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

[Azure]

I'm sorry, but if people are going to stick their head in the sand and ignore the overwhelming evidence that GMO herbicide resistant crops have lead to increased uses of herbicides, and perhaps even pesticides, then there is no further point in arguing anything here.

As much has been pointed out numerous times.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Where are you folks getting your information from that GMOs are requiring less chemicals?

I sell chemical for a living. The increase in usage is a result of record low chemical costs + record high seeded acres.

Example: GMO RoundupReady canola. Farmers spray it with .5L/ac of Roundup to control weeds in-crop. A half liter of roundup weighs about .5 kilograms.

Conventional non-GMO canola. Farmers would spread 6.8kg/ac of ethafluralin prior to seeding, then spray .25L/ac of clethodim in-crop.

An acre of GMO RR Canola has about 6kg/ac less herbicide on it than an acre of conventional non-GMO Canola would.

Originally Posted by Bagor

Full article. http://www.enveurope.com/content/pdf...4715-24-24.pdf

Originally Posted by Bagor

Results: 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%.

http://www.agriculture.gov.sk.ca/Default.aspx?DN=0a05f6f5-a8e4-4a4a-bcfd-7e911a675afe

Seeded acres in Saskatchewan in 2012 were up 18% from 2011, and up 8% from the 10 year average (2002-2011).

This has obviously had a major impact on the kg/ac of herbicides applied, as summerfallow acres are at record lows.

[TokenKingsFan]

Well, crap. I came here to engage in an argument with GMO refusers. Apparently, you all are too smart. Why do I think that if we put this thread on a Vancouver board, it would end up with a bunch of hippies yelling at us.

[TokenKingsFan]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

I sell chemical for a living. The increase in usage is a result of record low chemical costs + record high seeded acres.

Example: GMO RoundupReady canola. Farmers spray it with .5L/ac of Roundup to control weeds in-crop. A half liter of roundup weighs about .5 kilograms.

Conventional non-GMO canola. Farmers would spread 6.8kg/ac of ethafluralin prior to seeding, then spray .25L/ac of clethodim in-crop.

An acre of GMO RR Canola has about 6kg/ac less herbicide on it than an acre of conventional non-GMO Canola would.


[FONT=sans-serif]

http://www.agriculture.gov.sk.ca/Default.aspx?DN=0a05f6f5-a8e4-4a4a-bcfd-7e911a675afe

Seeded acres in Saskatchewan in 2012 were up 18% from 2011, and up 8% from the 10 year average (2002-2011).

This has obviously had a major impact on the kg/ac of herbicides applied, as summerfallow acres are at record lows.

This is incredible information about GMO crops. I often blog about GMO's, and this is the kind of data that I can shove up the posterior of GMO refusers.

[TokenKingsFan]

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."

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.

First of all, science is NOT about searching for truth. It is about establishing a hypothesis based on observation, then experimentally obtaining evidence that supports or nullifies the hypothesis. Science is openminded, truth is black and white. Science is self correcting. Truth is not, or then it is not a "truth."

Second, and this is the most important item. Not all research is the same quality, and that's why we have to sometimes Appeal to Authority, a logical fallacy. Some articles are published in really bad journals, ones with cursory peer review. They have low impact factors (which means how many times an average article in the journal gets referenced by other scientific articles in a year).

A true scientific skeptic, or scientist if you are one, not only examines and values evidence, but it gives the most due weight to the highest quality research, usually a meta-review which rolls up data from numerous studies.

There is a misunderstanding that science is based on debate. It is not. It is based on consensus. And it takes time.

Finally, the responsibility of those who do debate this issue, usually not scientists who are genuinely appalled by the anti-GMO forces for being anti-science and who accept GMO's as safe, to bring the evidence supporting their assertions. Since proving a negative is impossible, it's the anti-GMO forces must support their assertions, that GMO's are unsafe, with serious, scientific, peer-reviewed, published research. They've failed at this.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

I sell chemical for a living. The increase in usage is a result of record low chemical costs + record high seeded acres.

Can you please start presenting evidence to back up your statements. With all due respect this is the second time that you have thrown out an erroneous statement as fact with nothing to back it up. The paper presented makes zero mention of your reasons and instead states that ......

"Largely because of the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds, HR crop technology has led to a 239 million kg (527 million pound) increase in herbicide use across the three major GE-HR crops, compared to what herbicide use would likely have been in the absence of HR crops. Well-documented increases in glyphosate applications per hectare of HR crop accountfor the majority of this 239 million kg increase"

Can you present something to refute this and/or back up your claim? All I'm asking again for is some form of evidence that GMOs are requiring less chemicals when I present evidence that they are using more.

Originally Posted by The Fonz

http://www.agriculture.gov.sk.ca/Default.aspx?DN=0a05f6f5-a8e4-4a4a-bcfd-7e911a675afe

Seeded acres in Saskatchewan in 2012 were up 18% from 2011, and up 8% from the 10 year average (2002-2011).

This has obviously had a major impact on the kg/ac of herbicides applied, as summerfallow acres are at record lows.

What on earth?

Are you seriously replying to a paper on increased herbicide use in the United States by presenting Saskatchewan seeding and summerfallow data and suggesting that it is having a major impact on /explains the kg/ac of herbicides applied in the United States?

[photon]

*warning, the following image is to be used for humour only, any serious use of the image may result in depression, autism, or reduction in crop yields*

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by photon

*warning, the following image is to be used for humour only, any serious use of the image may result in depression, autism, or reduction in crop yields*

This is the best corollary graph ever.

[Thor]

This blog is AWESOME, puts all of many of our thoughts down on why the anti GMO movement is so ridiculous.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/20...edium=facebook

I never used to write much about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) before. I still don’t do it that often. For whatever reason, it just hasn’t been on my radar very much. That seems to be changing, however. It’s not because I went seeking this issue out (although I must admit that I first became interested in genetic engineering when I was in junior high and read a TIME Magazine cover article about it back in the 1970s), but rather because in my reading I keep seeing it more and more in the context of anti-GMO activists using bad science and bad reasoning to justify a campaign to demonize GMOs. Now, I don’t have a dog in this hunt (Forgive me, I have no idea why I like that expression, given that I don’t hunt.) I really don’t. I was, not too long ago, fairly agnostic on the issue of GMOs and their safety, although, truth be told, because I have PhD in a biomedical science and because my lab work has involved molecular biology and genetics since I was a graduate student in the early 1990s. I found the claims of horrific harm attributable to GMOs not particularly convincing, but hadn’t bothered to take that deep a look into them. It was not unlike my attitudes towards the the claims that cell phones cause cancer a few years ago, before I started finding dubious studies and looking into them and noted despite the utter lack of a remotely plausible mechanism and uniformly negative studies except for a group in Sweden with a definite ax to grind on the issue. None of this stops activists from likening cell phone companies to tobacco companies, the way antivaccine loons liken vaccine manufacturers to tobacco companies. Back then, I realized that there wasn’t really a plausible mechanism by which radio waves from cell phones could cause cancer in that the classic mechanisms by which ionizing radiation can break DNA molecular bonds and cause mutations don’t apply, but I didn’t rule out a tiny possibility that there might be an as yet unappreciated mechanism by which long term exposure to radio waves might contribute to cancer.

As was the case for the nonexistent cell phone-cancer link, there has now been a steady drip-drip-drip of bad studies touted by anti-GMO activists as “evidence” that GMOs are the work of Satan that will corrupt or kill us all (and make us fat, to boot). Not too long ago, I came across one such study, a truly execrable excuse for science by Gilles-Eric Séralini at the University of Caen purporting to claim that Roundup-resistant genetically modified maize can cause horrific tumors in mice. I looked at the methods and conclusions and what I found was some of the worst science I had ever seen, every bit as bad as the quack “science” used by the antivaccine movement, as anti-GMO activists worry about GMOs sapping and impurifying their precious bodily fluids. Then, not too long ago, I discovered a truly quacktastic bit of fear mongering by Jack Heinemann about GMOs in which, or so it is claimed, GMOs produce silencing RNAs that not only survive transit through the gut, get into the bloodstream and thence into cells to inhibit the expression of specific genes, and even get passed down to the next generation to kill your children.

[Thor]

By the way, was thinking about this on the weekend sipping on some nice beer in the chilly Icelandic wilderness... What about an "Ongoing Bad Science" thread to encompass all the various bad science topics, which are vast and numerous...

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Thor

By the way, was thinking about this on the weekend sipping on some nice beer in the chilly Icelandic wilderness... What about an "Ongoing Bad Science" thread to encompass all the various bad science topics, which are vast and numerous...

Isn't that what the Skeptic thread is for?

[Thor]

Ah right! Then screw that, how about renaming it Skeptic and Bad science?

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Can you please start presenting evidence to back up your statements. With all due respect this is the second time that you have thrown out an erroneous statement as fact with nothing to back it up. All I'm asking again for is some form of evidence that GMOs are requiring less chemicals when I present evidence that they are using more.

Back up my statement that low cost chemical + record high seeded acres has lead to the increase in herbicide? Or my claim that GMOs require less chemical?

Here is the example I gave above on GMO RoundupReady canola requiring less herbicide than non-GMO Canola.....

"Example: GMO RoundupReady canola. Farmers spray it with .5L/ac of Roundup to control weeds in-crop. A half liter of roundup weighs about .5 kilograms.

Conventional non-GMO canola. Farmers would spread 6.8kg/ac of ethafluralin prior to seeding, then spray .25L/ac of clethodim in-crop.

An acre of GMO RR Canola has about 6kg/ac less herbicide on it than an acre of conventional non-GMO Canola would."

I do not have a link to present for this info, as it is not info I gathered from someone else's blog. I just know what gets sprayed on crops, it is what I do for a living.


As for my claim that chemical costs have decreased while seeded acres have increased...

Glyphosate per litre has decreased ~65% in the last 5 years, clodinafop (group 1) a ~55% decrease, tralkoxydim (group 1) a ~35% decrease, fenoxaprop (group 1) a ~45% decrease, clethodim (group 1) a 20% decrease, and the list goes on.

Obviously with costs reducing so drastically, paired with strong grain prices the last few years, the economic thresholds we often use to justify spraying for weeds have reduced enormously. "Do I spray?" is no longer a question for farmers in regards to spraying weeds in their crops... you just do it. Every year.

If you're wondering why I showed "group 1" for all of the chemicals listed above that were not glyphosate, it's because there is not a single GMO crop developed to be tolerant of group 1 herbicides. Yet group 1 resistant wild oats are the biggest weed concern we are facing right now and will be facing going forward. They are a result of over spraying for years and years and years with the same thing, and the increase in spray is a result of strong grain prices + cheap chemical prices = very low economic thresholds.


On seeded aces increasing....

I'll provide proof later. Or you can find that yourself. Anyone working in or around the farming industry can tell you that summerfallow acres are becoming few and far between.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Back up my statement that low cost chemical + record high seeded acres has lead to the increase in herbicide? Or my claim that GMOs require less chemical?

No ... The discussion is centred around presented evidence that herbicide use in the US (not Saskatchewan) has increased significantally primarily due to the emergence of superweeds . Your example does not factor in superweeds and your comments regarding Saskatchewan seeded areas are completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

I'll keep it simple. Do you agree that ..... In the United States (not Saskatchewan)

(1) Contrary to often-repeated claims that todays 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. 239 Million kg or a 7% increase. (See paper on post #202)

(2) This increase is attributed to the rise of superweeds which the Nature paper linked in post #198 asserts that the claim that GM crops have bred superweeds is true. Do you aggree that GM crops have bred roundup resistant weeds?

Yes or No and if No can you present evidence to back your case.

Thor, I ask the same question of you because as yet, I am unaware, as you have shown no indication as to whether or not you accept this evidence. Just as you rightly talk about the anti GM crowd and bad science I have equal concerns as evidenced in this thread that some of the Pro GM crowd are unable to accept good science ......... when it points out flaws in the technology. As always the truth is somewhere in the middle and this is a story that is far from played out.

From a couple weeks ago. How the landscape is changing.

We are getting questions from folks in Middle Tennessee now on how to control severe infestations of Palmer amaranth 6 to 8” tall in Roundup Ready (RR) soybeans. This is a big milestone because Palmer amaranth could not be found as recently as 2008 and 2009 in several surveys we ran in Middle TN. There was plenty of pigweed found in this part of the state then but it was all smooth and spiny. The first infestations were found in 2011 and by 2012 Palmer could be found building in many areas of Middle TN. In a remarkable short period of just 4 years Palmer amaranth has gone from being impossible to locate to running into overwhelming populations in some soybean fields in Middle TN.

Unfortunately, as many growers have learned in west Tennessee, the only way to control large populations of Palmer amaranth that size in RR soybeans is to destroy the soybeans and pigweed in the field with tillage or Gramoxone and replant. This replant will need to have a herbicide applied at planting that can provide good residual control of Palmer. There are many candidates here but the ones I prefer are herbicides that have two effective modes of action on Palmer amaranth. Herbicides like Authority MTZ, Fierce, Boundary, Prefix, or tankmixtures of say metribuzin with Valor or Zidua would all be good candidates.

http://news.utcrops.com/2013/06/glyp...-in-middle-tn/

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Obviously with costs reducing so drastically, paired with strong grain prices the last few years, the economic thresholds we often use to justify spraying for weeds have reduced enormously. "Do I spray?" is no longer a question for farmers in regards to spraying weeds in their crops... you just do it.

Again, a random unbacked statement that makes zero sense.

They just do it?

They just do it because they care less about the money?
They just do it because they have excess time on their hands?
They just do it because evidence has shown in their southern counterparts that just doing it results in the emergence of superweeds?

[Thor]

Call me unsure Bagor, I just got back today and was given a few links to read regarding use of spraying on crops, superweeds, etc.. Its a lot to digest and I'm really hung over from the weekend so I'll get to it if I'm not too sleepy tonight.

This is also getting out of what I am well versed on, and will take me some time to come to a decision, call me undecided for now!

Anyhow I put your post up to a lot smarter people than me and I'll see if they have anything to add to this discussion, since I'm not going to suggest I know better than those scientists and agro biologists we have at our FB GMO page.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Bagor

No ... The discussion is centred around presented evidence that herbicide use in the US (not Saskatchewan) has increased significantally primarily due to the emergence of superweeds . Your example does not factor in superweeds and your comments regarding Saskatchewan seeded areas are completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

I'll keep it simple. Do you agree that ..... In the United States (not Saskatchewan)

(1) Contrary to often-repeated claims that todays 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. 239 Million kg or a 7% increase. (See paper on post #202)

(2) This increase is attributed to the rise of superweeds which the Nature paper linked in post #198 asserts that the claim that GM crops have bred superweeds is true. Do you aggree that GM crops have bred roundup resistant weeds?

Yes or No and if No can you present evidence to back your case.

Thor, I ask the same question of you because as yet, I am unaware, as you have shown no indication as to whether or not you accept this evidence. Just as you rightly talk about the anti GM crowd and bad science I have equal concerns as evidenced in this thread that some of the Pro GM crowd are unable to accept good science ......... when it points out flaws in the technology. As always the truth is somewhere in the middle and this is a story that is far from played out.

From a couple weeks ago. How the landscape is changing.

http://news.utcrops.com/2013/06/glyp...-in-middle-tn/

Actually, this discussion is centered around the entire universe of GMO crops, and I found the insights of someone who works with crops and fertilizers on a daily basis to be particularly interesting and helpful to the conversation. He's not presenting conclusions, he's presenting day to day observations of what people are actually doing.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Again, a random unbacked statement that makes zero sense.

They just do it?

They just do it because they care less about the money?
They just do it because they have excess time on their hands?
They just do it because evidence has shown in their southern counterparts that just doing it results in the emergence of superweeds?

It makes complete sense if you're not being intentionally dense. They just do it because the "economic thresholds we often use to justify spraying for weeds have reduced enormously." That's directly from his post.

The margins used to be such that you questioned whether it was worth it, now you just go ahead and do it, because even if it turns out you didn't need to you still hit your goals.

[Thor]

Ok from the GMO FB group (if anyone is interested in joining PM me, its a fun little group with a great sense of humor about all this.)

Tim ****: Herbicide resistant black grass has certainly become established in the uk (where we don't even use RR crops). Essentially, constant use of herbicides is much like just about anything else; you apply a selective pressure to a population, and eventually mutations occur that allow an organism to persist. If you use solely one form of herbicide, and don't use decent crop rotations they will build up as an issue. I've not so far seen published data to indicate an increase in herbicide resistant weeds (i've also not checked, tbh), but it wouldn't be surprising.

Adam : Glyphosate use has "bred" "superweeds", and will continue to do so. GMO crops are only guilty by association. It's an issue, and perhaps a flaw in an otherwise nearly perfect herbicide. It's normal for weeds to develop resistance, and it's not great, but RR crops are hardly to blame; allowing those crops to be used with roundup is a very useful tool. I'm not sure if glyposphate is being reapplied to resistant weeds, but it'd be hard to figure out if that's the reason for an increase in its use.

Richard : While Roundup use has increased, that has been in place of much more toxic alternatives like atrazine. Looking only at total mass of material applied can be misleading when you use a product with a lower Environmental Impact Quotient.

Any pest control technology has the capacity to select resistance in the pest population, so there is nothing special about glyphosate resistance developing. A good post earlier at GMOLOL plotted the incidence of new glyphosate resistant weeds before and after the introduction of RR trait - the trend continued unchanged, indicating no increase in the rate of resistance development.

Asked for some peer reviewed stuff to go a long with this, see what we get.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by valo403

Actually, this discussion is centered around the entire universe of GMO crops, and I found the insights of someone who works with crops and fertilizers on a daily basis to be particularly interesting and helpful to the conversation. He's not presenting conclusions, he's presenting day to day observations of what people are actually doing.

And that's fine and I'm happy that you find his observations interesting and helpful.

It's just that in the context of responding to a post that presents a paper on increased herbicide use and superweeds in the US by talking about seeding and fallow patterns in Saskatchewan could be considered a tad irrelevant.

Originally Posted by valo403

It makes complete sense if you're not being intentionally dense. They just do it because the "economic thresholds we often use to justify spraying for weeds have reduced enormously." That's directly from his post.

The margins used to be such that you questioned whether it was worth it, now you just go ahead and do it, because even if it turns out you didn't need to you still hit your goals.

It makes zero sense to "just do it" when evidence suggests this type of flippant sustained use is an invitation for a superweed invasion.

That is unless you feel that you can give a negative response to either or both of my two questions on post # 216 with evidence to back your response.