Where are GMOs at?

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Holy s**t. We agree on something almost?


Im not anti GMO, We've been ******* around with crops for thousands of years. Selective growing, Monsanto are a bunch of absolute pricks who could probably solve Africa's food shortages in 10 years if they didn't want to be filthy rich. However denying GMO and there is a LOT of mis-infomation out there

People have every right to chose based on what you believe in. If you don't want GMO, fine, You technically have a right. A lot of hunger issues could be solved with GMO's. It's a shame Monsanto and a lot of wealthy Westerners are not interested.

Also if religion advocated for family planning. A 2 pronged attack.

 

[Upgrayedd]

Also if religion advocated for family planning. A 2 pronged attack.

What do you mean? Out breed the heretics. Keep them uneducated and poor. Clearly the catholics and muslims have been a blessing for Africa.

 

[rowie343]

Monsanto are in the business of making populations grow and expanding markets. In the business of people making.

 

[smokingjacket]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/business/gmo-promise-falls-short.html

"the United States and Canada have gained no discernible advantage in yields — food per acre — when measured against Western Europe, a region with comparably modernized agricultural producers like France and Germany. Also, a recent National Academy of Sciences report found that “there was little evidence” that the introduction of genetically modified crops in the United States had led to yield gains beyond those seen in conventional crops."

What was the point of GMO's again?

 

[Long Live HFC]

What was the point of GMO's again?

most GMOs have been designed with pest management in mind.

Up until now, biotech seed developers have been focused in the same place as many traditional breeding efforts: pest management. When you consider the GMO traits that are currently on the market (mostly glyphosate herbicide resistance and Bt insect resistance), there is really no reason to think we’d see a dramatic spike in yields across the country. Both of these traits are intended to help farmers manage pests (weeds and insects). So the only reason we’d see an increase in crop yields due to these traits is if we didn’t have adequate tools to manage those pests prior to the introduction of the GMO traits. For corn and soybean in particular, it is not at all surprising we’ve not observed major yield increases due to these traits. Corn and soybean represent huge market opportunities for pesticide development, and therefore, many tools were already available to manage weeds and insect pests in those crops.

http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2014/02/gmo-failure-to-yield/

and from your article:

I’m choosing on yield capabilities and plant characteristics more than I am on G.M.O. traits” like bug and poison resistance, he said, underscoring a crucial point: Yield is still driven by breeding plants to bring out desirable traits, as it has been for thousands of years.

That said, Mr. Stone values genetic modifications to reduce his insecticide use (though he would welcome help with stink bugs, a troublesome pest for many farmers).

the data on US pesticides in your link is disingenuous. there was a 25% reduction in "pounds on the ground" re poisons sprayed between 1982 and 2007 (and this difference is more dramatic if it's toxicity-weighted). your link states that there's been an increase in pesticides since the advent of GM crops. as i have noted several times, there certainly has been an increase in the amount of roundup (for example) being used now than in the 90s, but the article doesn't compare that usage to what or how much was being used prior.

if france really has reduced toxicity-weighted pesticide use by 65%, it'd be interesting to learn what they're doing differently to the rest of europe. based on the cherry-picking in that article however, i remain sceptical.

http://www.sciencemag.org/site/special/pesticides/index.xhtml

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ds-of-pesticides-each-year-is-that-a-problem/

the ironic part of the piece is the concern about the dangers of pesticides- without seeming to realise that glyphosate is one of the least-dangerous poisons (to humans) in use today.

http://www.crediblehulk.org/index.p...d-sorting-through-the-facts-by-credible-hulk/

 

[smokingjacket]

most GMOs have been designed with pest management in mind.



http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2014/02/gmo-failure-to-yield/

and from your article:



the data on US pesticides in your link is disingenuous. there was a 25% reduction in "pounds on the ground" re poisons sprayed between 1982 and 2007 (and this difference is more dramatic if it's toxicity-weighted). your link states that there's been an increase in pesticides since the advent of GM crops. as i have noted several times, there certainly has been an increase in the amount of roundup (for example) being used now than in the 90s, but the article doesn't compare that usage to what or how much was being used prior.

if france really has reduced toxicity-weighted pesticide use by 65%, it'd be interesting to learn what they're doing differently to the rest of europe. based on the cherry-picking in that article however, i remain sceptical.

http://www.sciencemag.org/site/special/pesticides/index.xhtml

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ds-of-pesticides-each-year-is-that-a-problem/

the ironic part of the piece is the concern about the dangers of pesticides- without seeming to realise that glyphosate is one of the least-dangerous poisons (to humans) in use today.

http://www.crediblehulk.org/index.p...d-sorting-through-the-facts-by-credible-hulk/

Pesticide use is plummeting in Western Europe because of different pest management techniques. Pest management has come a long way from the 90's. Latest best practice for orcharding, viticulture, market gardening and grains is integrated pest management and only using pesticides as a last resort.

 

[smokingjacket]

Also that's all great but for the two posters in this thread who have suggested that GMO's increase yield. Also the companies themselves claim that GMO's are important for increasing yield.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Pesticide use is plummeting in Western Europe because of different pest management techniques. Pest management has come a long way from the 90's. Latest best practice for orcharding, viticulture, market gardening and grains is integrated pest management and only using pesticides as a last resort.

which is why i think the best outcomes can be achieved with a combination of techniques; eg an organic approach to soil health with artificially-improved seed.

 

[Long Live HFC]

View attachment 309824


Also that's all great but for the two posters in this thread who have suggested that GMO's increase yield. Also the companies themselves claim that GMO's are important for increasing yield.

it's on a case-by-case basis. the link i posted provided examples that did improve yields; i was merely pointing out the disingenuousness given most GM crop types currently in use relate to pest control, so claiming they're not doing something that they're not designed to do makes no sense.

i would also note that we've barely touched the tip of the iceberg with respect to what can be achieved in agricultural genetics. the potential is huge. you've quoted a comment re 3rd world nations, and to that assertion i would add that the challenges facing food producers in a rapidly-changing climate may benefit from biotech research.

Farmers and crop companies are struggling to figure out ways to cope with severe drought. Changing the weather is still beyond us—though some countries like China are trying—but what if there were a way to breed crops that could use water more efficiently, thriving even in times of drought?

That’s what agribusiness is hoping to achieve with new genetically modified (GM) crop strains that are designed to endure arid conditions. Industry leader Monsanto is working on a hybrid line of corn called DroughtGard, developed with the German firm BASF, that is designed to enhance crop yield in dry soils. It is the first U.S. Department of Agriculture–approved GM crop to focus on drought tolerance and features a bacterial gene that enables it to better retain water. Hundreds of farmers in the western end of the Corn Belt–an area that runs to dry even in normal years–are field-testing DroughtGard, and Monsanto says early results indicate that the GM crop might improve yields by 4% to 8% over conventional crops in some arid conditions.

http://science.time.com/2012/09/10/can-gmo-crops-bust-the-drought/

 

[little graham]

http://www.healthy-holistic-living....gm-foods-are-destroying-our-health.html?t=HHL

 

[Long Live HFC]

high school drop out

 

[Mindtraveller]

GMO is the future.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/www.f...ll-cure-cancer/?client=ms-opera-mobile&espv=1

 

[little graham]

Sheep are up late tonight.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Sheep are up late tonight.

says the guy being lead around by his nose by the junk-science industry. which horrible factoid will they get you to sook about tomorrow?

 

[little graham]

says the guy being lead around by his nose by the junk-science industry. which horrible factoid will they get you to sook about tomorrow?

Trump says mainstream media are all liars. He was voted into power with this mandate. you rely on those liars to abuse people around here.

I feel sorry for your family.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Trump says mainstream media are all liars. He was voted into power with this mandate. you rely on those liars to abuse people around here.

yeah, but don't you just love using "the MSM" when it suits you?

like your rat pic above. an article published (and subsequently retracted) by one of those research journals you claim can never be trusted because "The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue".

but here you are referencing that (very poor) study, not because you've looked into its veracity or quality, not because you have any knowledge or experience in the subject matter, but because you want it to be true. yet it won't be long until you next claim that science is suspect and peer review can't be trusted (except for the stuff you find convenient to believe).

transparent as *.

I feel sorry for your family.

why? they're all well educated and would think you're a dumb campaigner, too.

 

[PunyHumans!!!]

Hoooooo boy, not that cesspit of garbage again. That pic has NOTHING to do with any of the GM studies listed or anything GM at all. So why use it?

Just looking at one of those studies, No 12, a couple of comments... Not even peer reviewed, it was published at a conference in Germany I think sponsored by Greenpeace (I wonder what their veiws on GM crops are?). The rats appeared to have been not well looked after considering both groups were underweight. Also isoflavones did not appear to be tested or controlled for which is kinda important considering their estrogenic properties that can affect animal studies.

Japanese researches looked at this particular problem, comparing non GM soy and GM soy and found no differences between the two.

The less said about Seralini, the better.

 

[smokingjacket]

which is why i think the best outcomes can be achieved with a combination of techniques; eg an organic approach to soil health with artificially-improved seed.

Mmm yeah but the main problem with GMO's is how they're sold. They are aids to maintain the current system of agriculture that wouldn't be capable of sustaining itself otherwise. Overuse of herbicides is rampant and causing massive downstream problems. If they aren't showing yield increases then you have to question their overall sustainability considering the direction that new-Ag is taking.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Mmm yeah but the main problem with GMO's is how they're sold.

how are they sold?

They are aids to maintain the current system of agriculture that wouldn't be capable of sustaining itself otherwise.

but they don't have to be (they can be used however we choose); i've noted many times on BF, the problems associated with GM crops are actually problems for conventional agriculture generally. given you assert that GM crops don't increase yields, to which "aids" do you refer? are you just talking about pesticides?

France, the European Union's biggest agricultural producer, has delayed a target to halve pesticide use to 2025 from 2018 after plans to curb their deployment failed, the farm minister said on Friday.

France had set a voluntary target of halving pesticide use in the decade to 2018 but it has in fact risen, partly due to adverse weather conditions.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-pesticides-idUSKBN0L316220150130

Overuse of herbicides is rampant and causing massive downstream problems.

i wouldn't mind a source for this? the US dept of agriculture (which you referenced in your original post) state:

ERS research on pesticide use on 21 selected crops finds that use more than tripled from 1960 to 1981, but has since declined from 632 million pounds to 516 million pounds in 2008, partly due to more efficient active ingredients, Integrated Pest Management, and GE seeds.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-practices-management/chemical-inputs/pesticide-use-markets.aspx

and

• Insecticide use in corn peaked in 1976 at 32 million pounds (M lbs) of active ingredient, dropped to 10.6 M lbs by 2000 and by 2010 had fallen to 1.8 M lbs; that’s nearly an 18-fold decrease.
• Insecticide use in cotton declined from 43.5 M lbs in 2000 to 7.2 M lbs in 2010—a 6-fold decrease. The 2000–2010 time period coincides with the introduction of GM corn and cotton for insect management.
• Herbicide use in corn and soybeans stood at 243 and 133 M lbs, respectively, in 1982, peak years for both, and by 2010 was at 197 and 110 M lbs, respectively. There has been a rise in herbicide use over the past 10 years or so, as a few very low-use-rate herbicides, especially in soybeans, have been replaced by somewhat higher-use-rate products, but it still does not reach the rates of the past.
• Fungicide usage has remained approximately steady over the years, and GM crops have yet to be introduced to resist plant disease and reduce the need for fungicides, but, once again, no increase.

https://gmoanswers.com/ask/it-true-gmos-require-massive-amounts-pesticides-herbicides-and-fungicides

If they aren't showing yield increases then you have to question their overall sustainability considering the direction that new-Ag is taking.

i feel like i addressed this claim in my previous post.

 

[Sinjin Smith]