It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
A new peer-reviewed study published in the International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability
examined those claims and found that conventional plant breeding, not genetic engineering, is
responsible for yield increases in major U.S. crops. Additionally, GM crops, also known as
genetically engineered (GE) crops, can’t even take credit for reductions in pesticide use.
The study compared major crop yields and pesticide use in North America, which relies
heavily on GE crops, and Western Europe, which grows conventionally bred non-GE crops.
The study’s findings are important for the future of the U.S. food supply, and therefore for the
world food supply since the U.S. is a major exporter of many staple crops.
www.alternet.org...
A stunning multi-year study in Africa by the United Nations Environment
Programme provides an answer. High external inputs of chemicals and
fertilizers are needed for conventional industrial agriculture and it is for this
kind of agriculture that GM crops are designed. UNEP found in side-by-side
trials conducted in multiple countries that farmers using agroecological
science outperformed farmers using conventional approaches by up to 179%.responsibletechnology.org...
James Strange, a research entomologist and bumblebee specialist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service, said perhaps as many as 20 percent of the 38 or 40 (depending on how you count them) species of bumblebee in the U.S. are in trouble.
Essentially, this is the story of our age, whether it’s birds, butterflies, amphibians, or small mammals. Biodiversity is taking it on the chin
www.benningtonbanner.com...
So, GE crops really do not provide a greater yeild as claimed.
Yes, they do. That article references a very poor study (Benbrook) which fails to mention that net pestcide use has fallen through the use of GMOs.
Not only that, they do not even reduce pesticide use!
• Misleading use of official data: Benbrook (2012) states in several places that the pesticide impact data are based on official, government (USDA) pesticide usage data. Whilst a USDA dataset is used, its limitations (namely not covering pesticide use on some of the most recent years and not providing disaggregated breakdowns of use between conventional and GM crops) mean that the analysis presented in Benbrook (2012) relied on his own interpretations and extrapolations of usage and cannot reasonably claim to be based on official sources. In particular, the herbicide usage assumptions on conventional crops, if they replaced GM HT traited crops, are significantly understated and unreliable. It is therefore not surprising that Benbrook (2012) concluded that GM HT crop use in the US resulted in an increase in US herbicide use. This contrasts sharply with the findings of other peer reviewed analysis 5 that estimated that GM crop adoption in the US reduced pesticide spraying in the US, eg, by 542 million lbs (246 million kg: -9.6% 1996-2010) 6 relative to what might reasonably be expected if the crops were all planted to conventional varieties.
Originally posted by Phage
gmopundit.blogspot.com...
A good reason not to support mandatory GM labelling: "Any label would connote something negative, when in fact there is no scientific basis for this. The government shouldn't force companies to do something that could potentially hurt their brand and has no scientific basis simply to indulge people's ignorant beliefs about an issue. "
Originally posted by lincolnparadox
Things like Golden Rice, banana vaccines, even the disease-resistant papaya, these crops are designed with the intent to help humanity.
In fact, it has been suggested that malnourished people might not convert beta carotene to vitamin A efficiently, which blows the usefulness of golden rice clearly out of the water, as its intended recipients are virtually guaranteed to be malnourished.
Further, a person would need to eat an unrealistic amount of rice each day -- upwards of 16 pounds a day-- to get the recommended amount of vitamin A
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by burntheships
So, GE crops really do not provide a greater yeild as claimed.
Europe has a much small coverage than North America. Perhaps comparing the yeild in a 2000 hectare feild using conventional methods to than in a 2000 hectare field using GMOs might provide a better picture.
Yes, they do. That article references a very poor study (Benbrook) which fails to mention that net pestcide use has fallen through the use of GMOs.
Not only that, they do not even reduce pesticide use!
gmopundit.blogspot.com...