Corporate Scientists Attack Greenpeace over GMO opposition

[RetiredUSN]

None of those links talk about plants genetically engineering themselves. They don't even talk about plant genetically modifying themselves.

I think you don't even understand what the terms (genetic engineering and genetic modification) mean or how they're different

More sappy headed eighth grade nonsense.

 

[sangha]

More sappy headed eighth grade nonsense.

I accept your surrender! :lol:

 

[joG]

IOW, I was right that GE crops do not increase inherent yields and are not needed to feed starving people

It has been some time that I worked on crops and have never formally done GMOs. But a quick and dirty survey of the literature does enforce my memory of having read that some GMOs increase yields and farm income. There has been a controversy I had followed from afar, but my impression seems to have been correct:

"A 2010 article supported by CropLife International summarised the results of 49 peer reviewed studies.[391][392] On average, farmers in developed countries increased yields by 6% and 29% in developing countries."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Yield

"Onfarm field trials carried out with Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) cotton in different states of India show that the technology substantially reduces pest damage and increases yields. The yield gains are much higher than what has been reported for other countries where genetically modified crops were used mostly to replace and enhance chemical pest control. In many developing countries, small-scale farmers especially suffer big pest-related yield losses because of technical and economic constraints. Pest-resistant genetically modified crops can contribute to increased yields and agricultural growth in those situations, as the case of Bt cotton in India demonstrates."
Yield Effects of Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries | Science

"The largest gains in farm income in 2014 have arisen in the maize sector, largely from yield gains.
The $5.3 billion additional income generated by GM insect resistant (GM IR) maize in 2014 has
been equivalent to adding 6.1% to the value of the crop in the GM crop growing countries, or
adding the equivalent of 3.2% to the $163 billion value of the global maize crop in 2014.
Cumulatively since 1996, GM IR technology has added $41.4 billion to the income of global maize
farmers. "
http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/pdf/2016globalimpactstudymay2016.pdf

"The GM IR traits, used in maize and cotton, have accounted for 95.3% of the additional maize
production and 99.3% of the additional cotton production. Positive yield impacts from the use of
this technology have occurred in all user countries (except for GM IR cotton in Australia where
the levels of Heliothis sp (boll and bud worm pests) pest control previously obtained with
intensive insecticide use were very good). The main benefit and reason for adoption of this
technology in Australia has arisen from significant cost savings and the associated environmental
gains from reduced insecticide use, when compared to average yields derived from crops using
conventional technology (such as application of insecticides and seed treatments). The average
yield impact across the total area planted to these traits over the 19 years since 1996 has been
+11.7% for maize and +17% for cotton. "
http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/pdf/2016globalimpactstudymay2016.pdf

 

[joG]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...laureates-take-on-greenpeace-over-gmo-stance/

It is depressing to see how corporate money has infiltrated science so that even a bunch of Nobel Prize winners have even been corrupted.

Do we really need to feed the exploding populations of the third world? I'm sorry a lot of those kids are going blind and have Vitamin A deficiency, but there's millions of starving kids and only 1 planet. Let's focus on getting adequate contraception and female empowerment to these populations instead of risking everyone's health with mutant plants.

I looked up some links and it seems quite clear that genetically improved crops do better than others increasing the yield and farm income. This has been controversially discussed, but it seems to be a phantom debate.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...mo-opposition-11.html?posted=1#post1066043675

 

[sangha]

It has been some time that I worked on crops and have never formally done GMOs. But a quick and dirty survey of the literature does enforce my memory of having read that some GMOs increase yields and farm income. There has been a controversy I had followed from afar, but my impression seems to have been correct:

"A 2010 article supported by CropLife International summarised the results of 49 peer reviewed studies.[391][392] On average, farmers in developed countries increased yields by 6% and 29% in developing countries."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Yield

"Onfarm field trials carried out with Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) cotton in different states of India show that the technology substantially reduces pest damage and increases yields. The yield gains are much higher than what has been reported for other countries where genetically modified crops were used mostly to replace and enhance chemical pest control. In many developing countries, small-scale farmers especially suffer big pest-related yield losses because of technical and economic constraints. Pest-resistant genetically modified crops can contribute to increased yields and agricultural growth in those situations, as the case of Bt cotton in India demonstrates."
Yield Effects of Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries | Science

"The largest gains in farm income in 2014 have arisen in the maize sector, largely from yield gains.
The $5.3 billion additional income generated by GM insect resistant (GM IR) maize in 2014 has
been equivalent to adding 6.1% to the value of the crop in the GM crop growing countries, or
adding the equivalent of 3.2% to the $163 billion value of the global maize crop in 2014.
Cumulatively since 1996, GM IR technology has added $41.4 billion to the income of global maize
farmers. "
http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/pdf/2016globalimpactstudymay2016.pdf

"The GM IR traits, used in maize and cotton, have accounted for 95.3% of the additional maize
production and 99.3% of the additional cotton production. Positive yield impacts from the use of
this technology have occurred in all user countries (except for GM IR cotton in Australia where
the levels of Heliothis sp (boll and bud worm pests) pest control previously obtained with
intensive insecticide use were very good). The main benefit and reason for adoption of this
technology in Australia has arisen from significant cost savings and the associated environmental
gains from reduced insecticide use, when compared to average yields derived from crops using
conventional technology (such as application of insecticides and seed treatments). The average
yield impact across the total area planted to these traits over the 19 years since 1996 has been
+11.7% for maize and +17% for cotton. "
http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/pdf/2016globalimpactstudymay2016.pdf

For every study indicating increased yields, there is another one showing no increase.

 

[Threegoofs]

For every study indicating increased yields, there is another one showing no increase.

and therefore you conclude there is no increase.

Like I said, the point is primarily to reduce pesticide and/or herbicide usage, and that has been clearly successful. The increase in yield is just a bonus from crops not getting wiped out by pests.

 

[joG]

For every study indicating increased yields, there is another one showing no increase.

It is for answers of this type that I usually do not bother to look up links, when people squawk about proof.

 

[sangha]

and therefore you conclude there is no increase.

No, I conclude that the pro-GE crowds claims of increases are unproven

Like I said, the point is primarily to reduce pesticide and/or herbicide usage, and that has been clearly successful. The increase in yield is just a bonus from crops not getting wiped out by pests.

Umm, your graph shows insecticide use dropping before GE's were widely planted. Since the introduction of GE crops (in the mid 1990's) there has been little change in the use of insecticides

 

[sangha]

It is for answers of this type that I usually do not bother to look up links, when people squawk about proof.

If you're going to make claims, you should be prepared to back them up with proof.

But if you lack the integrity required to do so, I'll understand

 

[Threegoofs]

No, I conclude that the pro-GE crowds claims of increases are unproven



Umm, your graph shows insecticide use dropping before GE's were widely planted. Since the introduction of GE crops (in the mid 1990's) there has been little change in the use of insecticides

I guess reducing the most toxic pesticides by over half, and pesticides overall by about 10M kg/yr despite more cropland is what you consider 'little change'.

Since your arguments can be summarized as 'nuh-uh', and you havent documented one single fact to support your argument that GMO crops are evil, I'll consider this matter closed.

 

[Renae]

That's not irrational at all. The current climate change, the one that we're causing, is proceeding ten times faster than the fastest climate change in the geological record. And that's a recipe for ecological disaster. It has already cost the world millions, and costs will only increase from here.

 

[longview]

I think if there is much bad about GMO crops it would have to do with locking farmers into
purchasing seeds from the GMO provider.
I.E. I am not sure the modified plants produce modified seeds, and even if they do, property rights laws
could require new seeds for new crop cycles.
Humans have been modifying crop plants for many centuries, only now we have better tools.
Selective breeding is also still viable, but takes longer.

 

[joG]

If you're going to make claims, you should be prepared to back them up with proof.

But if you lack the integrity required to do so, I'll understand

Actually, you are implying a falsehood. You know that.
But you really have not been able to show that genetically improved organisms do not improve yields, farmers' incomes or that they generally do harm. The EU has been trying to for two decades and couldn't. But nonetheless you puff hot air and accuse others.

As I said. You are the type of person it is really a waste looking things up for. Why, you didn't even read, what I posted.

 

[sangha]

I guess reducing the most toxic pesticides by over half, and pesticides overall by about 10M kg/yr despite more cropland is what you consider 'little change'.

The reduction occurred before the planting of GE crops and your graphic explains that their use was limited or banned

Since your arguments can be summarized as 'nuh-uh', and you havent documented one single fact to support your argument that GMO crops are evil, I'll consider this matter closed.

Since your evidence proves I'm right, and you've been reduced to pretending that I said GE crops are evil, it's apparent that even you know you've lost

 

[sangha]

Actually, you are implying a falsehood. You know that.
But you really have not been able to show that genetically improved organisms do not improve yields, farmers' incomes or that they generally do harm. The EU has been trying to for two decades and couldn't. But nonetheless you puff hot air and accuse others.

As I said. You are the type of person it is really a waste looking things up for. Why, you didn't even read, what I posted.

Everything I said is true and I don't have to prove a negative. It's up to the GE worshipers to prove that they increase yield - a task you have abandoned because it's futile.

 

[joG]

Everything I said is true and I don't have to prove a negative. It's up to the GE worshipers to prove that they increase yield - a task you have abandoned because it's futile.

Yawn.... That is not so much a false argument as it is wrong. You see, logic says that you can prove a thing wrong, but have more problems proving them right. That is why you would see c.p. in academic papers, if you read them.

 

[Patrickt]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...laureates-take-on-greenpeace-over-gmo-stance/

It is depressing to see how corporate money has infiltrated science so that even a bunch of Nobel Prize winners have even been corrupted.

Do we really need to feed the exploding populations of the third world? I'm sorry a lot of those kids are going blind and have Vitamin A deficiency, but there's millions of starving kids and only 1 planet. Let's focus on getting adequate contraception and female empowerment to these populations instead of risking everyone's health with mutant plants.

How is corporate money significantly different than government money other than it's earned. It's typical of bullies to whine to the teacher when someone dares to fight back.

The global warming hysterics have been caught lying repeatedly and they keep getting government funding. The anti-fracking crowd to the same.

I do agree these folks have done their bit to help stop overpopulation of poor people. By getting rid of DDT they killed millions of babies. I'm shocked Mr. Ruckelshaus hasn't gotten some sort of genocide award.

 

[sangha]

Yawn.... That is not so much a false argument as it is wrong. You see, logic says that you can prove a thing wrong, but have more problems proving them right. That is why you would see c.p. in academic papers, if you read them.

That is nonsense. There is nothing logical about claiming that it's easier to prove something wrong than to prove it's right. And an honest person would not hesitate to back up their claims with proof.

The bottom line is, that for all their complaining about how the opponents of GE crops are unscientific, the entire argument for GE crops is based on a claim (ie that GE crops increase yields) that science can not support

 

[Threegoofs]

That is nonsense. There is nothing logical about claiming that it's easier to prove something wrong than to prove it's right. And an honest person would not hesitate to back up their claims with proof.

The bottom line is, that for all their complaining about how the opponents of GE crops are unscientific, the entire argument for GE crops is based on a claim (ie that GE crops increase yields) that science can not support

Once again, the entire argument is NOT based on yield.

Only your strawman has that claim.

 

[Tim the plumber]

For every study indicating increased yields, there is another one showing no increase.

And the farmers keep buying the GM crops so they can make more money. Why?????????????????????

Do you think farmers are stupid people?

 

[sangha]

And the farmers keep buying the GM crops so they can make more money. Why?????????????????????

Do you think farmers are stupid people?

I think posters who ask questions I've already answered are stupid people

 

[Tim the plumber]

I think posters who ask questions I've already answered are stupid people

And those who have had the reasons why GM food has advantages over naturally bred strains explained to them multiple times yet insist on not taking in those ideas are in deep denial.