Monsanto can't explain how GMO wheat survived

reply to post by Grimpachi


Monsanto does not serve Monsanto food in its canteens, plenty of Monsanto posts at ATS.com

reply to post by Grimpachi

That is a roundabout way of thinking IMO

I feel it is more to the point. You asked for evidence that GMO is harmful and evidence has been presented, then you narrow your query to harm to humans that consume GMO. I understand your question and I too am concerned about potential harm from ingesting GMOs.

as Phage pointed out all crops are sprayed with one form or another

This is incorrect. Have you forgotten about organic? Which brings up another harm that GMO is creating, it’s cross pollination of GMO crops to organic crops. The contamination of GMO crops to traditional or organic crops is not a new nor an isolated problem.

ultra-expensive stuff which BTW hasn’t been proven to be safe by the standards you set yourself either.

By “ultra-expensive stuff” I assume you mean natural traditional crops and/or organic. I think there has been plenty of evidence showing the benefits and safety of eating fruit, veggies and grains.

A lot of people have posted on here how bad GMOs are…

I understand your point and I don’t know of any peer reviewed study that proves harm for those that ingest GMO. My point has been more on topic with this thread, the contamination of traditional crops from GMOs that haven’t been approved yet.

Obviously you have been presented or have found on your own convincing information which has shaped your opinion on the matter

Originally I was not against GMO nor am I against biotechnology. I have some adverse reactions to certain foods, like corn for example. In the attempt to isolate these foods to help identify my problem I learned that corn is in a lot of products and most of this corn is genetically engineered. Perhaps my problem is with GMO, I thought, so by not eating genetically modified food I should feel better. The problem is in identifying GMO from non-GMO as this is not an easy thing to do.

In the end it doesn’t matter what you or I think about GMOs. If farmers what to grow them and people want to eat them then that is fine. I would simply like to be able to choose between the two and for that I need labels. I eat as much organic food as I can yet I am concerned with GMO contamination.

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.

I appreciate your perspective and I hope you find what you are looking for.

reply to post by Philippines


My apologies somehow I wasn’t clear enough when I replied to you. This was my main question to you.

Your question got me interested if you could will you please tell me what you thought they were intervening for?

I discussed money only because I didn’t need the answer being, money, profits, etcetera I think most rational people realize all companies are driven by those goals.

So aside from the obvious goal of making money why do you think they are intervening for?

reply to post by Devino


I understand but I disagree on your assessment that it doesn’t matter what you or I think. My only purpose here is determine if there are any dangers from eating GMOs and this is for my own knowledge. So to me it matters.

As far as natural farming I would have to agree with Phage on the scale ability of it last year I worked on an all-natural farming co-op in Costa Rica and the methods used there while being great for the environment were not reasonably saleable and that was something even they admitted to. It was a great experience there meant to educate those like I and I found it well worth the time I spent there.

reply to post by Phage

I have seen no convincing evidence that there is anything inherently dangerous about permitted GMO crops.
I have no reason to think that there is anything inherently dangerous about GMO crops.

Except for contamination of GMO to traditional crops in Oregon as is the topic of this thread, in case you forgot. Unless you think that this will not adversely affect Oregon and Washington’s wheat export.

reply to post by pikestaff


Thanks for that tidbit of information but I haven’t found it very helpful in retrospect of what I requested. I have read through about 10 o 15 threads here on ATS and found many claims however few if any actually provided links backing those claims. I was reluctant to even post in this thread because of what I had seen in other threads where others had posted questions or gone against the thread consensus. Those posters were usually berated, received an assortment of insults but this thread has been one of the better ones with people who are willing to actually source their findings instead of calling someone dumb for not having seen the evidence they have already seen. As for myself I have looked but I haven’t had the success others have had in finding evidence that GMOs are harmful but if I find it or someone can link it I am eager to read it.

Why can't someone make a Species that reverts the GMO back to normality?

But really my 1st statement opens up a new issue, Organic Warfare?
Yeah, I think things are about to get a bit sneazy...

Ready, Aim, Cough!

Originally posted by pikestaff
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

Monsanto does not serve Monsanto food in its canteens, plenty of Monsanto posts at ATS.com

I've heard this claim before, but is there proof? Furthermore, if your food (especially processed), contains corn, high fructose corn syrup, and soy, maybe employees of monsanto are consuming GMO. Is their canteen certified organic?

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by Philippines

 

My apologies somehow I wasn’t clear enough when I replied to you. This was my main question to you.

Your question got me interested if you could will you please tell me what you thought they were intervening for?

I discussed money only because I didn’t need the answer being, money, profits, etcetera I think most rational people realize all companies are driven by those goals.

So aside from the obvious goal of making money why do you think they are intervening for?

Understood, sorry for not detailing that point better =)

My thoughts are, on the reason of intervention at a transgenic level is because of money, under the selling points of providing more harvest output (more money for farmers), less physical labor required (pesticides, from the plant or manually applicated), to provide a fast alternative to hybrid breeding for growing in certain climates, and other imaginable ways of providing a product to ease a person's way of life.

Besides the reason of greed, I supposed they are intervening under the guise of helping people, but I don't think that is the case with the amount of lawsuits protecting their patents. So perhaps the company is intervening to make sure their trans-species genetics are worldwide? Why they would want that, no idea lol, just a wild guess.

What are your thoughts?

reply to post by Philippines


I understand why they would want to protect their patents after all there wouldn’t be any purpose in patenting something otherwise.

I also believe that the purposes of creating pants that increase yield are beneficial for those who are selling the end product. It is simple supply and demand at work. It all seems logical to me. Now if evidence appears showing that consuming the end product of GMOs are harmful then that would devastate the company and I think their competitors would love that and would be highly motivated to prove such claims but the lack of evidence in that area seems to very telling.

reply to post by Devino

Perhaps you can show me where you read this because I am reading the exact opposite.

I showed you the figures in this post. On a per acre basis net pesticide use has declined.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Can you show me this fact? From what I read in the paper I linked shows an increase in chemicals not a decrease.

I showed you the link to the supplemental data in this post. On a per acre basis net pesticide use has declined.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The increased use of chemicals with the use of GMO crops has lead to an acceleration in these chemical resistant pests.

Can you provide some studies which support this statement?

From what I can see there is an exponential curve (typical of biological systems) in herbicide resistance which began before the use of GMOs. I don't see any particular change in the curve with the advent of GMOs.
anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu...

As far as pesticides go. Resistance to bacillus thuringiensis toxin was also a problem before the advent of GMOs. Do you have some studies which show an acceleration afterwards? Is there some reason to believe that insects adapt to Bt crops faster than they do to direct application?
www.sciencemag.org...

The point here is the increased need and use of chemicals to combat chemical resistant pests not where the problem originated.

Ok, you admit your statement was wrong. The problem isn't GMOs, it's the use of pesticides and herbicides.

One doesn’t need a study to predict an increase in the use of 2,4-D with the acceptance of Dow’s 2,4-D resistant corn.

What acceptance?
www.federalregister.gov... determination

The summary of that paper is predicting an increase in chemical use based on current trends which is hardly speculation. It also predicts an increase in the use of 2,4-D with the introduction of 2,4-D resistant corn.

As I said, the "trend" in the increase of 2,4-D is not much of a trend. No change from 2009-2011. Yes, that predicted increase is probably the primary cause for the delay in the preparation of the EIS.

Researchers say Monsanto's questioning of testing accuracy is unfounded

A spokesman with the USDA's Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, which is conducting the investigation, said Monsanto provided "the procedures and methods" to confirm that the plants were the specific strain, known as the "MON 71800 event."

APHIS used "event-specific" polymerase chain reaction tests -- highly familiar to DNA testers -- to pinpoint that it was indeed Monsanto's plant, the spokesman said, adding: "We are certain of the result."

Not to mention that Mosanto is currently testing GMO wheat in North Dakota!
And since 1998 Monsanto has been testing GMO on and off in over 12 states.

reply to post by burntheships

Did Monsanto question the testing? When?

A Monsanto spokesman said the company is "operating on the assumption" that the test results announced 10 days ago are valid.

Monsanto said only that they had the means of determining exactly what strain it was. They told the USDA how to go about it.

A spokesman with the USDA's Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, which is conducting the investigation, said Monsanto provided "the procedures and methods" to confirm that the plants were the specific strain, known as the "MON 71800 event."

www.usatoday.com...

Does anyone know where I can find the monsanto science / reports used to get their products approved? Does anyone know if these are available?

It makes defining the facts a bit more difficult without seeing their science and comparing it to others. Thanks for the help =)

reply to post by Phage

I’m having a tough time understanding that file, so I hope you’ll be patient with me. From what I discern this is the amount of chemical found inside the plant that was either produced by the plant or absorbed from spraying. I don’t see a total amount of chemicals used in this file. The numbers present in the paper claim an overall increase. Are you saying this is a contradiction or am I completely missing something? Several articles claim an overall increased use in chemicals with the use of GMO crops, is this incorrect?

Can you provide some studies which support this statement?

I have read this in two different articles yet I don’t have a link to a study. Here is the claim in the paper I linked earlier.

A 1996 report by Consumers Union stated that HR crops are “custom-made” for accelerating resistance

And their source to that claim;

Benbrook C, Groth E, Hansen M, Halloran J, Benbrook K: Pest Management at the Crossroads. Yonkers, New York: Consumers Union; 1996.

www.enveurope.com...

From what I can see there is an exponential curve (typical of biological systems) in herbicide resistance which began before the use of GMOs. I don't see any particular change in the curve with the advent of GMOs.

This would be good news as the claim for a majority of increased use in chemicals is with the growing amount of chemical resistant pests. I would like to see a decrease in the use of chemicals not an increase.

Ok, you admit your statement was wrong. The problem isn't GMOs, it's the use of pesticides and herbicides.

The problem is the use of chemicals and GMO crops are causing an increase in the use of these chemicals which adds to the problem. I guess you could say that the problem isn’t GMO crops but GMO crops are adding to the problem.

As I said, the "trend" in the increase of 2,4-D is not much of a trend. No change from 2009-2011.

2,4-D corn is not being used yet and there are current restrictions on the use of this herbicide. Do you think it is speculation to predict an increased use in this chemical with the introduction of 2,4-D corn?

reply to post by Devino

From what I discern this is the amount of chemical found inside the plant that was either produced by the plant or absorbed from spraying. I don’t see a total amount of chemicals used in this file.

It has nothing to do with what was inside the plant. The figures are for the amount of pesticides (herbicides and insecticides) applied to crops, GMO and conventional combined.

I don’t see a total amount of chemicals used in this file.

Look at the worksheet titled "Sup Tab 2 Acres Planted Detail"

The numbers present in the paper claim an overall increase. Are you saying this is a contradiction or am I completely missing something?

No. I'm saying that the author is not telling an important part of the story. An overall increase in the total amount of pesticides used, yes the numbers show that. But he neglects to put any importance on the increase in acreage planted (an increase of 14% between 1996 and 2011). And, as I said, on a per acre basis the net amount of pesticides decreased. He doesn't point out that the data shows that.

And their source to that claim;

I don't suppose you noticed that Benbrook was quoting himself there. 1996. That's quite early to be arriving at any conclusions about the matter but it seems that Benbrook may being trying too hard to make the data fit his early guesses. Here's a paper that says what I have been saying and a lot more.

• 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.

www.pgeconomics.co.uk...

I would like to see a decrease in the use of chemicals not an increase.

So would everyone, including farmers. They probably have a pretty good handle on what goes on their fields. And the pesticides aren't free.

The problem is the use of chemicals and GMO crops are causing an increase in the use of these chemicals which adds to the problem.

Not when looked at on an equitable basis. According to the figures your source used there is a net reduction of pesticides applied to each acre of planted land. If you want to blame something for the increased use of pesticides, blame the increase in farmed land.

Do you think it is speculation to predict an increased use in this chemical with the introduction of 2,4-D corn?

No. But it is speculation that the corn will be approved.

And here are some numbers to consider. According to the figures used in that study:
Between 1996 and 2011:
The total acreage of herbicide tolerant corn increased by 27% and the total use of herbicides on all corn increased by 1%.

reply to post by Phage


I'm curious of your thoughts on this one:

If chemicals (fertilizer, pesticide, herbicide etc.) were to stop being used on large commercial monocropped land, like corn, would the land still be arable?

I guess another way of saying it, is the land only working for crops because of chemicals? I realize things should still grow, but probably not like before, if at all.

reply to post by Philippines

I don't think it's that simple but generally speaking monoculture is not good for the soil, with or without pesticides or fertilizer.

I would say you're right but for a more educated (and probably more complex) answer I think you'd have to talk to a horticulturalist.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Philippines

 

I don't think it's that simple but generally speaking monoculture is not good for the soil, with or without pesticides or fertilizer.

I would say you're right but for a more educated (and probably more complex) answer I think you'd have to talk to a horticulturalist.

Agreed, now I feel like finding some reading on this. The world really is dependent on oil, especially for food =(

reply to post by Phage

Well I see them now, thank you. I thought I was missing some data and as it turned out I was only looking at the last 4 sub tables because I wasn’t using the scroll tab. This thing was driving me nuts, LOL, thanks again for the help.