time on you. Present some literature.

To back up my claim of groups 1 and 4 (not glyphosate) resistant weeds...


http://www.weedscience.org/summary/home.aspx

# of group 1 resistant weed (ACCase inhibitors) species: 42
First reported: 1982

# of group 4 resistant weed (synthetic auxins) species: 30
First reported: 1957


And I will now ask for the 5th time.... if you believe GMOs to be the cause of herbicide resistant weeds, how do you explain the 72 herbicide resistant weeds shown above, despite there never being any crops genetically modified to be tolerant of groups 1 or 4?

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Thor

So a news article is solid, but scientists responding to the article is not. Because its a "blog" and not in Nature its worthless? It's an opinion piece but a "blog" is worthless, even if its from scientists and farmers.

The article is 2 MONTHS OLD. You keep bringing up "why all the silence, where is the response, etc..." Are you seriously suggesting that 2 months is a deafening quiet that makes you "wonder" or however you put it...?

But I'm with the rest, you have a lot of questions waiting for responses, the list GGG just posted and The Fonz are what most of us are waiting to hear back about. Consider me on hold debating you until you can address these, as we need to hear your positions on this to have any further serious discussion.

See last article from 2008. How many more would you like? Three? I believe I've already posted three in this thread where the authors have stated that GMO crops have resulted in a rise in superweeds. All I've asked for is one peer reviewed rebuttal.

With all due respect Thor, I haven't been debating you. I've been debating your facebook friends and your bloggers. You've been posting stuff that suggests a lack of critical thinking for yourself. I exposed a large gaping garbage hole in the blog you posted and then you display an inability to respond for yourself, furthermore even bothering to state whether ot not you accept the response. I can only assume that you accept that first documentation = first evolved.

See, what's happened here is that for me GMOs are not a black and white issue. There are a hell of a lot of positives but there are some concerns also as expressed unchallenged in many scientific publications over the years. What appears to be the case is that with some people it has to be a black and white issue and just as the anti GM folks are guilty of posting junk then so are the Pro GM folks. Why? Because a small mention of a flaw and they get overdefensive. So in essence, the two groups are no different. That's why you need to question yourself why people are blogging and not responding through the medium provided. Ask Mr Kliss or whatever he's called has he written to nature to respond to the article. He would have been better off being silent

There never really was a debate. I posted peer reviewed literature where scientists stated that GM crops were leading to a rise in superweeds. People argued against it. I asked for peer reviewed literature. I'm still waiting .........

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Thor

What predictions and made by whom

That it was extremely unlikely that plants would develop a resistance to Glypsosate - Monsanto. Based on many things including the lack of evolution of plant species to glyphosate in the pre GM crop era.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.230...21102433269331

edit GGG apologies, I will respond.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by GGG

Do you believe that scientific data supports that GMO crops are the sole cause of herbicide resistant weeds?

To clarify firstly. I am referring to Glyphosate resistant weeds. Not herbicide resistant weeds. I don't believe I ever made that assertion. If I did, it was non-intentional.

Regarding Glyphosate weeds, the data is this. Firstly .... Pre 1996 and the introduction of GM crops there were virtually zero documented GR weed species despite over 30 years of glyphosate use around the world. This was actually the trumpet call of Monsanto at the onset of the technology.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.230...21102433769191

So given that in 1996 they themselves stated that the chances of a GR weed developing in the wild are "unlikely" they could be pardoned if one developed resistance randomly, or two. But twenty four? That's either a lot of "unlikely" randomness or something else is going on. Something is causing it.

http://www.weedscience.org/Graphs/SpeciesbySOA.aspx

So why didn't this happen in the 30 odd years prior to GM crops? Traditional farming involved the application of Glyphosate prior to seeding coupled with tilling, mowing, etc. It wasn't sole dependent on Glyphosate.

Whereas .... (bolded for emphasis)

It is important to emphasize that the unprecedented, widespread, and intense adoption of GR crops involves a combination of factors constituting a very strong selection intensity for the evolution of GR weeds (Powles, 2008a, 2008b) and for weed spectrum shifts to weed species only ever marginally or partially controlled with glyphosate (Owen, 2008). It is well established that herbicide resistance will evolve fastest where herbicide selection intensity is most persistent

http://www.agbioforum.org/v12n34/v12n34a10-duke.htm#R40

I bolded that simply because here we have another scientists not suggesting but emphasising that GM crops invoke a strong selection pressure on the weeds promoting faster evolution of resistance. Even though, this was thought unlikely.

So, do I believe that scientific data supports that GMOs are the sole cause of GR resistance weeds? I don't think you'll find anyone that will say they are the "sole" cause as most people will accept that things happen randomly. I'll be extremely generous and say 4 out of the 24 superweeds are random events. The other 20 .... points towards some sort of external event and GM crops and their associated intensity looks extremely guilty.

What is clear however is that scientists appear to have no issues pointing the finger at the technology as the main culprit for the explosion of GR superweeds and this appears to be an unchallenged view (outside of blogs etc ..)

Originally Posted by GGG

Do you believe that the spraying of glysophate on non-gmo crops leads to the creation of glysophate resistant weeds?

Well it didn't for the 30 years prior to the introduction of GM crops.

Originally Posted by GGG

Do you believe that the increased glysophate overall is the primary cause of the glysophate resistant weeds?

See quote above.

Originally Posted by GGG

As to the graphs I agree with your criticism of the evolved vs. discovered problem. But I think the reverse is also ture, how can you be sure that all glysophate resistant weeds are due to GMOs. I don't think you can without a very detailed look at all of the crops surrouding where these discoveries took place.

Thank You. Appreciate that. Agreed, but as stated above and given Monsanto's 1996 assertion that the evolution of GR weeds was unlikely then when you have 24 species you gotta start looking elsewhere beyond random.

Originally Posted by GGG

However the first graph which charts the discovery of glysophate resistance weeds vs the introduction of GMO crops to me is very telling. The rate of discovery of glysopahte resistant weeds has not increased since the introduction of glysophate resistant crops. This to me throws up some flags into what I generally believe to be true which is that increased use of glysophate whether on GMO or non-GMO crops leads to a increase in the development of resistant weeds and that the current increase is glysophate use is partially due to people using resistant crops and partially due to its low cost.

You're reading the graph wrong. It's herbicide resistant weeds.

If the graph was glyphosate resistant weeds, then the pre 1996 data would be zero cases/year. It's a sad effort at deflection.

Thank you for your patience.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by Bagor

So, do I believe that scientific data supports that GMOs are the sole cause of GR resistance weeds? I don't think you'll find anyone that will say they are the "sole" cause as most people will accept that things happen randomly. I'll be extremely generous and say 4 out of the 24 superweeds are random events. The other 20 .... points towards some sort of external event and GM crops and their associated intensity looks extremely guilty.

....how do you come up with this? 20/24 glyphosate resistant weeds are a result of GMOs? Are you saying 83% of glyphosate purchased is then applied on RR crops, resulting in these resistant weeds? If so, back that up with some literature.

http://www.uoguelph.ca/news/2009/05/...search_19.html

Resistance evolves after a weed population has been subjected to intense selection pressure in the form of repeated use of a single herbicide. The herbicide controls all the susceptible weeds, leaving only those with a resistant gene to reproduce.

[The Fonz]

Bagor, I hope you can one day realize that your issue is with herbicides in general, and not with GMOs.

Resistance develops do to repeated applications of the same mode of action against a pest. Regardless of GMO or non-GMO crops being sown, we stack herbicide groups year after year. This causes resistance. Since the herbicide stacking is done regardless of the seed variety being put in the ground, GMO vs non-GMO is irrelevant.

If resistant weeds is your concern, you'd be wise to get off of the "anti-GMO" bandwagon, and jump on the "organic" bandwagon.

[flamefan74]

Originally Posted by Bagor

I believe I've already posted three in this thread where the authors have stated that GMO crops have resulted in a rise in superweeds.

Isn't that kind of a no-brainer though? Over use will cause resistance, such as resistance in groups 1,2 and 4.

Australia, who didn't allow GR crop(canola) until 2008, had their first glyphosate resistance weed in 1996. Up to 2008, 4 weeds were confirmed to be glyphosate resistant. GM crops were not the cause of it, but overuse was.

And Europe has resistant weeds as well even though GR acres are so low in Europe.

“This weed killer is being widely overused,” said Adrian Bebb, spokesperson for Friends of the Earth International. And that’s even though hardly any genetically modified crops are grown in Europe.

Link:


Overuse in North America due to these crops has accelerated the pace of resistance. I don't think anyone can argue that. But the world as a whole is seeing this resistance including countries that either didn't have GR crops beforehand or very little acres. So this problem would have happened eventually as farmers chose cheap chemical options. Same problem as what happened with groups 1,2 and 4 with non-gmo crops.

What's the answer? Charge more for the glyphosate so that farmers actually think about herbicide rotations? Consumers willing to pay more for a non-gmo crop? Probably a mixture of both, but doubt we see either anytime soon.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Bagor

See last article from 2008. How many more would you like? Three? I believe I've already posted three in this thread where the authors have stated that GMO crops have resulted in a rise in superweeds. All I've asked for is one peer reviewed rebuttal.

Right, "articles" and the interpretation of peer reviewed data to fit a narrative they are deducing from the data, which is what science news does. However the actual studies being linked to in those stories are not conclusive to that point, and this is the problem I have.

I do not see glyphosate resistance as being caused by GM, but obviously they are part of the problem. Not the actual GM part of it, but how those crops are sprayed, rotated or not, etc..

With all due respect Thor, I haven't been debating you. I've been debating your facebook friends and your bloggers. You've been posting stuff that suggests a lack of critical thinking for yourself.

Why does posting what others respond to your comments suggest a lack of critical thinking? I do my best to hear the arguments, and listen to those who are experts in their fields, instead of deciding I know better from reading a few articles and trumping their experience and expertise. I think if anything I have been willing to accept data with an argument for it that I find convincing. Like I said before, I think we mostly agree on most things.

I exposed a large gaping garbage hole in the blog you posted and then you display an inability to respond for yourself, furthermore even bothering to state whether ot not you accept the response. I can only assume that you accept that first documentation = first evolved.

So much going on, I neglected, never assume no response is agreement. The wording was badly used, this I agree with. His overall blog I did agree with however.

See, what's happened here is that for me GMOs are not a black and white issue. There are a hell of a lot of positives but there are some concerns also as expressed unchallenged in many scientific publications over the years.

Of course its not black and white, but the topic of this thread was the amount of lies and propaganda against GMO being spread online. This was and is the main issue, the issue we've been on for pages now is important, but not GMO to blame.

What appears to be the case is that with some people it has to be a black and white issue and just as the anti GM folks are guilty of posting junk then so are the Pro GM folks. Why? Because a small mention of a flaw and they get overdefensive.

I have not seen that in this thread, and false equivalence dude, this isn't even remotely similar. The debate in this thread is about 100 times more reasoned and worthwhile than what is happening in social media. I don't know what you are exposed to daily like myself with these debates, but this is nothing in comparison to the outright lies, propaganda and nonsense being spread against GMO.

People always get defensive when you take an opposite position, this happens in ALL debate.

So in essence, the two groups are no different. That's why you need to question yourself why people are blogging and not responding through the medium provided.

The two groups are vastly different, but like all human biases and emotions we do share stubbornness to change views, defensive stances against our held beliefs, etc..

There never really was a debate. I posted peer reviewed literature where scientists stated that GM crops were leading to a rise in superweeds. People argued against it. I asked for peer reviewed literature. I'm still waiting .........

Yet this "rise" is happening in non GMO in Europe and other parts, so again there is no consensus, some science articles interpreting some peer reviewed literature and plenty of people who range from professors, to phd's, to farmers, all arguing that this rise is not GMO to blame, but our use of spraying and other well known issues with large scale farming.

Maybe since you brought up the false equivalency I will put together a highlight reel of the stuff I encounter on Facebook in my debates there.

[Thor]

Screw it, slow day at work and its friday.. Here's some fun stuff, anti GMOers and their hilarity

NSFW!

[Thor]

Some more, just the usual distorting, lies and appeal to "natural"

NSFW!

Since so many anti vaxxers are also anti GMO, thought I'd share this one as well.

[PsYcNeT]

Those anti-vaxxers must have spent lots of time reading those 0 studies that prove vaccination claims.

They're so studious.

[burn_baby_burn]

Having experience with this topic I would like to add an observation about the current discussion.

One side is claiming that GMO crops are causing the creation of "super weeds" or basically glyphosate resistant weeds. The other is arguing that the creation of glphosate resistant weeds is a result of overuse of glyphosate causing certain species of weeds to develop resistance over time. I believe both to be correct.


What Badger is essentially saying is that by the large acerage of glyphosate resistant crops being planted. The overall use of glphosate has increased. Maybe the amount of active ingrediant applied per acre per year has gone down like The Fonz stated, but the overall use has increased dramatically. As a result, there has been an increase in the number of weeds showing resistance to glyphosate.

Yes, we all know that planting RoundUp Ready Canola does not create glyphosate resistant weeds directly. However the increased use of Glyphosate due to the increased acres of RoundUp Ready Canola (or any other glyphosate resistant crop) has indirectly resulted in the rise of glyphosate resistant weeds as a result of more frequent applications of glyphosate in the same field.

Badgor was right in stating that the overall use of herbicides has increased. However, like The Fonz stated, it is not necisarily because of the use of GMO crops. One big reason for the increase is the elimination of tillage to control weeds. Farmers used to cultivate all their fields before planting to eliminate weeds. Now farmers do a "pre pass" usually with glyphosate to control weeds before seeding. Constant cultivation was leading to a decrease in soil quality mostly due to wind and water erosion (look to the "Dust Bowl" during the depression on the great plains in the US as to what can happen with the overuse of tillage and poor farming practices). Now the soil is improving and becoming more productive, however it has lead to an increase in herbicide applications. Also, like The Fonz pointed out, summer fallow acres have decreased over the years. Summer fallow used tillage to control the weeds. Now that land is being planted which means it is getting sprayed with herbicides annually, instead of every other year. Also, most of the land that is actually being summer fallowed is using chemical weed control instead of tillage, again because it is better for the soil.

Most farmers would apply an incrop herbicide for weed control regardless of whether they were using a GMO crop or not. For instance before Liberty Link, Clearfield, or RoundUp Ready varieties of Canola. Famers would apply a mixture of three herbicides to control weeds in canola. One prodcut for grassy weeds such as wild oats, a product called Muster for wild mustard, and Lontrel for Canada Thistle. There were still weeds that these three products did not control. That is why the popularity of canola varities resistant to non selective herbicides became so popular so quickly. A farmer could have complete weed control with the application of a single product, which was also cheaper overall than applying three products.

Anyhow that is my two cents, hope I didn't bore everybody.

[corporatejay]

I think that pretty much sums up the thread entirely and appears to be right on point.

From what I can gather, while spraying various chemicals can lead to superweeds (GMO or not), the net yields are much higher and so there is a clear net benefit to spraying your crops. The difference is the GMO crops allow you to spray roundup, or specific types of chemicals, which are far more efficient, because they are engineered to be resistant to them.

Do I have this right?