Monsanto can't explain how GMO wheat survived

reply to post by Philippines

If you look at one way, we have been for hundreds of thousands of years. We are the result of an "experiment" in evolution.

Originally posted by Phage

Whatever you consider the metrics of staying ahead and their long term impacts on the Earth

Again the idea that there is something inherently wrong with genetic modification?

 

In regards to the second point (which I think we agree on evolution), there are reports of various organisms growing resistant to these transgenic GMO organisms.

And herbicides, and pesticides. It happens continually.

placing the biotech company in a position to evolve their genes again.

And produce new herbicides and pesticides.
Again the idea that there is something inherently wrong with genetic modification?

Well yes then in this case. Do you really think continually developing more plants with different genes and more herbicides pesticides every time they mutate, which is apparently quickly, is a good idea? I understand you're supporting the ideas here, but I find it hard to believe you can't see the absolute inefficiency of this process were it to happen. It might work for you, but it sounds really silly and unproductive to me.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Philippines

 

Is science evolving as fast as evolution with many Bt resistant strains of organisms being reported?

It's always been a battle between farmers and pests. With hybridization, GMOs, pesticides, and herbicides, we're staying ahead.

Are humans evolving as fast as Bt organisms in their food?

I'm not sure what that means. Bt organisms are teh result of genetic modification, they don't actually evolve. The pesticides producted by Bt plants have been around (and used) since long before there were GMOs.

To rephrase: Is science fully aware of what it's doing and understanding of the ways in which nature is capable of responding? I doubt it.

reply to post by thebtheb

It might work for you, but it sounds really silly and unproductive to me.

Whether or not I'm "for it" is irrelevant. It is current practice and has been for as long as pesticides have been in use. Now, if someone could come up with a way to conduct economic large scale agriculture without herbicides and pesticides...great! But how do you control the pests without killing them (or repelling them)? Talk nice to them?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by thebtheb

 

It might work for you, but it sounds really silly and unproductive to me.

Whether or not I'm "for it" is irrelevant. It is current practice and has been for as long as pesticides have been in use. Now, if someone could come up with a way to conduct economic large scale agriculture without herbicides and pesticides...great!

edit on 6/6/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

And this is the great fallacy - that they can't. They give us that BS excuse, but they could do it - it just wouldn't be as easy or as profitable for them.

reply to post by thebtheb

And you know this how? Are you an agronomist?
It seems obvious to me that the larger the field you're dealing with, the more difficult it becomes to deal with pests.

But you're right, if it could be done it would be much more expensive. That's why the difference in the cost of organic produce. It costs more to farm that way.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Philippines

 

If you look at one way, we have been for hundreds of thousands of years. We are the result of an "experiment" in evolution.

edit on 6/6/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Oh I can agree to that, except for the recent unique way that evolution has changed with transgenic technology. That technology is around 35 years old. Bt corn first started cultivation about 17 years ago.

These methods are completely new and a very small time window compared to previous traditional ways of hybridization and selective farming methods.

So yeah I agree, we're in an experiment where to stakes couldn't be higher by introducing transgenic organisms into the worlds environment without full knowledge of the potential long term consequences across the entire ecological spectrum.

reply to post by Philippines

"Experiments" in the eradication of smallpox. "Experiments" in the near elimination of polio.
There is a tendency in some people to have a fear of new things. No particular reason for it. New = bad.

There is no particular reason to fear GMO crops any more than there is to fear a hybrid, and you act as if there is no testing. What further testing would you suggest? How much is enough? Or do you just not want any biological manipulation at all? No matter what the benefits are? No need to answer. It's a rhetorical question.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Philippines

 

"Experiments" in the eradication of smallpox. "Experiments" in the near elimination of polio.
There is a tendency in some people to have a fear of new things. No particular reason for it. New = bad.

There is no particular reason to fear GMO crops any more than there is to fear a hybrid, and you act as if there is no testing. What further testing would you suggest? How much is enough? Or do you just not want any biological manipulation at all? No matter what the benefits are? No need to answer. It's a rhetorical question.

When it comes to the eradication of smallpox and polio with vaccination, were they using transgenic technology like in today's GMO foods to accomplish that?

I am against transgenic biological manipulation.

reply to post by Philippines

I am against transgenic biological manipulation.

Yes, I know.

reply to post by Phage

The study shows an increase of herbicide use from 1.98 lb/acre in 1996 to 2.06 lb/acre in 2011. An increase 0.08 lb or 4% increase.
At the same time pesticide use went from 0.22 lb/acre to 0.07 lb/acre. A decrease of 0.15 lb or a 65% decrease.

There seems to be some inconsistency here with how much and what areas are surveyed.

Budget pressures have forced the U.S. Department of Agriculture to reduce the number of crops included in its annual NASS pesticide use survey. Soybean pesticide use has not been surveyed since 2006, about when the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds began to significantly increase herbicide use in selected areas. Herein, total herbicide use on HR hectares is projected to rise 13.5% from 2006–2011 (about 2.7% annually)

For some time there was a reduction in pesticide use.

Taking into account applications of all pesticides targeted by the traits embedded in the three major GE crops, pesticide use in the U.S. was reduced in each of the first six years of commercial use (1996–2001).

It appears that for Bt crops there is now an increase in the use of pesticides.

Overall in 2002, GE traits increased pesticide use by 6.9 million kgs (15.2 million pounds), or by about 5%

So initially these GE products worked but this success seems to have been short lived.

This increase continues each year spelling out a bad trend.

Incrementally greater annual increases in the kilograms/pounds of herbicides applied to HR hectares have continued nearly every year since, leading to progressively larger annual increases in overall pesticide use on GE hectares/acres compared to non-GE hectares/acres.
The increase just in 2011 was 35.3 million kgs (77.9 million pounds), a quantity exceeding by a wide margin the cumulative, total 14 million kg (31 million pound) reduction from 1996 through 2002.

So total pesticide use has gone up since the introduction of Bt crops according to this paper.

Total pesticide use has been driven upward by 183 million kgs (404 million pounds) in the U.S. since 1996 by GE crops, compared to what pesticide use would likely have been in the absence of HR and Bt cultivars.

The problem here isn’t that the technology does not work but rather that it is creating a bigger problem over time that overrides the original reduction of chemical use in both herbicides and pesticides. The resistance to herbicides and pesticides found in these organisms is a relatively new problem and not a natural evolution of plant and insect species. We are forcing the evolution by use of this technology.

Glyphosate resistant (GR) weeds were practically unknown before the introduction of RR crops in 1996…
Today, the Weed Science Society of America (WSSA) website lists 22 GR weed species in the U.S.. Over two-thirds of the approximate 70 state-GR weed combinations listed by WSSA have been documented since 2005, reflecting the rapidly spreading nature of the GR-weed problem.

Resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) has spread dramatically across southern states since the first resistant populations were confirmed in 2005, and already poses a major economic threat to U.S. cotton production. Some infestations are so severe that cotton farmers have been forced to leave some crops unharvested.

So how do we control roundup resistant weeds? So far the answer is to use different herbicides like 2,4-D

if 2,4-D and dicamba herbicide-resistant corn and soybeans are fully deregulated by the U.S. government, there will be growing reliance on older, higher-risk herbicides for management of glyphosate-resistant weeds.

Is this the direction we want to go? Seems like we are backing ourselves into a corner here as there are already 2,4-D resistant weeds being found.

In summary;

Overall, since the introduction of GE crops, the six major GE technologies have increased pesticide use by an estimated 183 million kgs (404 million pounds), or about 7%. The spread of GR weeds is bound to trigger further increases, e.g., the volume of 2,4-D sprayed on corn could increase 2.2 kgs/ha by 2019 (1.9 pounds/acre) if the USDA approves unrestricted planting of 2,4-D HR corn [Additional file 1: Table S19]. The increase in herbicides applied on HR hectares has dwarfed the reduction in insecticide use over the 16 years, and will almost surely continue to do so for several more years.

www.enveurope.com...

reply to post by Devino


So what this research sounds to me like... Is life/evolution finds a way to live.

The plants/organisms find a way to resist chemicals like Roundup etc. that are designed to kill them.

What is the point in fighting nature? If evolution will always find a way to defeat mankind's attempts at regulating/controlling it, then why not try to work with it?

Why must "science" based corporations insist on a cat and mouse game of patents and "owning" life to try and police nature with their technology?

Perhaps the Green Revolution was wrong, or perhaps it could be monocropping, and many other reasons on why the average person was not properly informed. Or perhaps they didn't care at the time, like now.

I guess we're in this grand experiment together no matter what =D

Originally posted by Philippines
reply to post by Devino

 

So what this research sounds to me like... Is life/evolution finds a way to live.

The plants/organisms find a way to resist chemicals like Roundup etc. that are designed to kill them.

What is the point in fighting nature? If evolution will always find a way to defeat mankind's attempts at regulating/controlling it, then why not try to work with it?

Why must "science" based corporations insist on a cat and mouse game of patents and "owning" life to try and police nature with their technology?

Perhaps the Green Revolution was wrong, or perhaps it could be monocropping, and many other reasons on why the average person was not properly informed. Or perhaps they didn't care at the time, like now.

I guess we're in this grand experiment together no matter what =D

To add..

How natural is it for bacillus thuringiensis genes, which exist naturally in the gut of many insects, be me in plants? How could that naturally occur?

How natural is it for an eel to procreate with a fish?

How can an animal recreate itself? On its own, or without help? I think there are some ways, but maybe not ways that have an outside influence.

reply to post by Philippines

So what this research sounds to me like... Is life/evolution finds a way to live.

The plants/organisms find a way to resist chemicals like Roundup etc. that are designed to kill them.

Like Phage has stated some of these organisms already have a small amount of resistance to the chemicals we are using. It is by the wide spread use of these chemicals that we kill off any competition of any organisms that have some resistance and thus propagate this resistance which we call evolution.

What is the point in fighting nature? If evolution will always find a way to defeat mankind's attempts at regulating/controlling it, then why not try to work with it?

I don’t think we should be fighting against nature but rather with it. There is a way and maybe biotechnology can help us. But right now it seems that money is the driving force here and not the need to feed the world nor to do the right thing.

Originally posted by Devino
reply to post by Philippines

 

So what this research sounds to me like... Is life/evolution finds a way to live.

The plants/organisms find a way to resist chemicals like Roundup etc. that are designed to kill them.

Like Phage has stated some of these organisms already have a small amount of resistance to the chemicals we are using. It is by the wide spread use of these chemicals that we kill off any competition of any organisms that have some resistance and thus propagate this resistance which we call evolution.

What is the point in fighting nature? If evolution will always find a way to defeat mankind's attempts at regulating/controlling it, then why not try to work with it?

I don’t think we should be fighting against nature but rather with it. There is a way and maybe biotechnology can help us. But right now it seems that money is the driving force here and not the need to feed the world nor to do the right thing.

So perhaps there are parts of humanity who are instigating evolution for reasons of greed. Perhaps an indirect way of saying it =D

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Philippines

 

"Experiments" in the eradication of smallpox. "Experiments" in the near elimination of polio.
There is a tendency in some people to have a fear of new things. No particular reason for it. New = bad.

There is no particular reason to fear GMO crops any more than there is to fear a hybrid, and you act as if there is no testing. What further testing would you suggest? How much is enough? Or do you just not want any biological manipulation at all? No matter what the benefits are? No need to answer. It's a rhetorical question.

I understand the idea of not needlessly fearing something new. That WILL tend to happen on many levels for new things, and especially when it comes to humans tampering with biology.

But for me anyway, it's not fear of new. There are absolutely no benefits to GMOs except to their makers and to the farmers. This "feed the world" crap is just that: crap, and it has absolutely no basis in reality. Most of the GMOs available are used as ingredients in processed food that are cheaper than the old ingredients. That is hardly feeding the world. The farmers like it because they can get the same yield with less effort. I seriously doubt so much of Europe rejected GMOs due to an irrational fear of them, but more so because they listened to their scientists.

Oh and as for "experiments" to the near elimination of polio? Polio was eradicated in North America in the 80s. The ONLY reason it returned was due to the polio vaccine they introduced later. The FDA and CDC both admitted this. Meanwhile in India and Africa, there is a new version of Polio that is more destructive and more virulent than original polio, called vaccine induced polio - literally mutated and spawned by the vaccine itself. THIS is the type of thing people are afraid of with GMOs and there is NO reason not to be.

SO many "experiments" have unforeseen results. Antibiotics, cure all! Decades later, superbugs nothing can cure. DDT safe! Banned worldwide later on. I really don't see why you think people who want to question this rampant and unchecked manipulation of plants as silly.

reply to post by Grimpachi

If you want to know if GMO is bad for you on a personal level, that of you and your family, then ask yourself these questions. Is it ok to have small amounts of Glyphosate in your food? How about Bt delta endotoxin? Since these things are present inside the GE plant, rather than sprayed on the outside, does this increase our exposure to them? Furthermore evidence shows an increase in the use of chemicals as well as having them genetically inserted into the plants DNA. What about the use of 2,4-D in the future?

If you are satisfied with the statement that there is no credible evidence that GMO cause harm to humans that ingest them, as a blanket statement, then remember this. It is not up to the consumer to show evidence that GMO products are harmful in order to protect themselves but it is up to the producer of GMOs to show that they are safe. The question now becomes have you found credible evidence that GMO is safe?

reply to post by Devino

There seems to be some inconsistency here with how much and what areas are surveyed.

The paper which you originally cited, the one I used data from uses for soybeans:

projections based on crop year 2006 totals and recent trends. (See tables on individual HT crops for explaination of factors contributing to the 2010 projections).

The figures do include that "projected" increase for soy. The actual figures for cotton and corn continue to show decreased insecticide use. The combined acreage of cotton and corn exceeds that of soy which results in a net decrease in insecticide use per acre. As pointed out, the decrease exceeds the increase in herbicide use. A substantial net reduction.

So total pesticide use has gone up since the introduction of Bt crops according to this paper.

I can't seem to find how that "likely" figure is arrived at. Yes we know total usage has increased and the increase in acreage obviously has much to do with it. But fact is there was a net decrease in the net per acre application rate between 1996 and 2011. The data used in the paper shows that. They just don't seem to want to point it out.

The resistance to herbicides and pesticides found in these organisms is a relatively new problem and not a natural evolution of plant and insect species.

A new problem that started with the use of herbicides and pesticides, not with the use of GMOs. From a 1983 article:

Within the evolutionarily insignificant period of just 65 years, beginning when the first case of resistance to a pesticide was reported (Melander, 1914), the phenomenon of resistance has proliferated exponentially so as to constitute today an indispensable consideration in nearly every pest control program.

link.springer.com...

1989:

Sequences, mixtures, rotations, and mosaics are potential strategies for using more than one pesticide to manage pest populations and for slowing the evolution of pesticide resistance.

www.ingentaconnect.com...

1985:

Plants and algae resistant to the commonly used s-triazine herbicides display a wide spectrum of cross-resistance to other herbicides that act in a similar manner.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

1990:
www.caws.org.au...

And any number of more articles on the topic before there were any GMOs

So how do we control roundup resistant weeds? So far the answer is to use different herbicides like 2,4-D

And yet, as the data from your first citation shows, the use of 2,4-D declined by 17% between 1996 and 2011. There was an increase of 4% from 2005 to 2009 and no change from 2009 to 2011.

In summary;

Is a statement of speculation. Speculation about deregulation. Speculation about what the situation would be without GMOs. Speculation that 2,4-D is and will remain the only alternative.


Yes. Resistance to insecticides and herbicides is problem. A problem which existed before GMO crops. What's your solution?

reply to post by Devino


That is a roundabout way of thinking IMO but you’re more than welcome to your opinion. While I am not about to start ingesting strait chemicals any time soon it looks to be unavoidable as Phage pointed out all crops are sprayed with one form or another unless you grow your own or can afford the ultra-expensive stuff which BTW hasn’t been proven to be safe by the standards you set yourself either.

It seems like you are in the realm of proving negatives with your expectations at least that is how it seems to me. A lot of people have posted on here how bad GMOs are but when I ask for them to provide there source information so I can see for myself some have basically called me stupid for not being able to find it myself they could have been helpful and posted a link but for some reason they didn’t. Maybe GMOs are harmful but I haven’t found evidence to support that conclusion I am not saying the information doesn’t exist just I can’t find it. So basically I will keep an open mind on the subject but not so open my brain falls out and if I find info supporting what you and others are saying I will think differently on the subject but if I just take yours and others word for it then that would be equivalent to being a sheep in the herd for me.

Obviously you have been presented or have found on your own convincing information which has shaped your opinion on the matter if you have already presented that information here in this thread already then I thank you for sharing however I did not find it to be sufficient to convince me. I have been following the thread and another that is related to this and Phage has done a good job of addressing many issues like I didn’t know all plants produced their own insecticide. It is all good information. That one stuck out to me because that was one of the sticking points on many sites that were against GMOs but none of them volunteered the information that Phage presented otherwise I would have had a misconception on the issue.

Anyway thanks for the information and if I do find proof that convinces me they are harmful I will probably start a thread here with it. My standards seem to be fairly high from what I have gathered here so I would probably get a lot of stars and flags with a thread like that.

reply to post by Devino

Is it ok to have small amounts of Glyphosate in your food? How about Bt delta endotoxin? Since these things are present inside the GE plant, rather than sprayed on the outside, does this increase our exposure to them?

As stated in the paper you cite:

In light of its generally favorable environmental and toxicological properties, especially compared to some of the herbicides displaced by glyphosate, the dramatic increase in glyphosate use has likely not markedly increased human health risks

Bt toxin? Bad for bugs. Not so much for us.

What about the use of 2,4-D in the future?

What about it? Got a crystal ball?

It is not up to the consumer to show evidence that GMO products are harmful in order to protect themselves but it is up to the producer of GMOs to show that they are safe.

How safe? Do you want something like the requirements of the Phillipine court? "Scientific certainty". There is no such thing.

Are automobiles completely safe? Is airplane travel completely safe? Is living completely safe?

There are no valid studies which convincingly show that GMO crops are any more dangerous to humans than hybrid crops.