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

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Azure

This thread is also strange in the fact that it seems like me and FoL, who are often accused of being far right evil capitalists are the ones who seem to promote organic farming, even at the expense of those evil capitalist companies like Monsanto.

It's really weird that you like the supply managment on dairy too.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by valo403

Science please.

That's really what this thread is about, supporting claims that are based in science with actual science. Thor has done that over and over again, I haven't seen a lick of it from the anti-GMO crowd.

You seem to be missing the point. The issue isn't that GMOs are evil, bad or cancerous, but that they require an extreme high use of chemicals to be sustainable, which in itself is not sustainable at all.

There have been numerous studies done to show that while genetically modified crops have higher outputs, it comes at the ever increasing costs of using more herbicides, fertilizers and other chemicals that are not at all healthy for the environment.

Spoiler!

From a great study here.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC34218/

The global agricultural enterprise is passing a threshold. It has gone from being a minor source of off-site environmental degradation 35 years ago to becoming the major source of nitrogen and phosphorus loading to terrestrial, freshwater, and marine ecosystems. If this loading increases as projected here, agriculture will adversely transform most of the remaining natural, nonagricultural ecosystems of the world. Because the global environmental impact of agriculture on natural ecosystems and the services they provide may be as serious a problem as global climate change, the impacts of agriculture merit more study.

A “more of the same” approach to the doubling of agricultural production will have significant environmental costs, costs that could be lowered by processes that increase the efficiency of fertilizer use, such as precision agriculture (The following popper user interface control may not be accessible. Tab to the next button to revert the control to an accessible version.Destroy user interface control23) and by incentives for their use. Methods that increase the nutrient efficiency of the overall agricultural production process also are needed. For instance, wastes from large-scale animal operations are rich in N and P. Unless properly recycled into arable fields, or subjected to tertiary sewage treatment to remove nitrogen and phosphorus, such wastes can be a major source of N and P loading to nonagricultural ecosystems (The following popper user interface control may not be accessible. Tab to the next button to revert the control to an accessible version.Destroy user interface control24). However, the regulations that apply to municipal sewage and factory effluents often have not been applied to large-scale livestock factories or to heavily fertilized fields, even though these are now major sources of nutrient loading to many aquatic ecosystems (The following popper user interface control may not be accessible. Tab to the next button to revert the control to an accessible version.Destroy user interface control18). The development of more nutrient-efficient crops also could have major environmental benefits. If crops could be bred to consume a larger proportion of soil nitrate and ammonium, this would decrease the amount of unconsumed soil nitrate and ammonium that would be lost via leaching and volatilization. This would decrease impacts on off-site ecosystems. Breeding programs that increased crop yields would decrease some of the future impacts of agriculture by decreasing the amount of additional land that would have to be brought into agricultural production.

The ecosystems of the world now are dominated by humans (The following popper user interface control may not be accessible. Tab to the next button to revert the control to an accessible version.Destroy user interface control25). The implications of human domination, including impacts from expanding agricultural activities, must be better understood and incorporated into policy. This will require an on-going, iterative process in which science and policy regulating agricultural practices advance hand-in-hand, much as is being done for the climate issue by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This will require predictive, mechanistic models of the impacts of agriculture on nonagricultural ecosystems.

Conclusions: A hallmark of modern agriculture is its use of monocultures grown on fertilized soils. Ecological principles suggest that such monocultures will be relatively unstable, will have high leaching loss of nutrients, will be susceptible to invasion by weedy species, and will have high incidences of diseases and pests—all of which do occur. Although ecological principles may predict these problems, they do not seem to offer any easy solutions to them. Agriculture, and society, seem to be facing tough tradeoffs. Agricultural ecosystems have become incredibly good at producing food, but these increased yields have environmental costs that cannot be ignored, especially if the rates of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilization triple and the amount of land irrigated doubles. The tradition in agriculture has been to maximize production and minimize the cost of food with little regard to impacts on the environment and the services it provides to society. As the world enters an era in which global food production is likely to double, it is critical that agricultural practices be modified to minimize environmental impacts even though many such practices are likely to increase the costs of production.

Scientific enough for you?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by troutman

It has to do with critical evidence based thinking, not political or economic philosophy.

The so-called critical evidence based thinking is pretty clear when it comes to what the ever increasing use of chemicals is having on the environment. Strange how that is being ignored, even if the science behind it is pretty clear.

In the meantime the anti-GMO crowd is being berated because they have no scientific evidence to back up their idea that GMOs are inherently unhealthy. This might be true, but it does not discount the overwhelming amount of evidence that suggests that GMOs need more herbicides, and more herbicides are dangerous to the environment.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by SebC

It's really weird that you like the supply managment on dairy too.

Not to derail the thread, but didn't I say I would trade off the supply management system in exchange for the guarantee that steroid and antibiotic use wouldn't become prevalent in the dairy industry?

[Azure]

Another link to a study done on increasing use of herbicides in GMO crops.

I have worked for many years on pesticide use, risks, and regulation, as well as the design, implementation, and benefits of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) systems. Given that all of the commercially significant, first-generation traits in genetically engineered (GE) crops are related to pest management, the real-world impacts of GE crops on pesticide use has always been on my radar screen.

I started tracking the development of herbicide-tolerant technology in the late 1980s during my tenure as the Executive Director of the NAS Board on Agriculture (1984-1990). Even back then, years before the technology’s commercial launch in 1996, weed management experts were expressing concern that glyphosate-tolerant, Roundup Ready (RR) crops could lead to the emergence of resistant weeds.

In the first years of use, RR crops triggered a shift in herbicide selection from several low-dose imidazolinone and sulfonylurea herbicides to a relatively high-dose herbicide, glyphosate. USDA pesticide use data released in the late 1990s clearly reflects such shifts. This is why I was skeptical from the start over claims that GE crops would and were reducing the pounds of herbicide applied on the three major RR crops.

Despite these uncertainties, the overall trends in pesticide use on GE crops are clear. Herbicide use is much greater on GE acres compared to conventionally managed acres planted to non-GE cultivars. The spread of resistant weeds has been driving herbicide use up for a decade, and will continue to do so for years.

In order to deal with resistant weeds, farmers are being forced to expand use of older, higher-risk herbicides. To stop corn and cotton insects from developing resistance to Bt, farmers planting Bt crops are being asked to spray the insecticides that Bt corn and cotton were designed to displace.
Without doubt, GE crop technology has profoundly changed corn, cotton, and soybean pest management, but the unintended impact on pesticide use is a harsh reminder that farmers should not put all their eggs in one pest control basket.

Results from the study.

Herbicide-resistant crop technology has led to a 239 million kilogram (527 million pound) increase in herbicide use in the United States between 1996 and 2011, while Bt crops have reduced insecticide applications by 56 million kilograms (123 million pounds). Overall, pesticide use increased by an estimated 183 million kgs (404 million pounds), or about 7%.

Contrary to often-repeated claims that today’s 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.

Original article here.

Study here.

[Thor]

One of the farmer posters at our GMO FB group is about to post this on his farming page.

Just goes to show you the dramatic differences:

NSFW!

This is scheduled to go up on www.facebook.com/thefarmerslife later tonight. On the left I have some Smartstax corn. For lack of a better phrase that corn is about as GMO as you can get. On the right is our popcorn which is not GMO. No worries about cross pollination as popcorn is dent sterile. Dent corn won't pollinate it. You also might notice popcorn has droopy leaves where most modern hybrids are developed with upright leaves to better capture sunlight.

This is from Brian Scott at www.facebook.com/thefarmerslife

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Thor

One of the farmer posters at our GMO FB group is about to post this on his farming page.

Just goes to show you the dramatic differences:

This is from Brian Scott at www.facebook.com/thefarmerslife

It has never been a question as to whether or not GMO crops have higher outputs. The issue has always been if the way they are being farmed being sustainable over the long-term.

Perhaps you should take a step back and do some research over how chemicals are being used to grow the GMO crops before you come back and continue beating the drum over how good GMO crops are.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Azure

You seem to be missing the point. The issue isn't that GMOs are evil, bad or cancerous, but that they require an extreme high use of chemicals to be sustainable, which in itself is not sustainable at all.

This is a straw man argument - a genetically modified crop doesn't have to have increased resistance to herbicides, that is simply one of the primary desirable characteristics many such crops are designed to have. It is perfectly possible to have GMO crops that are no more resistant to glyphosate than non-modified crops.

As far as the phosphates and other undesirable chemicals from fertilizers getting into the ecosystem, that is a completely separate issue that has nothing to do with whether a crop is GMO or not, but rather a consequence of the farming methods used to raise the crop.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by jammies

This is a straw man argument - a genetically modified crop doesn't have to have increased resistance to herbicides, that is simply one of the primary desirable characteristics many such crops are designed to have. It is perfectly possible to have GMO crops that are no more resistant to glyphosate than non-modified crops.

As far as the phosphates and other undesirable chemicals from fertilizers getting into the ecosystem, that is a completely separate issue that has nothing to do with whether a crop is GMO or not, but rather a consequence of the farming methods used to raise the crop.

Of course it doesn't, but most do. The roundup ready variations that Monsanto makes are extremely popular and are often the most popular GMO products being used.

Realistically, however, most genetically modified crops (including Roundup Ready) are developed to be pesticide and herbicide resistant, rather than directly increase the yield of a given crop. This makes one question whether it is even important to have herbicide resistant plants at all, or if the focus should shift to provide other advantages that do increase yield. Many argue that because Roundup Ready crops do not increase the yield or profits of farmers, they only serve to benefit Monsanto. There is little to no benefit for the consumer, but high reward for the corporation. Farmers must not only purchase new seeds from Monsanto each year, but also Monsanto's own herbicide Roundup.

http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/Monsanto/impact.html

The results are undeniable.

(Reuters) - U.S. farmers are using more hazardous pesticides to fight weeds and insects due largely to heavy adoption of genetically modified crop technologies that are sparking a rise of "superweeds" and hard-to-kill insects, according to a newly released study.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...89100X20121002

[Azure]

In 1996 Monsanto introduced herbicide-tolerant or "Roundup Ready" soybeans and then rolled out GM corn, cotton and other crops. Roundup Ready and other herbicide-tolerant crops now account for about 95 percent of soybean and cotton acres as well as over 85 percent of corn.

http://www.businessinsider.com/study...#ixzz2WETeN2Ff

So while GMO doesn't necessarily mean herbicide tolerant, the fact is that Monsanto sells over 90% of GMO seeds, and a very high majority of those seeds are herbicide tolerant.

Of course, Monsanto is still busy claiming they have no data to support the fact that chemical use has increased since the introduction of their roundup ready variations.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Azure

Of course it doesn't, but most do. The roundup ready variations that Monsanto makes are extremely popular and are often the most popular GMO products being used.

That's fine, but it's not the argument you're making. If you want to argue "the current use of GMO to create crops that are Round-Up resistant is a mistake that is causing massive environmental damage, and isn't sustainable", that's an entirely different discussion, and one which has a lot more merit than "GMO is evil capitalists poisoning our food!"

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Azure

Perhaps you should take a step back and do some research over how chemicals are being used to grow the GMO crops before you come back and continue beating the drum over how good GMO crops are.

I'd advise you to do the same, GMO is decreasing the use of "chemicals" being used to grow them.

I'm just trying to beat the drum of calling out lies, misinformation, and hysteria of which I do with any medical, or science based issue because the general public is mostly ill informed, easily swayed and sadly very easy to frighten.

I spend probably an unhealthy time reading both sides, as with all arguments, I like to hear the argument from both sides and then make my own mind up.

If there is anything I have been claiming that you feel is not backed by science and the support of peer reviewed science by all means let me know, unlike much of the anti-gmo I am more than willing to change my mind if evidence is presented and peer reviewed that leads to new conclusions.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Thor

I'd advise you to do the same, GMO is decreasing the use of "chemicals" being used to grow them.

I have already pointed out that the most popular GMO crops, the Roundup Ready variations that are supposed to be herbicide tolerant are actually increasing the use of herbicides.

Not sure how you see that as decreasing, unless you think the study is flawed.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by jammies

That's fine, but it's not the argument you're making. If you want to argue "the current use of GMO to create crops that are Round-Up resistant is a mistake that is causing massive environmental damage, and isn't sustainable", that's an entirely different discussion, and one which has a lot more merit than "GMO is evil capitalists poisoning our food!"

I have never said that the GMO seed itself is dangerous only that the methods used to grow GMO crops are what is causing the problem.

The way that farming works these days, you can't have one without the other.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Azure

I have already pointed out that the most popular GMO crops, the Roundup Ready variations that are supposed to be herbicide tolerant are actually increasing the use of herbicides.

This is the opposite of the information I have read, the reason to GMO is to reduce the amount of spraying. In fact the MAJOR reason Monsanto moved away from chemical to GMO is because they knew this was the future, better for the environment, and more profitable.

I have asked some much smarter than me scientist to visit this thread, or answer your specific comment, because that is a very valid question.

[Azure]

The information has been out since 2012 and Monsanto is still denying it.

You can ask whoever you want to visit this thread, but if you actually go talk to the farmers, they will all tell you that the cost of growing GMO crops has continually gone up due to the higher cost of spraying. This is completely in line with the research I have posted.

So sorry, but you've been fed a pretty neat lie if you still believe Monsanto and their stance that herbicide tolerant crops are the next great thing and will reduce the amount of money farmers have to spend on chemicals.

The cost of the seed has increased, the cost of the chemicals has increased, and the cost of food has increased. Prices for wheat, barley, canola, soy beans, corn and many other major crops have all gone up in the last 10 years since Monsanto came out with their Roundup Ready GMO seeds.

[Jedi Ninja]

Originally Posted by Azure

I have already pointed out that the most popular GMO crops, the Roundup Ready variations that are supposed to be herbicide tolerant are actually increasing the use of herbicides.

Not sure how you see that as decreasing, unless you think the study is flawed.

Isn't that the point of planting RR-Canola, so that you can spray Roundup on it? It seems obvious that Roundup consumption would increase with the planting of RR-Canola?

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Jedi Ninja

Isn't that the point of planting RR-Canola, so that you can spray Roundup on it? It seems obvious that Roundup consumption would increase with the planting of RR-Canola?

Sigh, the opposite, less roundup is required of GMO crops.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Thor

Sigh, the opposite, less roundup is required of GMO crops.

This statement cant be true can it. On a non RR crop 0 round up can be sprayed on it. On a RR crop you do spray round up on ergo more round up is applied to a round up ready crop.

Less overall chemical may be needed but definately more round up. Do you have a link to a study backing the less round up statement up or did you mean less pesticides overall?

[Jedi Ninja]

Originally Posted by Thor

Sigh, the opposite, less roundup is required of GMO crops.

I am speaking specifically about this one product, Roundup Ready canola, and here is what Monstano has to say about their product themselves:

Genuity offers the Roundup Ready trait in both spring and winter canola. In the past, canola farmers have had limited options when it comes to weed control. Since weeds compete with the crop for nutrients, these weeds can impact yield. That’s why farmers now see this trait as a tool to manage weeds and increase yield, which creates a win-win on their farm.

Translation: You didn't used to be able to use a lot of herbicides on canola, but now you can.

http://www.monsanto.com/products/Pag...dy-canola.aspx