The Big Footy GMO megathread

[Lester Burnham]

If you're anti-GMO, you're scientifically illiterate and are actively hurting hundreds of millions of people worldwide.

I'll quote from my recent post in the 'Things That s**t Me' thread:

"If you're anti-GMO's, you're really not all that different at all to anti-vaxxers. Not only do you completely, fundamentally misunderstand science (and you are totally in the minority as far as scientific consensus goes), your beliefs actually strips people of a better, more efficient product and major health benefits to developing countries. GMO's have factually helped saved hundreds of millions of lives. That is a fact. Sitting on your arse bitching and whining about Monsanto (whilst understanding very little about anything) achieves nothing, and such belief actively hurts people worldwide."

Greenpeace's defence of its position to prohibit Golden Rice, which could save millions of lives, is that these people should be eating more fruit and vegetables anyway!

 

[Power Raid]

Greenpeace's defence of its position to prohibit Golden Rice, which could save millions of lives, is that these people should be eating more fruit and vegetables anyway!

let them eat cake!

 

[Gough]

My concern with GM food is less what it may or may not do to you, but transnational companies holding the patent to the food future of the millions, and having the ability to restrict it's use. We've seen their form with patents on life saving medicines, and their reluctance to back generic versions of them, there's no reason to think that they would be any more generous with seed.

 

[Long Live HFC]

My concern with GM food is less what it may or may not do to you, but transnational companies holding the patent to the food future of the millions, and having the ability to restrict it's use. We've seen their form with patents on life saving medicines, and their reluctance to back generic versions of them, there's no reason to think that they would be any more generous with seed.

If GM seed is/was not cost-effective for farmers then they wouldn’t use it. While I completely agree with the medicines angle, the reason companies can charge such ridiculous prices for drugs is often because no alternatives are available. Farmers can choose conventional seed if they feel it would benefit their operation.

 

[Chief]

If GM seed is/was not cost-effective for farmers then they wouldn’t use it. While I completely agree with the medicines angle, the reason companies can charge such ridiculous prices for drugs is often because no alternatives are available. Farmers can choose conventional seed if they feel it would benefit their operation.

What were the stories about Monsanto hounding seed savers and running their service providers out of business?

 

[CountryRace]

I don't believe that it is safe. Hasn't been tested for long enough and I have little faith in studies these days, after what I have learned about dodgy radiation and mobile phone studies.

But those Monsanto science guys tested it. Said it was kotcha

 

[Long Live HFC]

What were the stories about Monsanto hounding seed savers and running their service providers out of business?

i'm not entirely sure to what you're referring. there's a lot of myth around monsanto in particular...but farmers are required to sign contracts agreeing they will not save/re-plant monstanto seeds for the following season. monstanto have taken legal action against farmers that have either done this, or planted its seeds via third party providers.

 

[Chief]

i'm not entirely sure to what you're referring. there's a lot of myth around monsanto in particular...but farmers are required to sign contracts agreeing they will not save/re-plant monstanto seeds for the following season. monstanto have taken legal action against farmers that have either done this, or planted its seeds via third party providers.

The issue being that seed savers were default hounded, as were the guys who had the machines that did the job of getting the seeds out of the crop.

Stuff like obvious harassment - being followed around all day by Monsanto employees. The goal was to get any sort of dirt on the machinery owners and use it to get rid of them. Read the article ages ago.

Big issue I think was that if your crop is contaminated with Monsanto seeds, by wind or animals carrying seeds between farms, you are basically being harassed for stealing. The only way to tell if you're contaminated is to spray roundup on your crop. Whatever dies, you had a right to. Whatever lives is stolen.

In the end it sounds dangerous to have one company with such a hold on the food supply.

 

[Long Live HFC]

The issue being that seed savers were default hounded, as were the guys who had the machines that did the job of getting the seeds out of the crop.

Stuff like obvious harassment - being followed around all day by Monsanto employees. The goal was to get any sort of dirt on the machinery owners and use it to get rid of them. Read the article ages ago.

Big issue I think was that if your crop is contaminated with Monsanto seeds, by wind or animals carrying seeds between farms, you are basically being harassed for stealing. The only way to tell if you're contaminated is to spray roundup on your crop. Whatever dies, you had a right to. Whatever lives is stolen.

In the end it sounds dangerous to have one company with such a hold on the food supply.

I don't know much about the particular incidences you raise (but am certainly no fan of monstanto's business methods and would not be the least bit surprised). big business are campaigners.

what I have bolded is half true. I don't doubt Monsanto 'harassment', but ultimately they don't engage in legal action for IP infringement or theft etc for farmers whose crops have become incidentally cross-pollinated by Monsanto's GM seed.

A group of organic farmers, in fact, recently sued Monsanto, asserting that GMOs might contaminate their crops and then Monsanto might accuse them of patent infringement. The farmers couldn't cite a single instance in which this had happened, though, and the judge dismissed the case...

It's certainly true that Monsanto has been going after farmers whom the company suspects of using GMO seeds without paying royalties. And there are plenty of cases — including Schmeiser's — in which the company has overreached, engaged in raw intimidation, and made accusations that turned out not to be backed up by evidence.
But as far as I can tell, Monsanto has never sued anybody over trace amounts of GMOs that were introduced into fields simply through cross-pollination. (The company asserts, in fact, that it will pay to remove any of its GMOs from fields where they don't belong.)

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt...ve-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted

pretty sure that they don't have to 'roundup' an entire crop to determine cross pollination. should be able to be determined in a lab? the above link implies that at any rate.

I agree that there is potential dangers in one company 'owning' the food supply, but that goes for just about anything, really. competition is generally good. monopolies not so much. and this rule of thumb applies to GM or conventional farming equally.

 

[Chief]

All this is just from things I read a while ago.

But in the end, if the subject comes up it is likely to be the stuff I repeat. In the case of big companies like this, I haven't got the slightest care that it might be wrong. They don't need me on their side.

 

[Long Live HFC]

All this is just from things I read a while ago.

But in the end, if the subject comes up it is likely to be the stuff I repeat. In the case of big companies like this, I haven't got the slightest care that it might be wrong. They don't need me on their side.

yeah and I certainly accept what you've said at face value, as I likewise have no affinity for business and their "ethics". i'm much more interested about the science underpinning GM than I am about the 1000th example of business impropriety.

 

[Power Raid]

My concern with GM food is less what it may or may not do to you, but transnational companies holding the patent to the food future of the millions, and having the ability to restrict it's use. We've seen their form with patents on life saving medicines, and their reluctance to back generic versions of them, there's no reason to think that they would be any more generous with seed.

That's an interesting angle and definitely a cause for concern

 

[Chief]

My concern with GM food is less what it may or may not do to you, but transnational companies holding the patent to the food future of the millions, and having the ability to restrict it's use. We've seen their form with patents on life saving medicines, and their reluctance to back generic versions of them, there's no reason to think that they would be any more generous with seed.

Not having read this thread - but it is interesting Monsanto buy up seed businesses. Not just for agricultural use, but your garden variety (pun!) garden seeds, specialty heirloom seeds and so on.

At what point do they decide this or that DNA is not profitable and let it die out where home gardeners would keep it alive and evolving naturally?

 

[PunyHumans!!!]

But those Monsanto science guys tested it. Said it was kotcha

Plenty of independent research conducted in to GM crops that has concluded that its no more unsafe than conventionally grown crops, if your concerned about who sponsors the research.

I do understand people's suspicion of Monsanto but its not GM=Monsanto; there are other players involved and there are a number of Universities involved in GM breeding from memory. A lot of the issues brought up when discussing why someone has an anti GM stance are not exclusively part of GM tech ie; patents, monoculture, pesticides. You can definately make cases against monoculture and the like but they can cloud and distort discussions about GM tech.

 

[Long Live HFC]

You can definately make cases against monoculture

yeah monoculture is certainly an interesting subject but really haven't gotten around to learning much about it (since it is not an exclusively GM issue like you mention). do you know of any good resources to learn more?

 

[PunyHumans!!!]

yeah monoculture is certainly an interesting subject but really haven't gotten around to learning much about it (since it is not an exclusively GM issue like you mention). do you know of any good resources to learn more?

I found this one handy when I begun reading more about it http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2013/08/monoculture/ but there is a fair bit out there to wade through. Maybe also try the Genetic Literacy Project website and do a search.

 

[Todman]

What about GMO's that need less water to grow?

 

[smokingjacket]

A group of organic farmers, in fact, recently sued Monsanto, asserting that GMOs might contaminate their crops and then Monsanto might accuse them of patent infringement. The farmers couldn't cite a single instance in which this had happened, though, and the judge dismissed the case...

It's not just about patent infringement but loss of organic status. In no other business would you accept fallout from your neighbours actions spoiling your ability to make production decisions on your private property, as in the case of GMO canola in WA.

As has been said previously, I have no particular problem with GMO food from a human consumption level. I do have problems with the entire business chain of agribusiness related herbicides and pesticides.

The problem is one of tolerance on all levels. Tolerance to super, tolerance to herbicide etc. It ends up as a trap for the farmer that unless they can afford to grow nothing for 5 years as the soil recovers, you're stuck in the Monsanto trap.

I would argue it's not cost effective either. It is time effective to blanket spray.

 

[Long Live HFC]

It's not just about patent infringement but loss of organic status. In no other business would you accept fallout from your neighbours actions spoiling your ability to make production decisions on your private property, as in the case of GMO canola in WA.

this is absolutely true, and it poses a real risk to non-GM farmers in certain regions. hopefully as society becomes less paranoid about GMOs there will no longer be a need for so-called 'organic farms'.

The problem is one of tolerance on all levels. Tolerance to super, tolerance to herbicide etc. It ends up as a trap for the farmer that unless they can afford to grow nothing for 5 years as the soil recovers, you're stuck in the Monsanto trap.

you'll need to elaborate what you mean here and why it is any different to conventional farming.

I would argue it's not cost effective either. It is time effective to blanket spray.

asides from time = money, you seem to be ignoring the fact that herbicides/pesticides are used regardless of what kind of farming we're talking about.

 

[smokingjacket]

this is absolutely true, and it poses a real risk to non-GM farmers in certain regions. hopefully as society becomes less paranoid about GMOs there will no longer be a need for so-called 'organic farms'.

you'll need to elaborate what you mean here and why it is any different to conventional farming.

asides from time = money, you seem to be ignoring the fact that herbicides/pesticides are used regardless of what kind of farming we're talking about.

Organic (traditional) farming is about providing nutrients to plants (generally) through aided decomposition.

Conventional (modern) farming is about providing nutrients to plants synthetically.

One requires a healthy soil and natural environment the other doesn't really. Provided sufficient resources you could farm nearly anywhere.

Crops that are Round-up Ready are, as it sounds resistant to Roundup and therefore the farmers can blanket spray Roundup, effectively nuking everything in the area. Previously farmers would target spray. Less time effective, possibly less effective over all for weed suppression, but in terms of the effect on the natural environment a blanket spray has disastrous results for soil health and biodiversity. It just doesn't allow the land to regenerate and ameliorate the damage done through blanket spraying, as it would from targeted spraying.

 

[PunyHumans!!!]

I'd imagine it would actually be cost effective if looking at from the point that the farmers who adopt RR crops by and large do not have to till, thus reducing machinery costs such as subsequent maintenance, actual machine purchases and tools, diesel etc. Never mind the fact that tillage is incredibly destructive to the soil.

As to your last point on RR spraying of crops, yes this I guess this can be an issue and there is limited evidence of it with glyphosate but any decent farmer will have alternative strategies in their arsenal, yet if this method was leading to lifeless soils farmers would have run a mile from this a long time ago.

As to what LLHFC said about "hopefully as society becomes less paranoid about GMOs there will no longer be a need for so-called 'organic farms'", I actually hope that at some point we do away with the dichotomy of one method is good therefore the other is bad and recognize that both can play their part in feeding the world safe and affordable food. Conventional farming is not perfect but has come along away to addressing environmental impacts.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Crops that are Round-up Ready are, as it sounds resistant to Roundup and therefore the farmers can blanket spray Roundup, effectively nuking everything in the area. Previously farmers would target spray. Less time effective, possibly less effective over all for weed suppression, but in terms of the effect on the natural environment a blanket spray has disastrous results for soil health and biodiversity. It just doesn't allow the land to regenerate and ameliorate the damage done through blanket spraying, as it would from targeted spraying.

thanks for that. I am pretty dumb first thing in the morning, but I don't get why farmers are now blanket spraying anymore than they have in the past- crop dusters have existed for decades and to my understanding, a farmer has always sprayed his entire crop (that needed protection)? a resistance to roundup for instance doesn't encourage more spraying per se, it just encourages the spraying of glyophosphate. roundup has simply replaced other more dangerous options. how does a farmer protect his entire crop, without spraying his entire crop?

 

[Long Live HFC]

As to what LLHFC said about "hopefully as society becomes less paranoid about GMOs there will no longer be a need for so-called 'organic farms'", I actually hope that at some point we do away with the dichotomy of one method is good therefore the other is bad and recognize that both can play their part in feeding the world safe and affordable food. Conventional farming is not perfect but has come along away to addressing environmental impacts.

I just feel that "organic" farms are outmoded and only exist because of ill-informed consumer bias about perceived dangers of 'frankenfood'. it's less efficient, it isn't any better for our health, and it's ecological benefits are questionable. apologies for the long quote, but it's all relevant.

Myth #3: Organic Farming Is Better For The Environment

As an ecologist by training, this myth bothers me the most of all three. People seem to believe they're doing the world a favor by eating organic. The simple fact is that they're not - at least the issue is not that cut and dry.

Yes, organic farming practices use less synthetic pesticides which have been found to be ecologically damaging. But factory organic farms use their own barrage of chemicals that are still ecologically damaging, and refuse to endorse technologies that might reduce or eliminate the use of these all together. Take, for example, organic farming's adamant stance against genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

GMOs have the potential to up crop yields, increase nutritious value, and generally improve farming practices while reducing synthetic chemical use - which is exactly what organic farming seeks to do. As we speak, there are sweet potatoes are being engineered to be resistant to a virus that currently decimates the African harvest every year, which could feed millions in some of the poorest nations in the world. Scientists have created carrots high in calcium to fight osteoperosis, and tomatoes high in antioxidants. Almost as important as what we can put into a plant is what we can take out; potatoes are being modified so that they do not produce high concentrations of toxic glycoalkaloids, and nuts are being engineered to lack the proteins which cause allergic reactions in most people. Perhaps even more amazingly, bananas are being engineered to produce vaccines against hepatitis B, allowing vaccination to occur where its otherwise too expensive or difficult to be administered. The benefits these plants could provide to human beings all over the planet are astronomical.

Yet organic proponents refuse to even give GMOs a chance, even to the point of hypocrisy. For example, organic farmers apply Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin (a small insecticidal protein from soil bacteria) unabashedly across their crops every year, as they have for decades. It's one of the most widely used organic pesticides by organic farmers. Yet when genetic engineering is used to place the gene encoding the Bt toxin into a plant's genome, the resulting GM plants are vilified by the very people willing to liberally spray the exact same toxin that the gene encodes for over the exact same species of plant. Ecologically, the GMO is a far better solution, as it reduces the amount of toxin being used and thus leeching into the surrounding landscape and waterways. Other GMOs have similar goals, like making food plants flood-tolerant so occasional flooding can replace herbicide use as a means of killing weeds. If the goal is protect the environment, why not incorporate the newest technologies which help us do so?

But the real reason organic farming isn't more green than conventional is that while it might be better for local environments on the small scale, organic farms produce far less food per unit land than conventional ones. Organic farms produce around 80% that what the same size conventional farm produces16 (some studies place organic yields below 50% those of conventional farms!).

Right now, roughly 800 million people suffer from hunger and malnutrition, and about 16 million of those will die from it. If we were to switch to entirely organic farming, the number of people suffering would jump by 1.3 billion, assuming we use the same amount of land that we're using now. Unfortunately, what's far more likely is that switches to organic farming will result in the creation of new farms via the destruction of currently untouched habitats, thus plowing over the little wild habitat left for many threatened and endangered species.

Already, we have cleared more than 35% of the Earth's ice-free land surface for agriculture, an area 60 times larger than the combined area of all the world's cities and suburbs. Since the last ice age, nothing has been more disruptive to the planet's ecosystem and its inhabitants than agriculture. What will happen to what's left of our planet's wildlife habitats if we need to mow down another 20% or more of the world's ice-free land to accommodate for organic methods?

The unfortunate truth is that until organic farming can rival the production output of conventional farming, its ecological cost due to the need for space is devastating. As bad as any of the pesticides and fertilizers polluting the world's waterways from conventional agriculture are, it's a far better ecological situation than destroying those key habitats altogether. That's not to say that there's no hope for organic farming; better technology could overcome the production gap, allowing organic methods to produce on par with conventional agriculture. If that does occur, then organic agriculture becomes a lot more ecologically sustainable. On the small scale, particularly in areas where food surpluses already occur, organic farming could be beneficial, but presuming it's the end all be all of sustainable agriculture is a mistake.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/

 

[Seeds]

If you're anti-GMO, you're scientifically illiterate and are actively hurting hundreds of millions of people worldwide.


I'll quote from my recent post in the 'Things That s**t Me' thread:

"If you're anti-GMO's, you're really not all that different at all to anti-vaxxers. Not only do you completely, fundamentally misunderstand science (and you are totally in the minority as far as scientific consensus goes), your beliefs actually strips people of a better, more efficient product and major health benefits to developing countries. GMO's have factually helped saved hundreds of millions of lives. That is a fact. Sitting on your arse bitching and whining about Monsanto (whilst understanding very little about anything) achieves nothing, and such belief actively hurts people worldwide."

The thread should of ended with this post. Nothing more to be said on the topic.

 

[sproketman]

you're conflating two separate (but related) issues. there's the fact that an organism has been modified, but there's also the result of the modification.

in other words if, say, a tomato is modified to secrete a poison dangerous to humans, then quite clearly it wouldn't be safe to eat. but it would be unsafe because of the poison, not because of its status as "genetically modified". a normal tomato that developed the same poison on its own over time, would likewise not be any safer than the GM version, by virtue of its status of "conventional".

so to answer your question i would say "of course not", i can't predict the future of agriculture for the next 5 billion years. but what i can say, is that modifying something at the genetic level, does not, in and of itself, make an organism more dangerous than any other. it is not much different to farmer techniques since way back in the day:

http://www.ilsi.org/NorthAmerica/Documents/ASPB.pdf

Why does intent matter? When you say "a tomato is modified to secrete a poison" you are assuming that the modification needs to be deliberate to be harmful.

We know from recent history that advances in technology have unintended negative consequences. Thalidomide was marketed as a morning sickness drug, but later found to have horrific consequences for the newborn. As I said earlier, advances in feed for cows have led to unintended consequences such as vCJD and antibiotic resistant pathogens in meat.

What you wish to assert is that the science is solved. That we know all potential poisons and harms that may derive from food, that no second-order issues may arise from genetic modification (we know from study of our own genome that is not true - many harmful genes have beneficial side effects, and vice versa), and that all possible modifications, so long as they are done with the best intentions, are harmless. This is not true. Anyone who has truly studied science knows this, there is a vast gulf of unknowns out there.

What it comes down to is a risk assessment for the individual. Vaccines have the potential for harmful side effects, but the benefits to the individual are enormous. The smallpox vaccine killed many people, smallpox itself killed far more. Infants still have adverse reactions to vaccines. But you would be insane to refuse a vaccine because the risk of doing so is too large - whooping cough, measles, mumps kill.

The choice of forgoing GMO food is a negligible risk for the individual. It's no-harm position to take. Non-GMO food does not harm, does not kill. The worst you can say about it is that it is not as good as it can be. The worst you can say about GMO food is that as far as we know, it's no worse than normal food. It's the 'as far as we know' that is the sticking point.