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

[Azure]

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?

Indeed, as the name would indicate the RR-Canola was created specifically so that you could spray it with roundup, otherwise known as glyphosate, which is a very popular and at one point effective weed killer without damaging the actual rapeweed plant itself.

Prior to the roundup ready variations, farmers would spray with herbicides just to save the crop, but it would affect yield because the glyphosate attacked the plant itself as well. The roundup ready crops were supposed to fix that.

The problem is the increase in use of herbicides has led to weeds becoming tolerant to glyphosate, which has led to increased use of herbicides, which has in turn led again to a rise in superweeds, which has resulted in even more herbicides being used.

Rinse, repeat cycle.

The additional problem that this creates is that farmers are turning away from the zero till methods and are instead choosing to till the soil between crops. The benefits of zero till are well documented, and Monsanto are their roundup ready crops were supposed to support this, but the opposite is happening.

Not even sure why Thor would think that the point of herbicide tolerant crops means less spraying. Perhaps he should talk to his scientific buddies more.

Everyone knew that herbicide use would increase. The point was that it wasn't supposed to increase THIS much, and the increase in yields were supposed to offset any issues. Now the increase is beyond ridiculous, and the yields are according to some people not there.

[Minnie]

Oh good hell. Now my sister-in-law is moaning and groaning and Chicken Littling all over the place about 'genetically modified' mosquitoes. Enough already.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Minnie

Oh good hell. Now my sister-in-law is moaning and groaning and Chicken Littling all over the place about 'genetically modified' mosquitoes. Enough already.

Can they please, please, be the "time bomb" mosquitoes that breed with the wild population and eventually render them all infertile?

[billybob123]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

How exactly does this work though? Does this GMO plant just become immune and 'ignore' the herbicide? No. What it does is it uptakes the herbicide inside of it and utilizes it.

No, it does not.

Glyphosphate specifically inhibits an enzyme in the amino acid synthesis chain (shikimate pathway). The resistance gene prevents glyphosphate from inhibiting the enzyme. It does not "utilize" anything. Glyphosphate doesn't get incorporated.

The resistant plant does in fact become immune and 'ignores' the herbicide.

It does persist in the soil, however.

Think of that next time you think you are eating 'healthy'. Just like mercury is passed on the food chain (well, not quite like mercury - but somewhat like it) and building up the toxins the higher up you go, you end up consuming these herbicides.

Anyways, I am not an expert in it.

Glyphosphate specifically inhibits an enzyme for amino acid biosynthesis that does not exist in mammals. Eating it does not harm people the way you are implying by comparing it to mercury.

Whether or not one is in favour of GMO, what needs to be discussed are actual facts, not hearsay that is utterly incorrect.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Azure

The additional problem that this creates is that farmers are turning away from the zero till methods and are instead choosing to till the soil between crops. The benefits of zero till are well documented, and Monsanto are their roundup ready crops were supposed to support this, but the opposite is happening.

Why are they tilling?

[Flame Of Liberty]

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.

Do you even know what science means? Picking one study/journal article/blog post and wave it around as gospel is not "science."

If you actually read peer reviewed journals you would realize that different researcher rarely agree with each other (come to the same conclusion), each new article to the body of literature goes back and forth with previous work in the study area, usually expands only on a bit of knowledge and is most likely counter-argued in following articles. Only relatively small portion of the knowledge is actually thought to be set in stone.

Science is about searching for truth, not hand-picking research results that happen to support your position when you misleadingly present them without proper context.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Azure

Indeed, as the name would indicate the RR-Canola was created specifically so that you could spray it with roundup, otherwise known as glyphosate, which is a very popular and at one point effective weed killer without damaging the actual rapeweed plant itself.

Prior to the roundup ready variations, farmers would spray with herbicides just to save the crop, but it would affect yield because the glyphosate attacked the plant itself as well. The roundup ready crops were supposed to fix that.

The problem is the increase in use of herbicides has led to weeds becoming tolerant to glyphosate, which has led to increased use of herbicides, which has in turn led again to a rise in superweeds, which has resulted in even more herbicides being used.

Rinse, repeat cycle.

The additional problem that this creates is that farmers are turning away from the zero till methods and are instead choosing to till the soil between crops. The benefits of zero till are well documented, and Monsanto are their roundup ready crops were supposed to support this, but the opposite is happening.

Not even sure why Thor would think that the point of herbicide tolerant crops means less spraying. Perhaps he should talk to his scientific buddies more.

Everyone knew that herbicide use would increase. The point was that it wasn't supposed to increase THIS much, and the increase in yields were supposed to offset any issues. Now the increase is beyond ridiculous, and the yields are according to some people not there.

From someone who knows more than me:

Brian Marten : No, farmers never sprayed round up on their crops, post emergence, before round up ready seed was available. Round Up kills every thing that is not resistant to it once the plants have sprouted.

This is why, until Round Up Ready products came on the market, Round Up was considered a "Pre-Emergent Herbicide."

The use of Round Up has gone up but the use of other more toxic herbicides have gone down.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Do you even know what science means? Picking one study/journal article/blog post and wave it around as gospel is not "science."

Correct. Which is we have not done, and the scientific community, AKA peer reviewed science has a lot to say about GMO.

If you actually read peer reviewed journals you would realize that different researcher rarely agree with each other (come to the same conclusion), each new article to the body of literature goes back and forth with previous work in the study area, usually expands only on a bit of knowledge and is most likely counter-argued in following articles. Only relatively small portion of the knowledge is actually thought to be set in stone.

You have to be kidding me. This is about the opposite to the actual truth of the peer reviewed world of science. A study is put into the peer reviewed journals, and it is either accepted by others confirming it, or shot down. The VAST majority of peer reviewed science is studies slightly adjusting well accepted science, almost never do you see any new studies that challenge accepted science that turn our understanding on its head.

Science is about searching for truth, not hand-picking research results that happen to support your position when you misleadingly present them without proper context.

Which is why anti-GMO people are ridiculous because they go against the science of GMO. There is nearly 30 years of peer reviewed science that supports the safety of GMO.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by billybob123

No, it does not.

Glyphosphate specifically inhibits an enzyme in the amino acid synthesis chain (shikimate pathway). The resistance gene prevents glyphosphate from inhibiting the enzyme. It does not "utilize" anything. Glyphosphate doesn't get incorporated.

The resistant plant does in fact become immune and 'ignores' the herbicide.

It does persist in the soil, however.



Glyphosphate specifically inhibits an enzyme for amino acid biosynthesis that does not exist in mammals. Eating it does not harm people the way you are implying by comparing it to mercury.

Whether or not one is in favour of GMO, what needs to be discussed are actual facts, not hearsay that is utterly incorrect.

1. OBJECTIVE
Determination of Glyphosate and AMPA residues in human urine samples. The
goal of this study was to support the biomonitoring work of the BUND / FoE
against the background of increasing Glyphosate use in some European
countries.

With a LOQ of 0,15 µg/l, on average 44 % and 36 % of the urine
samples analyzed were found to contain quantifiable levels of Glyphosate and
AMPA, respectively

The results give a first idea to which extent adults in 18 European countries
are exposed to Glyphosate. The regional and individual variations are large.
Diet seems to be the main sources of exposure. However, more scientific
work is needed to distinguish between different exposure situations

https://www.foeeurope.org/sites/defa...lts_june12.pdf

need...more...glyphosate residue...in...my...system...

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Why are they tilling?

Tilling has conventionally been a way to get rid of the weeds. When the roundup ready crops came along, weed control was supposed to be easier, and many saw the RR crops as a benefit because farmers would be more willing to adopt no till methods.

EDIT: With the superweeds that herbicides are having an increasingly hard time controlling, farmers turn back to tilling.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Thor

From someone who knows more than me:

Post emergence means they sprayed before the germinated seed had grown enough to break ground. Weeds tend to grow like weeds and were ahead of the game which allowed them to be sprayed earlier, or as your friend said, post emergence. This allowed the germinated seeds to break ground and grow unimpeded by weeds.

This does not mean they never used roundup ever, but yes it would absolutely kill the plant if it hadn't been genetically modified to be herbicide resistant.

Roundup has been in use since it was patented by Monsanto in the 70s IIRC.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Thor

You have to be kidding me. This is about the opposite to the actual truth of the peer reviewed world of science. A study is put into the peer reviewed journals, and it is either accepted by others confirming it, or shot down. The VAST majority of peer reviewed science is studies slightly adjusting well accepted science, almost never do you see any new studies that challenge accepted science that turn our understanding on its head.

Huh? It's accepted as a contribution to the body of knowledge today, but that doesn't mean it will not be challenged/modified/disproved in later research.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Thor

Correct. Which is we have not done, and the scientific community, AKA peer reviewed science has a lot to say about GMO.

You have to be kidding me. This is about the opposite to the actual truth of the peer reviewed world of science. A study is put into the peer reviewed journals, and it is either accepted by others confirming it, or shot down. The VAST majority of peer reviewed science is studies slightly adjusting well accepted science, almost never do you see any new studies that challenge accepted science that turn our understanding on its head.

Which is why anti-GMO people are ridiculous because they go against the science of GMO. There is nearly 30 years of peer reviewed science that supports the safety of GMO.

The problem you have is that goverment funding for the monitoring of GMO crops in the US has been vastly reduced in the last 10 years which has led to results only be available every few years. No amount of peer reviewed articles is going to get someone else besides Monsanto out there to track what is happening with the GMO crops.

On top of that people who analyze the GMO in a controlled lab under controlled conditions will say that the seed is safe for human consumption, ignoring of course the trails done with rats that weren't so conclusive, but this does not mean that the farming of GMOs is sustainable, or even safe because nobody bothered to actually watch what happening with the supposed sustainable farming practices. Until a couple years ago, when data from federal sources became available, and it was evident that chemical use had increased WAY beyond what anyone had expected.

The science behind GMOs might be solid, and quite frankly I have never done enough research on the subject to know whether or not eating GMO wheat will give me cancer 20 years faster than normal. But I do know about farming practices, and how farmers deal with GMOs, and the data released by studies by actual people out there in the field, and not scientists in a controlled lab, confirm my experiences in the farming industry where I have seen alarmingly increased rates of chemicals being used over the last 15 years since roundup ready crops were introduced.

And especially since 2000 when the Monsanto patent on roundup ran out, and other companies joined the fold and began selling their version of roundup ready crops.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

1. OBJECTIVE
Determination of Glyphosate and AMPA residues in human urine samples. The
goal of this study was to support the biomonitoring work of the BUND / FoE
against the background of increasing Glyphosate use in some European
countries.

With a LOQ of 0,15 µg/l, on average 44 % and 36 % of the urine
samples analyzed were found to contain quantifiable levels of Glyphosate and
AMPA, respectively

The results give a first idea to which extent adults in 18 European countries
are exposed to Glyphosate. The regional and individual variations are large.
Diet seems to be the main sources of exposure. However, more scientific
work is needed to distinguish between different exposure situations

https://www.foeeurope.org/sites/defa...lts_june12.pdf

need...more...glyphosate residue...in...my...system...

The problem with this study is that Monsanto has recommended amounts of Roundup that should be used, but farmers don't always follow the recommendations properly, and with the rise of superweeds, many are using way, way too much.

Plus, the increasing use of herbicides results in leakage into rivers and such, which might increase the prevalent amounts of it being found in urine samples.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Thor

Which is why anti-GMO people are ridiculous because they go against the science of GMO. There is nearly 30 years of peer reviewed science that supports the safety of GMO.

I disagree with that statement.

Off the top of my head I can think of at least one very famous Nature paper in the late 90s that suggested that GMOs were killing monarch caterpillars. I use Nature as an example because many know how hard it is to get published there. In fact I would argue that the safety and credibility of GMOs was still up in the air in the scientific community and was only properly heavily debated in the late 90s, early 00s. I say this from experience from living in the east of England, right next to the John Innes Centre where there was serious concerns, research and debate regarding their effects on farmland biodiversity and overall environmental wellbeing and where many of the country's test trials were located at secret locations.

So, to say that there is nearly 30 years of science supporting it is imo wrong. I would say that it is only in the last 10 years that the science has slowly swung towards recognising the negative hypothesis .... in many cases.

I would have considered myself an anti GMO person during that time and will readily admit that I was wrong and that many of my fears have been disproven. Having said that I still today have concerns on some fronts.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

1. OBJECTIVE
Determination of Glyphosate and AMPA residues in human urine samples. The
goal of this study was to support the biomonitoring work of the BUND / FoE
against the background of increasing Glyphosate use in some European
countries.

With a LOQ of 0,15 µg/l, on average 44 % and 36 % of the urine
samples analyzed were found to contain quantifiable levels of Glyphosate and
AMPA, respectively

The results give a first idea to which extent adults in 18 European countries
are exposed to Glyphosate. The regional and individual variations are large.
Diet seems to be the main sources of exposure. However, more scientific
work is needed to distinguish between different exposure situations

https://www.foeeurope.org/sites/defa...lts_june12.pdf

need...more...glyphosate residue...in...my...system...

All this study shows is there is gyphosate residue in 44% of people. Nothing about how it got there. They didnt even bother to calculate the correlation between country and glyphosate level only to say it is high. This is nothing more than a baseline measurement that could be useful in future study.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by GGG

All this study this is there is gyphosate residue in 44% of people. Nothing about how it got there. They didnt even bother to calculate the correlation between country and glyphosate level only to say it is high. This is nothing more than a baseline measurement that could be useful in future study.

Nor does it point out if it is dangerous.

[billybob123]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

[
need...more...glyphosate residue...in...my...system...

Did you read the line following the one you bolded?

Persistence. One will wind up with anything that's sprayed on crops. What percent of human urine contains fertilizer?

The original post said that plants metabolized the roundup and incorporated it. If that were true, there would be no glyphosphate in urine, it would be metabolites.

[flamefan74]

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.

So are the non GMO types. In canola for example, you have the Clearfield system which is considered non GMO but is actually sprayed with worse chemicals than roundup. It is considered non-GMO due to how it is bred. The Clearfield chemicals can actually have residual effects in the soil, so what residue is still on the crop?

If you are comparing GMO to organic, then I would agree with you to a certain extent. But GMO to non-GMO there is no difference.

There needs to be a better understanding of what is GMO, non-GMO, and organic. Most consumers link non-GMO and organic as the same, but there is a huge difference. For example, the company I work for sells a non-GMO (Clearfield) canola oil into the US health market as non-GMO. The health stores know what is involved with the non-GMO canola, but if the consumer is clueless, they will sell it a higher markup and keep quiet about it. And it is legit as the product they are selling actually is non-GMO, it is the consumer assuming non-GMO=organic.

[flamefan74]

Originally Posted by 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.

This is downright wrong. The cost of the seed has gone up, but the cost of the chemical has gone down. The money for these companies is in selling the seed, not in the chemical. When the chemical is cheap, farmers don't mind paying the higher cost of seed. On top of that, Roundup is off patent which means anyone can use it. There is no money left in it. Margins on seed for these companies is huge.

You really need to watch where you get your info from.