|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 24 2014 06:43 WhiteDog wrote:
When I buy vegetable, I check their origin. It's an information that is always given, and it has no impact on the quality of the food : I do that because I prevent myself from buying vegetable from countries that have bad labor pratice / economic practice / environmental practice. I don't want my money to be feeding such practice, and I hope (while knowing it's completly ridiculous) that by my selective buying I will promote better practice in said countries.
It has nothing to do with the idea of a threat of the said food in itself and I saw no people in this thread saying that consuming GM food will increase you chance to get cancer : it is the business practice and the agricultural practice that is in question, and the impact of those practice on the world at large.
GMO, most of the time, comes with a whole package, that goes from shady legal practice - altho necessary, to a certain extent, to assure profit - intensive farming and monoculture that, from my perspective, is not beneficial to our society. It is for that kind of reason that I'd prefer a label - and yes it's hypocritical because there are plenty of other goods that bear the same kind or even more problems than the production of GMO, but on those I have no knowledge.
There is also a complete difference between the fact that farmer select the best crop at the end of each year and end up genetically selecting the best strain, with the GMO, for obvious reasons - what it mean for the balance of power between the farmer and the food industry for exemple. Again, Jonny showing what he knows best, nitpicking others and making broad and easy metaphore to support his point of view.
How am I nitpicking? My 'broad and easy metaphor' is how the Washington State Academy of Science put it, and how Neil deGrasse Tyson put it as well (link, link, link). There just isn't a substantial difference between non-GMO genetic modification and GMO genetic modification. Many non-GMO genetic modification techniques use genetic analysis to help isolate the desired traits. It's really not a whole lot different from GMOs. Romanticizing farmers dutifully keeping the best seeds at the end of the harvest is recalling a past that hasn't existed for a long time.
Example: In part to circumvent the controversy surrounding GMOs, fruit and vegetable breeders at both universities and private companies have been turning to an alternative way of modifying the food we eat: a sophisticated approach known as marker-assisted breeding that marries traditional plant breeding with rapidly improving tools for isolating and examining alleles and other sequences of DNA that serve as “markers” for specific traits. Although these tools are not brand-new, they are becoming faster, cheaper and more useful all the time. “The impact of genomics on plant breeding is almost beyond my comprehension,” says Shelley Jansky, a potato breeder who works for both the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the University of Wisconsin–Madison. “To give an example: I had a grad student here five years ago who spent three years trying to identify DNA sequences associated with disease resistance. After hundreds of hours in the lab he ended up with 18 genetic markers. Now I have grad students who can get 8,000 markers for each of 200 individual plants within a matter of weeks. Progress has been exponential in last five years.”
link
As for the business practices that come with GMOs, yes, some 'bad' things occur, but some good things occur as well. Lumping them together doesn't help anyone. GMOs often help farmers use less chemicals and focus on safer chemicals to grow crops - that's a good thing! Yet you want a GMO label so you can ... make bad decisions like assume that GMOs mean negative environmental consequences?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i'm not sure how traditional hybrid seeds that are genetically uniform is superior to gm seeds at all. many potential seeds are stuck in test fields world wide due to the regulatory burden as well.
|
On October 24 2014 07:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2014 06:43 WhiteDog wrote:
When I buy vegetable, I check their origin. It's an information that is always given, and it has no impact on the quality of the food : I do that because I prevent myself from buying vegetable from countries that have bad labor pratice / economic practice / environmental practice. I don't want my money to be feeding such practice, and I hope (while knowing it's completly ridiculous) that by my selective buying I will promote better practice in said countries.
It has nothing to do with the idea of a threat of the said food in itself and I saw no people in this thread saying that consuming GM food will increase you chance to get cancer : it is the business practice and the agricultural practice that is in question, and the impact of those practice on the world at large.
GMO, most of the time, comes with a whole package, that goes from shady legal practice - altho necessary, to a certain extent, to assure profit - intensive farming and monoculture that, from my perspective, is not beneficial to our society. It is for that kind of reason that I'd prefer a label - and yes it's hypocritical because there are plenty of other goods that bear the same kind or even more problems than the production of GMO, but on those I have no knowledge.
There is also a complete difference between the fact that farmer select the best crop at the end of each year and end up genetically selecting the best strain, with the GMO, for obvious reasons - what it mean for the balance of power between the farmer and the food industry for exemple. Again, Jonny showing what he knows best, nitpicking others and making broad and easy metaphore to support his point of view. How am I nitpicking? My 'broad and easy metaphor' is how the Washington State Academy of Science put it, and how Neil deGrasse Tyson put it as well ( link, link, link). There just isn't a substantial difference between non-GMO genetic modification and GMO genetic modification. Many non-GMO genetic modification techniques use genetic analysis to help isolate the desired traits. It's really not a whole lot different from GMOs. Romanticizing farmers dutifully keeping the best seeds at the end of the harvest is recalling a past that hasn't existed for a long time. Example: Show nested quote +In part to circumvent the controversy surrounding GMOs, fruit and vegetable breeders at both universities and private companies have been turning to an alternative way of modifying the food we eat: a sophisticated approach known as marker-assisted breeding that marries traditional plant breeding with rapidly improving tools for isolating and examining alleles and other sequences of DNA that serve as “markers” for specific traits. Although these tools are not brand-new, they are becoming faster, cheaper and more useful all the time. “The impact of genomics on plant breeding is almost beyond my comprehension,” says Shelley Jansky, a potato breeder who works for both the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the University of Wisconsin–Madison. “To give an example: I had a grad student here five years ago who spent three years trying to identify DNA sequences associated with disease resistance. After hundreds of hours in the lab he ended up with 18 genetic markers. Now I have grad students who can get 8,000 markers for each of 200 individual plants within a matter of weeks. Progress has been exponential in last five years.” linkAs for the business practices that come with GMOs, yes, some 'bad' things occur, but some good things occur as well. Lumping them together doesn't help anyone. GMOs often help farmers use less chemicals and focus on safer chemicals to grow crops - that's a good thing! Yet you want a GMO label so you can ... make bad decisions like assume that GMOs mean negative environmental consequences?
Well the academy of science has an incomplete vision on the subject, and that's perfectly normal in a sense since they're only scientist - their activity is based on cutting reality into "objects" simple enough to be understood. My political and economic vision see this metaphore as stupid.
Nitpicking is your opus operatum.
I've already discussed my problem with GMO and modern agriculture at large in previous posts. I don't believe any good will come from GMO who are commercialized by the private sector, but maybe that's my snobism and ignorance who's talking.
May I add that GMO does not necessarily mean less chemicals.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/07/02/gmo-crops-mean-more-herbicide-not-less/
Over the past 15 years, farmers around the world have planted ever larger tracts of genetically engineered crops.
According to the USDA, in 2012 more than 93 percent of soy planted was “herbicide tolerant,” engineered to withstand herbicides (sold by the same companies who patent and sell the seeds). Likewise, 73 percent of all corn now is also genetically modified to withstand chemicals produced to kill competing weeds.
One of the main arguments behind creating these engineered crops is that farmers then need to use less herbicide and pesticide. This makes farms more eco-friendly, say proponents of genetically modified (GM) crops, and GM seeds also allow farmers to spend less on “inputs” (chemicals), thereby making a greater profit.
But a new study released by Food & Water Watch yesterday finds the goal of reduced chemical use has not panned out as planned. In fact, according to the USDA and EPA data used in the report, the quick adoption of genetically engineered crops by farmers has increased herbicide use over the past 9 years in the U.S. The report follows on the heels of another such study by Washington State University research professor Charles Benbrook just last year.
Both reports focus on “superweeds.” It turns out that spraying a pesticide repeatedly selects for weeds which also resist the chemical. Ever more resistant weeds are then bred, able to withstand increasing amounts – and often different forms – of herbicide.
At the center of debate is the pesticide glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto Round Up. Food & Water Watch found that the “total volume of glyphosate applied to the three biggest GE crops — corn, cotton and soybeans — increased 10-fold from 15 million pounds in 1996 to 159 million pounds in 2012.” Overall pesticide use decreased only in the first few years GE crops were used (42 percent between 1998 and 2001) and has since then risen by 26 percent from 2001 to 2010..
|
On October 24 2014 07:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2014 06:43 WhiteDog wrote:
When I buy vegetable, I check their origin. It's an information that is always given, and it has no impact on the quality of the food : I do that because I prevent myself from buying vegetable from countries that have bad labor pratice / economic practice / environmental practice. I don't want my money to be feeding such practice, and I hope (while knowing it's completly ridiculous) that by my selective buying I will promote better practice in said countries.
It has nothing to do with the idea of a threat of the said food in itself and I saw no people in this thread saying that consuming GM food will increase you chance to get cancer : it is the business practice and the agricultural practice that is in question, and the impact of those practice on the world at large.
GMO, most of the time, comes with a whole package, that goes from shady legal practice - altho necessary, to a certain extent, to assure profit - intensive farming and monoculture that, from my perspective, is not beneficial to our society. It is for that kind of reason that I'd prefer a label - and yes it's hypocritical because there are plenty of other goods that bear the same kind or even more problems than the production of GMO, but on those I have no knowledge.
There is also a complete difference between the fact that farmer select the best crop at the end of each year and end up genetically selecting the best strain, with the GMO, for obvious reasons - what it mean for the balance of power between the farmer and the food industry for exemple. Again, Jonny showing what he knows best, nitpicking others and making broad and easy metaphore to support his point of view. How am I nitpicking? My 'broad and easy metaphor' is how the Washington State Academy of Science put it, and how Neil deGrasse Tyson put it as well ( link, link, link). There just isn't a substantial difference between non-GMO genetic modification and GMO genetic modification. Many non-GMO genetic modification techniques use genetic analysis to help isolate the desired traits. It's really not a whole lot different from GMOs. Romanticizing farmers dutifully keeping the best seeds at the end of the harvest is recalling a past that hasn't existed for a long time. Example: Show nested quote +In part to circumvent the controversy surrounding GMOs, fruit and vegetable breeders at both universities and private companies have been turning to an alternative way of modifying the food we eat: a sophisticated approach known as marker-assisted breeding that marries traditional plant breeding with rapidly improving tools for isolating and examining alleles and other sequences of DNA that serve as “markers” for specific traits. Although these tools are not brand-new, they are becoming faster, cheaper and more useful all the time. “The impact of genomics on plant breeding is almost beyond my comprehension,” says Shelley Jansky, a potato breeder who works for both the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the University of Wisconsin–Madison. “To give an example: I had a grad student here five years ago who spent three years trying to identify DNA sequences associated with disease resistance. After hundreds of hours in the lab he ended up with 18 genetic markers. Now I have grad students who can get 8,000 markers for each of 200 individual plants within a matter of weeks. Progress has been exponential in last five years.” linkAs for the business practices that come with GMOs, yes, some 'bad' things occur, but some good things occur as well. Lumping them together doesn't help anyone. GMOs often help farmers use less chemicals and focus on safer chemicals to grow crops - that's a good thing! Yet you want a GMO label so you can ... make bad decisions like assume that GMOs mean negative environmental consequences?
Everything I see shows pesticide usage going up. Yet I keep seeing it repeated that GM "farmers use less chemicals". Was there a source for that I looked over? A crop designed to withstand higher levels of 'cides seems like it is a response toward using more 'cides not less?
One of the main arguments behind creating these engineered crops is that farmers then need to use less herbicide and pesticide. This makes farms more eco-friendly, say proponents of genetically modified (GM) crops, and GM seeds also allow farmers to spend less on “inputs” (chemicals), thereby making a greater profit.
But a new study released by Food & Water Watch yesterday finds the goal of reduced chemical use has not panned out as planned. In fact, according to the USDA and EPA data used in the report, the quick adoption of genetically engineered crops by farmers has increased herbicide use over the past 9 years in the U.S. The report follows on the heels of another such study by Washington State University research professor Charles Benbrook just last year.
Both reports focus on “superweeds.” It turns out that spraying a pesticide repeatedly selects for weeds which also resist the chemical. Ever more resistant weeds are then bred, able to withstand increasing amounts – and often different forms – of herbicide.
At the center of debate is the pesticide glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto MON -0.59%‘s Round Up. Food & Water Watch found that the “total volume of glyphosate applied to the three biggest GE crops — corn, cotton and soybeans — increased 10-fold from 15 million pounds in 1996 to 159 million pounds in 2012.” Overall pesticide use decreased only in the first few years GE crops were used (42 percent between 1998 and 2001) and has since then risen by 26 percent from 2001 to 2010.
By 2011 there were also three times as many herbicide-resistant weeds found in farmer’s fields as there were in 2001.
Source
|
On October 24 2014 07:47 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2014 07:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 24 2014 06:43 WhiteDog wrote:
When I buy vegetable, I check their origin. It's an information that is always given, and it has no impact on the quality of the food : I do that because I prevent myself from buying vegetable from countries that have bad labor pratice / economic practice / environmental practice. I don't want my money to be feeding such practice, and I hope (while knowing it's completly ridiculous) that by my selective buying I will promote better practice in said countries.
It has nothing to do with the idea of a threat of the said food in itself and I saw no people in this thread saying that consuming GM food will increase you chance to get cancer : it is the business practice and the agricultural practice that is in question, and the impact of those practice on the world at large.
GMO, most of the time, comes with a whole package, that goes from shady legal practice - altho necessary, to a certain extent, to assure profit - intensive farming and monoculture that, from my perspective, is not beneficial to our society. It is for that kind of reason that I'd prefer a label - and yes it's hypocritical because there are plenty of other goods that bear the same kind or even more problems than the production of GMO, but on those I have no knowledge.
There is also a complete difference between the fact that farmer select the best crop at the end of each year and end up genetically selecting the best strain, with the GMO, for obvious reasons - what it mean for the balance of power between the farmer and the food industry for exemple. Again, Jonny showing what he knows best, nitpicking others and making broad and easy metaphore to support his point of view. How am I nitpicking? My 'broad and easy metaphor' is how the Washington State Academy of Science put it, and how Neil deGrasse Tyson put it as well ( link, link, link). There just isn't a substantial difference between non-GMO genetic modification and GMO genetic modification. Many non-GMO genetic modification techniques use genetic analysis to help isolate the desired traits. It's really not a whole lot different from GMOs. Romanticizing farmers dutifully keeping the best seeds at the end of the harvest is recalling a past that hasn't existed for a long time. Example: In part to circumvent the controversy surrounding GMOs, fruit and vegetable breeders at both universities and private companies have been turning to an alternative way of modifying the food we eat: a sophisticated approach known as marker-assisted breeding that marries traditional plant breeding with rapidly improving tools for isolating and examining alleles and other sequences of DNA that serve as “markers” for specific traits. Although these tools are not brand-new, they are becoming faster, cheaper and more useful all the time. “The impact of genomics on plant breeding is almost beyond my comprehension,” says Shelley Jansky, a potato breeder who works for both the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the University of Wisconsin–Madison. “To give an example: I had a grad student here five years ago who spent three years trying to identify DNA sequences associated with disease resistance. After hundreds of hours in the lab he ended up with 18 genetic markers. Now I have grad students who can get 8,000 markers for each of 200 individual plants within a matter of weeks. Progress has been exponential in last five years.” linkAs for the business practices that come with GMOs, yes, some 'bad' things occur, but some good things occur as well. Lumping them together doesn't help anyone. GMOs often help farmers use less chemicals and focus on safer chemicals to grow crops - that's a good thing! Yet you want a GMO label so you can ... make bad decisions like assume that GMOs mean negative environmental consequences? Well the academy of science has an incomplete vision on the subject, and that's perfectly normal in a sense since they're only scientist - their activity is based on cutting reality into "objects" simple enough to be understood. My political and economic vision see this metaphore as stupid. Nitpicking is your opus operatum. I've already discussed my problem with GMO and modern agriculture at large in previous posts. I don't believe any good will come from GMO who are commercialized by the private sector, but maybe that's my snobism and ignorance who's talking. May I add that GMO does not necessarily mean less chemicals. http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/07/02/gmo-crops-mean-more-herbicide-not-less/Show nested quote +Over the past 15 years, farmers around the world have planted ever larger tracts of genetically engineered crops.
According to the USDA, in 2012 more than 93 percent of soy planted was “herbicide tolerant,” engineered to withstand herbicides (sold by the same companies who patent and sell the seeds). Likewise, 73 percent of all corn now is also genetically modified to withstand chemicals produced to kill competing weeds.
One of the main arguments behind creating these engineered crops is that farmers then need to use less herbicide and pesticide. This makes farms more eco-friendly, say proponents of genetically modified (GM) crops, and GM seeds also allow farmers to spend less on “inputs” (chemicals), thereby making a greater profit.
But a new study released by Food & Water Watch yesterday finds the goal of reduced chemical use has not panned out as planned. In fact, according to the USDA and EPA data used in the report, the quick adoption of genetically engineered crops by farmers has increased herbicide use over the past 9 years in the U.S. The report follows on the heels of another such study by Washington State University research professor Charles Benbrook just last year.
Both reports focus on “superweeds.” It turns out that spraying a pesticide repeatedly selects for weeds which also resist the chemical. Ever more resistant weeds are then bred, able to withstand increasing amounts – and often different forms – of herbicide.
At the center of debate is the pesticide glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto Round Up. Food & Water Watch found that the “total volume of glyphosate applied to the three biggest GE crops — corn, cotton and soybeans — increased 10-fold from 15 million pounds in 1996 to 159 million pounds in 2012.” Overall pesticide use decreased only in the first few years GE crops were used (42 percent between 1998 and 2001) and has since then risen by 26 percent from 2001 to 2010..
Plantings went up as well, so your source isn't really accurate.
Here's USDA:
![[image loading]](http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1284474/march14_feature_fernandez_fig03.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1284511/march14_feature_fernandez_fig04.png)
Herbicide use dipped down then back up a bit, but...
Despite the relatively minor effect HT [Herbicide-tolerant] crop adoption has had on overall herbicide usage, HT crop adoption has enabled farmers to substitute glyphosate (which many HT crops are designed to tolerate) for more traditional herbicides. Because glyphosate is significantly less toxic and less persistent than traditional herbicides, the net impact of HT crop adoption is an improvement in environmental quality and a reduction in health risks. link
But please keep citing misinformation, you're making my case for me 
Edit: To GH - if you plant more corn you use more chemicals. If you switch to a safer chemical you will use more of the safer chemical.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
not all herbicides are created equal. glyphosate is among the safest ever devised, but of course just like antibiotics natural selection will eventually develop the same resistance in wild grass.
those grass are not "super weed" though, they are just resistant to glyphosate. it's not like MRSA where you are running out of options to fight it
|
On October 24 2014 08:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2014 07:47 WhiteDog wrote:On October 24 2014 07:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 24 2014 06:43 WhiteDog wrote:
When I buy vegetable, I check their origin. It's an information that is always given, and it has no impact on the quality of the food : I do that because I prevent myself from buying vegetable from countries that have bad labor pratice / economic practice / environmental practice. I don't want my money to be feeding such practice, and I hope (while knowing it's completly ridiculous) that by my selective buying I will promote better practice in said countries.
It has nothing to do with the idea of a threat of the said food in itself and I saw no people in this thread saying that consuming GM food will increase you chance to get cancer : it is the business practice and the agricultural practice that is in question, and the impact of those practice on the world at large.
GMO, most of the time, comes with a whole package, that goes from shady legal practice - altho necessary, to a certain extent, to assure profit - intensive farming and monoculture that, from my perspective, is not beneficial to our society. It is for that kind of reason that I'd prefer a label - and yes it's hypocritical because there are plenty of other goods that bear the same kind or even more problems than the production of GMO, but on those I have no knowledge.
There is also a complete difference between the fact that farmer select the best crop at the end of each year and end up genetically selecting the best strain, with the GMO, for obvious reasons - what it mean for the balance of power between the farmer and the food industry for exemple. Again, Jonny showing what he knows best, nitpicking others and making broad and easy metaphore to support his point of view. How am I nitpicking? My 'broad and easy metaphor' is how the Washington State Academy of Science put it, and how Neil deGrasse Tyson put it as well ( link, link, link). There just isn't a substantial difference between non-GMO genetic modification and GMO genetic modification. Many non-GMO genetic modification techniques use genetic analysis to help isolate the desired traits. It's really not a whole lot different from GMOs. Romanticizing farmers dutifully keeping the best seeds at the end of the harvest is recalling a past that hasn't existed for a long time. Example: In part to circumvent the controversy surrounding GMOs, fruit and vegetable breeders at both universities and private companies have been turning to an alternative way of modifying the food we eat: a sophisticated approach known as marker-assisted breeding that marries traditional plant breeding with rapidly improving tools for isolating and examining alleles and other sequences of DNA that serve as “markers” for specific traits. Although these tools are not brand-new, they are becoming faster, cheaper and more useful all the time. “The impact of genomics on plant breeding is almost beyond my comprehension,” says Shelley Jansky, a potato breeder who works for both the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the University of Wisconsin–Madison. “To give an example: I had a grad student here five years ago who spent three years trying to identify DNA sequences associated with disease resistance. After hundreds of hours in the lab he ended up with 18 genetic markers. Now I have grad students who can get 8,000 markers for each of 200 individual plants within a matter of weeks. Progress has been exponential in last five years.” linkAs for the business practices that come with GMOs, yes, some 'bad' things occur, but some good things occur as well. Lumping them together doesn't help anyone. GMOs often help farmers use less chemicals and focus on safer chemicals to grow crops - that's a good thing! Yet you want a GMO label so you can ... make bad decisions like assume that GMOs mean negative environmental consequences? Well the academy of science has an incomplete vision on the subject, and that's perfectly normal in a sense since they're only scientist - their activity is based on cutting reality into "objects" simple enough to be understood. My political and economic vision see this metaphore as stupid. Nitpicking is your opus operatum. I've already discussed my problem with GMO and modern agriculture at large in previous posts. I don't believe any good will come from GMO who are commercialized by the private sector, but maybe that's my snobism and ignorance who's talking. May I add that GMO does not necessarily mean less chemicals. http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/07/02/gmo-crops-mean-more-herbicide-not-less/Over the past 15 years, farmers around the world have planted ever larger tracts of genetically engineered crops.
According to the USDA, in 2012 more than 93 percent of soy planted was “herbicide tolerant,” engineered to withstand herbicides (sold by the same companies who patent and sell the seeds). Likewise, 73 percent of all corn now is also genetically modified to withstand chemicals produced to kill competing weeds.
One of the main arguments behind creating these engineered crops is that farmers then need to use less herbicide and pesticide. This makes farms more eco-friendly, say proponents of genetically modified (GM) crops, and GM seeds also allow farmers to spend less on “inputs” (chemicals), thereby making a greater profit.
But a new study released by Food & Water Watch yesterday finds the goal of reduced chemical use has not panned out as planned. In fact, according to the USDA and EPA data used in the report, the quick adoption of genetically engineered crops by farmers has increased herbicide use over the past 9 years in the U.S. The report follows on the heels of another such study by Washington State University research professor Charles Benbrook just last year.
Both reports focus on “superweeds.” It turns out that spraying a pesticide repeatedly selects for weeds which also resist the chemical. Ever more resistant weeds are then bred, able to withstand increasing amounts – and often different forms – of herbicide.
At the center of debate is the pesticide glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto Round Up. Food & Water Watch found that the “total volume of glyphosate applied to the three biggest GE crops — corn, cotton and soybeans — increased 10-fold from 15 million pounds in 1996 to 159 million pounds in 2012.” Overall pesticide use decreased only in the first few years GE crops were used (42 percent between 1998 and 2001) and has since then risen by 26 percent from 2001 to 2010.. Plantings went up as well, so your source isn't really accurate. Here's USDA: Herbicide use dipped down then back up a bit, but... Show nested quote +Despite the relatively minor effect HT [Herbicide-tolerant] crop adoption has had on overall herbicide usage, HT crop adoption has enabled farmers to substitute glyphosate (which many HT crops are designed to tolerate) for more traditional herbicides. Because glyphosate is significantly less toxic and less persistent than traditional herbicides, the net impact of HT crop adoption is an improvement in environmental quality and a reduction in health risks. linkBut please keep citing misinformation, you're making my case for me Edit: To GH - if you plant more corn you use more chemicals. If you switch to a safer chemical you will use more of the safer chemical.
My source is perfectly accurate, and I never said that chemicals went up with GMO : I carefully said that it does not necessarily mean a decrease in chemical usage. I know perfectly well that the ratio between chemical and unit produced hasn't went up, but absolute chemicals has gone up (which is what the article I quoted is about).
GMO is used as a tool to continue and pursue a specific agricultural production process that is, in my opinion, detrimental to our society. It's perfectly understandable if you take into consideration the fact that Mosanto produce both GMO and pesticide - they have an incentive to make those two products dependant on one another.
The simple fact that weed create a resistance to the heavy usage of said pesticide will force Mosanto and the like to create new pesticide, more efficient in killing weed and also more dangerous for the eco system. In the long run, we might even create an eco system entirely resistant to natural means of production and we will be forced to use even more pesticide, completly dependant on firms who produce those goods.
|
On October 24 2014 08:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2014 07:47 WhiteDog wrote:On October 24 2014 07:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 24 2014 06:43 WhiteDog wrote:
When I buy vegetable, I check their origin. It's an information that is always given, and it has no impact on the quality of the food : I do that because I prevent myself from buying vegetable from countries that have bad labor pratice / economic practice / environmental practice. I don't want my money to be feeding such practice, and I hope (while knowing it's completly ridiculous) that by my selective buying I will promote better practice in said countries.
It has nothing to do with the idea of a threat of the said food in itself and I saw no people in this thread saying that consuming GM food will increase you chance to get cancer : it is the business practice and the agricultural practice that is in question, and the impact of those practice on the world at large.
GMO, most of the time, comes with a whole package, that goes from shady legal practice - altho necessary, to a certain extent, to assure profit - intensive farming and monoculture that, from my perspective, is not beneficial to our society. It is for that kind of reason that I'd prefer a label - and yes it's hypocritical because there are plenty of other goods that bear the same kind or even more problems than the production of GMO, but on those I have no knowledge.
There is also a complete difference between the fact that farmer select the best crop at the end of each year and end up genetically selecting the best strain, with the GMO, for obvious reasons - what it mean for the balance of power between the farmer and the food industry for exemple. Again, Jonny showing what he knows best, nitpicking others and making broad and easy metaphore to support his point of view. How am I nitpicking? My 'broad and easy metaphor' is how the Washington State Academy of Science put it, and how Neil deGrasse Tyson put it as well ( link, link, link). There just isn't a substantial difference between non-GMO genetic modification and GMO genetic modification. Many non-GMO genetic modification techniques use genetic analysis to help isolate the desired traits. It's really not a whole lot different from GMOs. Romanticizing farmers dutifully keeping the best seeds at the end of the harvest is recalling a past that hasn't existed for a long time. Example: In part to circumvent the controversy surrounding GMOs, fruit and vegetable breeders at both universities and private companies have been turning to an alternative way of modifying the food we eat: a sophisticated approach known as marker-assisted breeding that marries traditional plant breeding with rapidly improving tools for isolating and examining alleles and other sequences of DNA that serve as “markers” for specific traits. Although these tools are not brand-new, they are becoming faster, cheaper and more useful all the time. “The impact of genomics on plant breeding is almost beyond my comprehension,” says Shelley Jansky, a potato breeder who works for both the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the University of Wisconsin–Madison. “To give an example: I had a grad student here five years ago who spent three years trying to identify DNA sequences associated with disease resistance. After hundreds of hours in the lab he ended up with 18 genetic markers. Now I have grad students who can get 8,000 markers for each of 200 individual plants within a matter of weeks. Progress has been exponential in last five years.” linkAs for the business practices that come with GMOs, yes, some 'bad' things occur, but some good things occur as well. Lumping them together doesn't help anyone. GMOs often help farmers use less chemicals and focus on safer chemicals to grow crops - that's a good thing! Yet you want a GMO label so you can ... make bad decisions like assume that GMOs mean negative environmental consequences? Well the academy of science has an incomplete vision on the subject, and that's perfectly normal in a sense since they're only scientist - their activity is based on cutting reality into "objects" simple enough to be understood. My political and economic vision see this metaphore as stupid. Nitpicking is your opus operatum. I've already discussed my problem with GMO and modern agriculture at large in previous posts. I don't believe any good will come from GMO who are commercialized by the private sector, but maybe that's my snobism and ignorance who's talking. May I add that GMO does not necessarily mean less chemicals. http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/07/02/gmo-crops-mean-more-herbicide-not-less/Over the past 15 years, farmers around the world have planted ever larger tracts of genetically engineered crops.
According to the USDA, in 2012 more than 93 percent of soy planted was “herbicide tolerant,” engineered to withstand herbicides (sold by the same companies who patent and sell the seeds). Likewise, 73 percent of all corn now is also genetically modified to withstand chemicals produced to kill competing weeds.
One of the main arguments behind creating these engineered crops is that farmers then need to use less herbicide and pesticide. This makes farms more eco-friendly, say proponents of genetically modified (GM) crops, and GM seeds also allow farmers to spend less on “inputs” (chemicals), thereby making a greater profit.
But a new study released by Food & Water Watch yesterday finds the goal of reduced chemical use has not panned out as planned. In fact, according to the USDA and EPA data used in the report, the quick adoption of genetically engineered crops by farmers has increased herbicide use over the past 9 years in the U.S. The report follows on the heels of another such study by Washington State University research professor Charles Benbrook just last year.
Both reports focus on “superweeds.” It turns out that spraying a pesticide repeatedly selects for weeds which also resist the chemical. Ever more resistant weeds are then bred, able to withstand increasing amounts – and often different forms – of herbicide.
At the center of debate is the pesticide glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto Round Up. Food & Water Watch found that the “total volume of glyphosate applied to the three biggest GE crops — corn, cotton and soybeans — increased 10-fold from 15 million pounds in 1996 to 159 million pounds in 2012.” Overall pesticide use decreased only in the first few years GE crops were used (42 percent between 1998 and 2001) and has since then risen by 26 percent from 2001 to 2010.. Plantings went up as well, so your source isn't really accurate. Here's USDA: Herbicide use dipped down then back up a bit, but... Show nested quote +Despite the relatively minor effect HT [Herbicide-tolerant] crop adoption has had on overall herbicide usage, HT crop adoption has enabled farmers to substitute glyphosate (which many HT crops are designed to tolerate) for more traditional herbicides. Because glyphosate is significantly less toxic and less persistent than traditional herbicides, the net impact of HT crop adoption is an improvement in environmental quality and a reduction in health risks. linkBut please keep citing misinformation, you're making my case for me Edit: To GH - if you plant more corn you use more chemicals. If you switch to a safer chemical you will use more of the safer chemical.
So herbicide use is up. Not just in general like you suggest but per acre. Isuppose increased production could make up for the difference...
I just don't get the logic of how a more resistant plant designed to be sprayed more ends up getting sprayed less?
|
On October 24 2014 08:27 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2014 08:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 24 2014 07:47 WhiteDog wrote:On October 24 2014 07:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 24 2014 06:43 WhiteDog wrote:
When I buy vegetable, I check their origin. It's an information that is always given, and it has no impact on the quality of the food : I do that because I prevent myself from buying vegetable from countries that have bad labor pratice / economic practice / environmental practice. I don't want my money to be feeding such practice, and I hope (while knowing it's completly ridiculous) that by my selective buying I will promote better practice in said countries.
It has nothing to do with the idea of a threat of the said food in itself and I saw no people in this thread saying that consuming GM food will increase you chance to get cancer : it is the business practice and the agricultural practice that is in question, and the impact of those practice on the world at large.
GMO, most of the time, comes with a whole package, that goes from shady legal practice - altho necessary, to a certain extent, to assure profit - intensive farming and monoculture that, from my perspective, is not beneficial to our society. It is for that kind of reason that I'd prefer a label - and yes it's hypocritical because there are plenty of other goods that bear the same kind or even more problems than the production of GMO, but on those I have no knowledge.
There is also a complete difference between the fact that farmer select the best crop at the end of each year and end up genetically selecting the best strain, with the GMO, for obvious reasons - what it mean for the balance of power between the farmer and the food industry for exemple. Again, Jonny showing what he knows best, nitpicking others and making broad and easy metaphore to support his point of view. How am I nitpicking? My 'broad and easy metaphor' is how the Washington State Academy of Science put it, and how Neil deGrasse Tyson put it as well ( link, link, link). There just isn't a substantial difference between non-GMO genetic modification and GMO genetic modification. Many non-GMO genetic modification techniques use genetic analysis to help isolate the desired traits. It's really not a whole lot different from GMOs. Romanticizing farmers dutifully keeping the best seeds at the end of the harvest is recalling a past that hasn't existed for a long time. Example: In part to circumvent the controversy surrounding GMOs, fruit and vegetable breeders at both universities and private companies have been turning to an alternative way of modifying the food we eat: a sophisticated approach known as marker-assisted breeding that marries traditional plant breeding with rapidly improving tools for isolating and examining alleles and other sequences of DNA that serve as “markers” for specific traits. Although these tools are not brand-new, they are becoming faster, cheaper and more useful all the time. “The impact of genomics on plant breeding is almost beyond my comprehension,” says Shelley Jansky, a potato breeder who works for both the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the University of Wisconsin–Madison. “To give an example: I had a grad student here five years ago who spent three years trying to identify DNA sequences associated with disease resistance. After hundreds of hours in the lab he ended up with 18 genetic markers. Now I have grad students who can get 8,000 markers for each of 200 individual plants within a matter of weeks. Progress has been exponential in last five years.” linkAs for the business practices that come with GMOs, yes, some 'bad' things occur, but some good things occur as well. Lumping them together doesn't help anyone. GMOs often help farmers use less chemicals and focus on safer chemicals to grow crops - that's a good thing! Yet you want a GMO label so you can ... make bad decisions like assume that GMOs mean negative environmental consequences? Well the academy of science has an incomplete vision on the subject, and that's perfectly normal in a sense since they're only scientist - their activity is based on cutting reality into "objects" simple enough to be understood. My political and economic vision see this metaphore as stupid. Nitpicking is your opus operatum. I've already discussed my problem with GMO and modern agriculture at large in previous posts. I don't believe any good will come from GMO who are commercialized by the private sector, but maybe that's my snobism and ignorance who's talking. May I add that GMO does not necessarily mean less chemicals. http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/07/02/gmo-crops-mean-more-herbicide-not-less/Over the past 15 years, farmers around the world have planted ever larger tracts of genetically engineered crops.
According to the USDA, in 2012 more than 93 percent of soy planted was “herbicide tolerant,” engineered to withstand herbicides (sold by the same companies who patent and sell the seeds). Likewise, 73 percent of all corn now is also genetically modified to withstand chemicals produced to kill competing weeds.
One of the main arguments behind creating these engineered crops is that farmers then need to use less herbicide and pesticide. This makes farms more eco-friendly, say proponents of genetically modified (GM) crops, and GM seeds also allow farmers to spend less on “inputs” (chemicals), thereby making a greater profit.
But a new study released by Food & Water Watch yesterday finds the goal of reduced chemical use has not panned out as planned. In fact, according to the USDA and EPA data used in the report, the quick adoption of genetically engineered crops by farmers has increased herbicide use over the past 9 years in the U.S. The report follows on the heels of another such study by Washington State University research professor Charles Benbrook just last year.
Both reports focus on “superweeds.” It turns out that spraying a pesticide repeatedly selects for weeds which also resist the chemical. Ever more resistant weeds are then bred, able to withstand increasing amounts – and often different forms – of herbicide.
At the center of debate is the pesticide glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto Round Up. Food & Water Watch found that the “total volume of glyphosate applied to the three biggest GE crops — corn, cotton and soybeans — increased 10-fold from 15 million pounds in 1996 to 159 million pounds in 2012.” Overall pesticide use decreased only in the first few years GE crops were used (42 percent between 1998 and 2001) and has since then risen by 26 percent from 2001 to 2010.. Plantings went up as well, so your source isn't really accurate. Here's USDA: Herbicide use dipped down then back up a bit, but... Despite the relatively minor effect HT [Herbicide-tolerant] crop adoption has had on overall herbicide usage, HT crop adoption has enabled farmers to substitute glyphosate (which many HT crops are designed to tolerate) for more traditional herbicides. Because glyphosate is significantly less toxic and less persistent than traditional herbicides, the net impact of HT crop adoption is an improvement in environmental quality and a reduction in health risks. linkBut please keep citing misinformation, you're making my case for me Edit: To GH - if you plant more corn you use more chemicals. If you switch to a safer chemical you will use more of the safer chemical. My source is perfectly accurate, and I never said that chemicals went up with GMO : I carefully said that it does not necessarily mean a decrease in chemical usage. I know perfectly well that the ratio between chemical and production hasn't went up, but absolute chemicals has gone up. GMO is used as a tool to continue and pursue a specific agricultural production process that is, in my opinion, detrimental to our society. The simple fact that weed create a resistance to the heavy usage of said pesticide will force Mosanto and the like to create new pesticide, more efficient in killing weed and also more dangerous for the eco system. In the long run, well you might understand the end result.
Citing absolute numbers is bad. GMOs have lead to a decrease in insecticide use, and a move to safer herbicides. The only other statement you can make is that organics would have lead to greater reduction in insecticide / herbicide use. An increase in chemical use due to an increase in production is NOT the same as an increase in chemical use due to GMOs. I know you understand this...
Having to create new pesticides has nothing to do with GMOs. Resistances to glycines has been weaker than with many other herbicides:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On October 24 2014 08:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2014 08:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 24 2014 07:47 WhiteDog wrote:On October 24 2014 07:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 24 2014 06:43 WhiteDog wrote:
When I buy vegetable, I check their origin. It's an information that is always given, and it has no impact on the quality of the food : I do that because I prevent myself from buying vegetable from countries that have bad labor pratice / economic practice / environmental practice. I don't want my money to be feeding such practice, and I hope (while knowing it's completly ridiculous) that by my selective buying I will promote better practice in said countries.
It has nothing to do with the idea of a threat of the said food in itself and I saw no people in this thread saying that consuming GM food will increase you chance to get cancer : it is the business practice and the agricultural practice that is in question, and the impact of those practice on the world at large.
GMO, most of the time, comes with a whole package, that goes from shady legal practice - altho necessary, to a certain extent, to assure profit - intensive farming and monoculture that, from my perspective, is not beneficial to our society. It is for that kind of reason that I'd prefer a label - and yes it's hypocritical because there are plenty of other goods that bear the same kind or even more problems than the production of GMO, but on those I have no knowledge.
There is also a complete difference between the fact that farmer select the best crop at the end of each year and end up genetically selecting the best strain, with the GMO, for obvious reasons - what it mean for the balance of power between the farmer and the food industry for exemple. Again, Jonny showing what he knows best, nitpicking others and making broad and easy metaphore to support his point of view. How am I nitpicking? My 'broad and easy metaphor' is how the Washington State Academy of Science put it, and how Neil deGrasse Tyson put it as well ( link, link, link). There just isn't a substantial difference between non-GMO genetic modification and GMO genetic modification. Many non-GMO genetic modification techniques use genetic analysis to help isolate the desired traits. It's really not a whole lot different from GMOs. Romanticizing farmers dutifully keeping the best seeds at the end of the harvest is recalling a past that hasn't existed for a long time. Example: In part to circumvent the controversy surrounding GMOs, fruit and vegetable breeders at both universities and private companies have been turning to an alternative way of modifying the food we eat: a sophisticated approach known as marker-assisted breeding that marries traditional plant breeding with rapidly improving tools for isolating and examining alleles and other sequences of DNA that serve as “markers” for specific traits. Although these tools are not brand-new, they are becoming faster, cheaper and more useful all the time. “The impact of genomics on plant breeding is almost beyond my comprehension,” says Shelley Jansky, a potato breeder who works for both the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the University of Wisconsin–Madison. “To give an example: I had a grad student here five years ago who spent three years trying to identify DNA sequences associated with disease resistance. After hundreds of hours in the lab he ended up with 18 genetic markers. Now I have grad students who can get 8,000 markers for each of 200 individual plants within a matter of weeks. Progress has been exponential in last five years.” linkAs for the business practices that come with GMOs, yes, some 'bad' things occur, but some good things occur as well. Lumping them together doesn't help anyone. GMOs often help farmers use less chemicals and focus on safer chemicals to grow crops - that's a good thing! Yet you want a GMO label so you can ... make bad decisions like assume that GMOs mean negative environmental consequences? Well the academy of science has an incomplete vision on the subject, and that's perfectly normal in a sense since they're only scientist - their activity is based on cutting reality into "objects" simple enough to be understood. My political and economic vision see this metaphore as stupid. Nitpicking is your opus operatum. I've already discussed my problem with GMO and modern agriculture at large in previous posts. I don't believe any good will come from GMO who are commercialized by the private sector, but maybe that's my snobism and ignorance who's talking. May I add that GMO does not necessarily mean less chemicals. http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/07/02/gmo-crops-mean-more-herbicide-not-less/Over the past 15 years, farmers around the world have planted ever larger tracts of genetically engineered crops.
According to the USDA, in 2012 more than 93 percent of soy planted was “herbicide tolerant,” engineered to withstand herbicides (sold by the same companies who patent and sell the seeds). Likewise, 73 percent of all corn now is also genetically modified to withstand chemicals produced to kill competing weeds.
One of the main arguments behind creating these engineered crops is that farmers then need to use less herbicide and pesticide. This makes farms more eco-friendly, say proponents of genetically modified (GM) crops, and GM seeds also allow farmers to spend less on “inputs” (chemicals), thereby making a greater profit.
But a new study released by Food & Water Watch yesterday finds the goal of reduced chemical use has not panned out as planned. In fact, according to the USDA and EPA data used in the report, the quick adoption of genetically engineered crops by farmers has increased herbicide use over the past 9 years in the U.S. The report follows on the heels of another such study by Washington State University research professor Charles Benbrook just last year.
Both reports focus on “superweeds.” It turns out that spraying a pesticide repeatedly selects for weeds which also resist the chemical. Ever more resistant weeds are then bred, able to withstand increasing amounts – and often different forms – of herbicide.
At the center of debate is the pesticide glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto Round Up. Food & Water Watch found that the “total volume of glyphosate applied to the three biggest GE crops — corn, cotton and soybeans — increased 10-fold from 15 million pounds in 1996 to 159 million pounds in 2012.” Overall pesticide use decreased only in the first few years GE crops were used (42 percent between 1998 and 2001) and has since then risen by 26 percent from 2001 to 2010.. Plantings went up as well, so your source isn't really accurate. Here's USDA: Herbicide use dipped down then back up a bit, but... Despite the relatively minor effect HT [Herbicide-tolerant] crop adoption has had on overall herbicide usage, HT crop adoption has enabled farmers to substitute glyphosate (which many HT crops are designed to tolerate) for more traditional herbicides. Because glyphosate is significantly less toxic and less persistent than traditional herbicides, the net impact of HT crop adoption is an improvement in environmental quality and a reduction in health risks. linkBut please keep citing misinformation, you're making my case for me Edit: To GH - if you plant more corn you use more chemicals. If you switch to a safer chemical you will use more of the safer chemical. So herbicide use is up. Not just in general like you suggest but per acre. Isuppose increased production could make up for the difference... I just don't get the logic of how a more resistant plant designed to be sprayed more ends up getting sprayed less?
It's not designed to be sprayed more. It's designed to be tolerant to a specific herbicide. You spray it more with the specific, safer herbicide and spray it less (or not at all) with the more dangerous stuff.
|
There’s nothing nice about jail. The food stinks. There’s nothing to do. People are in a bad mood. The best you can hope for is to get out quickly with minimal hassle. One of the few things you have to look forward to is a visit from a friend or a loved one—a brief face-to-face connection to remind you that the world is waiting on the other side of the glass. But some Texas jails are eliminating in-person visitation and requiring instead the use of a video visitation system sold by Dallas-based Securus Technologies. Critics say it’s an outrageous profiteering scheme that has no policy rationale and could actually deteriorate security at jails.
Securus markets its video system as a cost-saver for jails and a convenience for family members who live far from their incarcerated loved ones. But the structure of the deals suggests there are powerful financial incentives for jails to curb or eliminate face-to-face visitation. Securus charges callers as much as a dollar a minute to use its video services, and jails get a 20 to 25 percent cut. For big-city jails, that could mean millions in extra money.
“We believe Securus sees Texas county jails as a really ripe market for them,” said Kymberlie Quong Charles, an organizer with the prison reform group Grassroots Leadership. Securus, she pointed out, is a major provider of phone services for jails and prisons, but the FCC is cracking down on what it considers exorbitant rates. Video visitation could offer a source of revenue at a time of sagging profits for the industry.
In Dallas, activists and some local leaders, especially County Judge Clay Jenkins, helped kill a contract with Securus that included a provision stipulating that the jail had to eliminate all in-person visits. “It is very important that we do not profit on the backs of inmates in the jail,” Dallas County Commissioner Elba Garcia said in The Dallas Morning News.
The Bastrop County Jail is set to eliminate all face-to-face visitation in early November. Instead, visitors can use a free video terminal at the jail or pay $1 per minute to use the remote video system. The contract, reviewed by the Observer, cuts the county in for 20 percent of Securus’ revenues. It doesn’t require, like the Dallas contract, that in-person visitation be eliminated, but it stipulates that for the first two years the county only gets paid if it produces 534 paid visits per month.
In Austin, the Travis County Commissioners Court voted in October 2012 to add video visitation as an ancillary service—something prisoners’ rights advocates are fine with as long as the rates are reasonable and the service is reliable. But in May 2013, Travis County Sheriff Greg Hamilton quietly eliminated in-person visitation. Defense attorneys and inmates sued in April, claiming that the jail and Securus were unlawfully recording privileged conversations between inmates and attorneys and leaking them to prosecutors. On top of that, Quong Charles says the lack of human interaction is worsening conditions.
Source
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it's absolutely normal for resistances to develop given how evolution works. there is no final solution to pesticides and herbicides just as there won't be a single antibiotic you can use over and over by itself and not expect resistance. superweeds are a misnomer though because the resistant strains arising from sole use of glyphosate are not resistant to other stuff and can be stamped out, but without the benefit of the crop itself resisting.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qiCUIfG.jpg)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-hard-look-at-3-myths-about-genetically-modified-crops/
glyphosate is the safest of the listed.
|
On October 24 2014 08:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2014 08:27 WhiteDog wrote:On October 24 2014 08:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 24 2014 07:47 WhiteDog wrote:On October 24 2014 07:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 24 2014 06:43 WhiteDog wrote:
When I buy vegetable, I check their origin. It's an information that is always given, and it has no impact on the quality of the food : I do that because I prevent myself from buying vegetable from countries that have bad labor pratice / economic practice / environmental practice. I don't want my money to be feeding such practice, and I hope (while knowing it's completly ridiculous) that by my selective buying I will promote better practice in said countries.
It has nothing to do with the idea of a threat of the said food in itself and I saw no people in this thread saying that consuming GM food will increase you chance to get cancer : it is the business practice and the agricultural practice that is in question, and the impact of those practice on the world at large.
GMO, most of the time, comes with a whole package, that goes from shady legal practice - altho necessary, to a certain extent, to assure profit - intensive farming and monoculture that, from my perspective, is not beneficial to our society. It is for that kind of reason that I'd prefer a label - and yes it's hypocritical because there are plenty of other goods that bear the same kind or even more problems than the production of GMO, but on those I have no knowledge.
There is also a complete difference between the fact that farmer select the best crop at the end of each year and end up genetically selecting the best strain, with the GMO, for obvious reasons - what it mean for the balance of power between the farmer and the food industry for exemple. Again, Jonny showing what he knows best, nitpicking others and making broad and easy metaphore to support his point of view. How am I nitpicking? My 'broad and easy metaphor' is how the Washington State Academy of Science put it, and how Neil deGrasse Tyson put it as well ( link, link, link). There just isn't a substantial difference between non-GMO genetic modification and GMO genetic modification. Many non-GMO genetic modification techniques use genetic analysis to help isolate the desired traits. It's really not a whole lot different from GMOs. Romanticizing farmers dutifully keeping the best seeds at the end of the harvest is recalling a past that hasn't existed for a long time. Example: In part to circumvent the controversy surrounding GMOs, fruit and vegetable breeders at both universities and private companies have been turning to an alternative way of modifying the food we eat: a sophisticated approach known as marker-assisted breeding that marries traditional plant breeding with rapidly improving tools for isolating and examining alleles and other sequences of DNA that serve as “markers” for specific traits. Although these tools are not brand-new, they are becoming faster, cheaper and more useful all the time. “The impact of genomics on plant breeding is almost beyond my comprehension,” says Shelley Jansky, a potato breeder who works for both the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the University of Wisconsin–Madison. “To give an example: I had a grad student here five years ago who spent three years trying to identify DNA sequences associated with disease resistance. After hundreds of hours in the lab he ended up with 18 genetic markers. Now I have grad students who can get 8,000 markers for each of 200 individual plants within a matter of weeks. Progress has been exponential in last five years.” linkAs for the business practices that come with GMOs, yes, some 'bad' things occur, but some good things occur as well. Lumping them together doesn't help anyone. GMOs often help farmers use less chemicals and focus on safer chemicals to grow crops - that's a good thing! Yet you want a GMO label so you can ... make bad decisions like assume that GMOs mean negative environmental consequences? Well the academy of science has an incomplete vision on the subject, and that's perfectly normal in a sense since they're only scientist - their activity is based on cutting reality into "objects" simple enough to be understood. My political and economic vision see this metaphore as stupid. Nitpicking is your opus operatum. I've already discussed my problem with GMO and modern agriculture at large in previous posts. I don't believe any good will come from GMO who are commercialized by the private sector, but maybe that's my snobism and ignorance who's talking. May I add that GMO does not necessarily mean less chemicals. http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/07/02/gmo-crops-mean-more-herbicide-not-less/Over the past 15 years, farmers around the world have planted ever larger tracts of genetically engineered crops.
According to the USDA, in 2012 more than 93 percent of soy planted was “herbicide tolerant,” engineered to withstand herbicides (sold by the same companies who patent and sell the seeds). Likewise, 73 percent of all corn now is also genetically modified to withstand chemicals produced to kill competing weeds.
One of the main arguments behind creating these engineered crops is that farmers then need to use less herbicide and pesticide. This makes farms more eco-friendly, say proponents of genetically modified (GM) crops, and GM seeds also allow farmers to spend less on “inputs” (chemicals), thereby making a greater profit.
But a new study released by Food & Water Watch yesterday finds the goal of reduced chemical use has not panned out as planned. In fact, according to the USDA and EPA data used in the report, the quick adoption of genetically engineered crops by farmers has increased herbicide use over the past 9 years in the U.S. The report follows on the heels of another such study by Washington State University research professor Charles Benbrook just last year.
Both reports focus on “superweeds.” It turns out that spraying a pesticide repeatedly selects for weeds which also resist the chemical. Ever more resistant weeds are then bred, able to withstand increasing amounts – and often different forms – of herbicide.
At the center of debate is the pesticide glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto Round Up. Food & Water Watch found that the “total volume of glyphosate applied to the three biggest GE crops — corn, cotton and soybeans — increased 10-fold from 15 million pounds in 1996 to 159 million pounds in 2012.” Overall pesticide use decreased only in the first few years GE crops were used (42 percent between 1998 and 2001) and has since then risen by 26 percent from 2001 to 2010.. Plantings went up as well, so your source isn't really accurate. Here's USDA: Herbicide use dipped down then back up a bit, but... Despite the relatively minor effect HT [Herbicide-tolerant] crop adoption has had on overall herbicide usage, HT crop adoption has enabled farmers to substitute glyphosate (which many HT crops are designed to tolerate) for more traditional herbicides. Because glyphosate is significantly less toxic and less persistent than traditional herbicides, the net impact of HT crop adoption is an improvement in environmental quality and a reduction in health risks. linkBut please keep citing misinformation, you're making my case for me Edit: To GH - if you plant more corn you use more chemicals. If you switch to a safer chemical you will use more of the safer chemical. My source is perfectly accurate, and I never said that chemicals went up with GMO : I carefully said that it does not necessarily mean a decrease in chemical usage. I know perfectly well that the ratio between chemical and production hasn't went up, but absolute chemicals has gone up. GMO is used as a tool to continue and pursue a specific agricultural production process that is, in my opinion, detrimental to our society. The simple fact that weed create a resistance to the heavy usage of said pesticide will force Mosanto and the like to create new pesticide, more efficient in killing weed and also more dangerous for the eco system. In the long run, well you might understand the end result. Citing absolute numbers is bad. GMOs have lead to a decrease in insecticide use, and a move to safer herbicides. The only other statement you can make is that organics would have lead to greater reduction in insecticide / herbicide use. An increase in chemical use due to an increase in production is NOT the same as an increase in chemical use due to GMOs. I know you understand this... Having to create new pesticides has nothing to do with GMOs. Resistances to glycines has been weaker than with many other herbicides: + Show Spoiler +
Absolute numbers are not bad, and again that's your opus operatum at play, unable to understand that only absolute numbers are relevant if you want to evaluate the impact of a specific production process on environment or health : it depends on what you want to witness. That there is an increase in productivity, we all agree, but it does not change the production process, GMO today are only engineered to improve productivity and facilitate the use of pesticides - which is completly understandable since Mosanto produce both the GMO and the pesticides. Stop discarding all informations that does not go in your way please ?
The same goes for your resistance to glycines : what I see from the graph you gave is that glycines are only heavily used since the end of 1990 and not that the resistance to them is weaker. A quick search tells me 2000 is also the date where the pattern became public for exemple or that RoundUp was the most sold out herbicides by the end of 1997.
Note that glycines are not the only chemicals present in RoundUp and is actually pretty useless by itself (it does not penetrate the plant without its adjuvants). Those adjuvants usually have more toxicity, like the POE-15.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23000283
The compositions in adjuvants were analyzed by mass spectrometry. Here we demonstrate that all formulations are more toxic than glyphosate, and we separated experimentally three groups of formulations differentially toxic according to their concentrations in ethoxylated adjuvants. Among them, POE-15 clearly appears to be the most toxic principle against human cells, even if others are not excluded. It begins to be active with negative dose-dependent effects on cellular respiration and membrane integrity between 1 and 3ppm, at environmental/occupational doses. We demonstrate in addition that POE-15 induces necrosis when its first micellization process occurs, by contrast to glyphosate which is known to promote endocrine disrupting effects after entering cells. Altogether, these results challenge the establishment of guidance values such as the acceptable daily intake of glyphosate, when these are mostly based on a long term in vivo test of glyphosate alone. Since pesticides are always used with adjuvants that could change their toxicity, the necessity to assess their whole formulations as mixtures becomes obvious. This challenges the concept of active principle of pesticides for non-target species.
And yes the resistance is absolutly normal, maybe the solution would be to discuss on production / usage of chemical (as opposed to natural pesticides and herbicides) and solve some of the output problem by increasing supply, etc. Or to say in economic language, the optimum of production is not necessarily the highest production, but a level of production that would take the impact on environment and health into account.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
why would any "natural" pesticide be resistance immune? it's not a new problem and there are already solutions in place. would you let them roll the soil over in tillage and let loose the runoff instead?
|
On October 24 2014 23:10 oneofthem wrote:
why would any "natural" pesticide be resistance immune? it's not a new problem and there are already solutions in place. would you let them roll the soil over in tillage and let loose the runoff instead?
It's not resistance immune, and I never said anything like it. But the fact that plant have resistance to pesticides and herbicides (natural or not) force farmers to 1) change chemicals 2) use more of the same.
Natural pesticides have less impact on environment and health, so using more of them is less of a problem.
To be fair, natural pesticides are not the solution but at the very least let's control this more and think on a bigger plan.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
im no farmer but glyphosate is still the main tool in a multiple mechanism of action deweeding plan. it is very safe and breaks down relatively quickly, unlike heavy metal based chemicals or stuff that accumulate in groundwater . bt crops are still fairly good on pest resistance. many so called natural pesticides are categorically more harmful
|
On October 25 2014 00:06 oneofthem wrote:
im no farmer but glyphosate is still the main tool in a multiple mechanism of action deweeding plan. it is very safe and breaks down relatively quickly, unlike heavy metal based chemicals or stuff that accumulate in groundwater . bt crops are still fairly good on pest resistance. many so called natural pesticides are categorically more harmful
Any proof on that ?
Anyway the problem is not necessarily using chemicals, what matters is the scale. Organic food also use pesticides, some are considered okay, but at a different scale.
I've already pointed out that glyphosate is not the unique chemicals in the RoundUp and is actually quite useless by itself.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
sure, lots of studies and common sense.
here's biochemist dr. ames,
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/06/synthetic-v-natural-pesticides/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
some study
We found that in addition to reduced efficacy against aphids compared to novel synthetic insecticides, organic approved insecticides had a similar or even greater negative impact on several natural enemy species in lab studies, were more detrimental to biological control organisms in field experiments, and had higher Environmental Impact Quotients at field use rates
[Rotenone-pyrethrin, a common organic pesticide, and imidan, a “soft” synthetic pesticide were compared to determine the required quantity for similar protection. It as found that seven applications of the rotenone-pyrethrin mixture was equivalent to two applications of imidan. Furthermore, it was observed that rotenone is extremely toxic to aquatic life. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0011250
here's a list of the nice, natural pesticides approved for use on 'organic' shit. i like the tobacco extract one.
http://www.colostate.edu/Dept/CoopExt/4DMG/VegFruit/organic.htm
as for roundup composition, it has surfactants, much like any medical capsule has a capsule and also combine the active ingredient with soemthing that helps bio absorption.
|
On October 25 2014 00:23 oneofthem wrote:sure, lots of studies and common sense. here's biochemist dr. ames, http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/06/synthetic-v-natural-pesticides/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0Show nested quote +We found that in addition to reduced efficacy against aphids compared to novel synthetic insecticides, organic approved insecticides had a similar or even greater negative impact on several natural enemy species in lab studies, were more detrimental to biological control organisms in field experiments, and had higher Environmental Impact Quotients at field use rates http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0011250
It's misleading because natural insecticides are not more harmful than synthetic, considering everybody has the same usage. The link you gave is unclear about the methodology, but the article is actually taking into consideration the usage (farmers tend to use more natural pesticides than they would use synthetic, thinking it is not harmful) hence the reason why the conclusion is " All pesticides must be evaluated using an empirically-based risk assessment, because generalizations based on chemical origin do not hold true in all cases".
A new University of Guelph study reveals some organic pesticides can have a higher environmental impact than conventional pesticides because the organic product may require larger doses.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100622175510.htm
If your point is that the real problem is a problem of usage, then we agree.
|
I was going to point to the Rotenone-pyrethrin vs. imidan debate as a good example of where synthetic pesticides are almost certainly better than their "natural" alternatives, but oneofthem is on the ball.
Here's a bit from a very interesting study on the cancer risks associated with pesticide use.
Thus, epidemiological studies do not support the idea that synthetic pesticide residues are important for human cancer. Although some epidemiologic studies find an association between cancer and low levels of some industrial pollutants, the studies often have weak or inconsistent results, rely on ecological correlations or indirect exposure assessments, use small sample sizes, and do not control for confounding factors such as composition of the diet, which is a potentially important confounding factor. Outside the workplace, the levels of exposure to synthetic pollutants or pesticide residues are low and rarely seem toxicologically plausible as a causal factor when compared to the wide variety of naturally occurring chemicals to which all people are exposed (Ames et al. , 1987, 1990a; Gold et al., 1992). Whereas public perceptions tend to identify chemicals as being only synthetic and only synthetic chemicals as being toxic, every natural chemical is also toxic at some dose, and the vast proportion of chemicals to which humans are exposed are naturally occurring (see Section 38.2).
Pesticide Residues in Food and Cancer Risk: A Critical Analysis
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://fafdl.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/herbicide-resistance.png)
