GMO Denialism, worst kind of science denial

[PirateMk1]

They are very much the same. Both modify the DNA of plants to make them more suitable for use. The methods are different but the end results are the same.

I beg to differ. The intended end result may be similar however the technique employed is radically different with the breeding program relying on the moldability of the base plant, which further limits the breeding to limited characteristics to certain limited lines of "improvement". Basically a wheat plant will be a wheat plant and is just selected for its "improved" properties.

Recombinant DNA Techniques is much less limited and introduces massive cross species and genre DNA exchange which may or may not be benign and plants made through such technique should be much more studied before release to the public, and should be marked as engineered. I am not saying is bad. But is not all good either.

 

[Un biased]

The study by Guillaume does not say that GE crops play no role in the suicides. It merely says that it is not the predominant factor and that the suicides are the result of many factors with the most important factor being indebtedness. Notably, the use of GE cotton increases indebtedness because the seeds are twice as expensive as non-GE cotton.

However, the role of GE cotton in the suicide rate has probably been overstated

Did you not look at all the sources ? "...was mainly the result of the context or environment in which it was planted," And Kloor also links to this talk by Cornell's Ronald J. Herring, a professor of government, who says genetically engineered crops "have lessened, not increased, agrarian distress."

India in general have him success rates and is not linked to gmos .
USDA ERS - Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops by U.S. Farmers Has Increased Steadily for Over 15 Years

^^that is another site that discusses yeilds and cost

 

[Skeptic Bob]

If GMOs are so wonderful and safe, why does the lobby behind them work so hard to ensure GMO products do not have a label telling the buyer about it? One can assume well that since there is an absence of mandatory labeling of GMO products there must be some reason for keeping the consumer uninformed.

Probably because they understand human psychology. If there is a misinformation campaign going on preaching that GMOs are harmful, even if they aren't, you will still lose sales if you label the product GMO precisely BECAUSE of the misinformation being spread.

 

[Ikari]

Probably because they understand human psychology. If there is a misinformation campaign going on preaching that GMOs are harmful, even if they aren't, you will still lose sales if you label the product GMO precisely BECAUSE of the misinformation being spread.

Well I guess Monsanto will have to try.....marketing.

 

[sangha]

Did you not look at all the sources ? "...was mainly the result of the context or environment in which it was planted," And Kloor also links to this talk by Cornell's Ronald J. Herring, a professor of government, who says genetically engineered crops "have lessened, not increased, agrarian distress."

I have not read every report on the matter, but what I have read have all said essentially the same things - that GE crops are not the sole (or even the main) reason farmers are committing suicide, that there are several factors at play, and that indebtedness is the main cause. I addressed those points in my previous response to you. If there are other points made in any of those reports, feel free to post it.

India in general have him success rates and is not linked to gmos .

I do not understand that sentence.

USDA ERS - Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops by U.S. Farmers Has Increased Steadily for Over 15 Years

^^that is another site that discusses yeilds and cost

And what it says is that the results have not been terribly exciting. While some GE crops have provided some benefits under some conditions, those benefits are far from those touted by the industry and their advocates. In addition, there have been costs (both financial and environmental) that come with those limited benefits.

In addition, those benefits are realized by comparing conventionally grown non-GE crops to conventionally grown GE crops. Other studies have shown that organic methods can produce the same approximate (sometimes higher, sometimes lower) yields with even greater profits (because organics command a premium in the market). Furthermore, since organics require less expensive inputs (free seed, no chemical fertilizers, herbicides, fungicides, etc) their expenses are lower and they have a beneficial effect on the environment instead of a detrimental effect

 

[Un biased]

I have not read every report on the matter, but what I have read have all said essentially the same things - that GE crops are not the sole (or even the main) reason farmers are committing suicide, that there are several factors at play, and that indebtedness is the main cause. I addressed those points in my previous response to you. If there are other points made in any of those reports, feel free to post it.



I do not understand that sentence.



And what it says is that the results have not been terribly exciting. While some GE crops have provided some benefits under some conditions, those benefits are far from those touted by the industry and their advocates. In addition, there have been costs (both financial and environmental) that come with those limited benefits.

In addition, those benefits are realized by comparing conventionally grown non-GE crops to conventionally grown GE crops. Other studies have shown that organic methods can produce the same approximate (sometimes higher, sometimes lower) yields with even greater profits (because organics command a premium in the market). Furthermore, since organics require less expensive inputs (free seed, no chemical fertilizers, herbicides, fungicides, etc) their expenses are lower and they have a beneficial effect on the environment instead of a detrimental effect

1 I linked up different articles on the matter which I had doubted you even read by your post. You alluded that gmo's caused indebtedness when it did not as it stated in said article it stated "lessened, not increased, agrarian distress." which I wanted to clear up .

2 I was using an app to post and accidents do occur so I do apologize for that nonsensical part

3 It is not some it is many as it says many in said article . Not terrible exciting is a bit subjective and a lacking as this is headway's into making better crops. Environmental issue and pesticides are covered in this already is said article

"Studies based on field tests and farm surveys have examined the extent to which GE crop adoption affects pesticide (insecticide and herbicide) use, and most results show a reduction in pesticide use. A 2010 National Research Council study concurred that GE crops lead to reduced pesticide use and /or to use of pesticides with lower toxicity compared to those used on conventional crops."

Please direct me to said studies . Organic food market has grown due to slandering and spreading false information about gmo's and people who do not bother fact checking. Or people who think organic = better for you.

Nutrition-related health effects of organic foods: a systematic review


On terms of profit it is dependent on technique and the amount of pest eating the crops and the kind of crop itself, but this should help put it into perspective GM Crops: A Farmer's Dream?

The detrimental effect on the environment varies to who you talk to
GM Crops Good for Environment, Study Finds » American Scientist

 

[Morality Games]

Your ludicrous denial of science is such an ugly thing. It must be awful to live your life shrouded in such ignorance and inability to grasp scientific concepts.

You seem to be in a mood today.

The scientific community is spread out across so many politically crossed groups that there's no hope of impartiality in anything that entails huge amounts of money or increases in political strength. The only rational choice isn't to believe anybody.

Although if we're talking about scientific concepts, the modern food supply is so mutated from the manner in which humans evolved to eat it that trying to track down which specific aspect of it is causing our health problems is like trying to find a needle in a haystack.

I don't know what if anything about GMOs make them deleterious to humans, but I do know my ancestors stretching 120,000 years never ate them; going in that direction, humans can't digest fibers because our nearest genetic ancestors never ate them, but horses can.

 

[sangha]

1 I linked up different articles on the matter which I had doubted you even read by your post. You alluded that gmo's caused indebtedness when it did not as it stated in said article it stated "lessened, not increased, agrarian distress." which I wanted to clear up .

2 I was using an app to post and accidents do occur so I do apologize for that nonsensical part

3 It is not some it is many as it says many in said article . Not terrible exciting is a bit subjective and a lacking as this is headway's into making better crops. Environmental issue and pesticides are covered in this already is said article

"Studies based on field tests and farm surveys have examined the extent to which GE crop adoption affects pesticide (insecticide and herbicide) use, and most results show a reduction in pesticide use. A 2010 National Research Council study concurred that GE crops lead to reduced pesticide use and /or to use of pesticides with lower toxicity compared to those used on conventional crops."

Please direct me to said studies . Organic food market has grown due to slandering and spreading false information about gmo's and people who do not bother fact checking. Or people who think organic = better for you.

Nutrition-related health effects of organic foods: a systematic review


On terms of profit it is dependent on technique and the amount of pest eating the crops and the kind of crop itself, but this should help put it into perspective GM Crops: A Farmer's Dream?

The detrimental effect on the environment varies to who you talk to
GM Crops Good for Environment, Study Finds » American Scientist

1) I have read Guillame's study before. My response, which does address several of the points his study raises demonstrates that. My point about the high price of GE seed, while not a matter that his report discusses is relevant - not because he addresses it but because he does not address it.

I did not address the issue of "agrarian distress" because we were discussing farmer suicides which is a more limited issue than the more general "agrarian distress" that Guillame discusses

2) No problem.

3) The report is clear that the results on yield (which is what we were discussing) has been mixed (see report quote below) and I've noted that some GE crops (specifically bt crops) have resulted in less use of insecticides. However, they come with a new set of issues such as creating bt-resistance in pests.

using an econometric model that controls for other factors, ERS researchers found that a 10-percent increase in the rate of Bt corn adoption was associated with a 1.7-percent increase in yields in 2005 and a 2.3-percent increase in yields in 2010. Researchers also found that a 10-percent increase in the adoption of Bt cotton in 1997 was associated with a 2.1-percent increase in yields.

On the other hand, evidence on the impact of HT seeds on soybean, corn, and cotton yields is mixed. Some researchers found no significant difference between the yields of adopters and non-adopters of HT; others found that HT adopters had higher yields, while still others found that adopters had lower yields.

One time increases of 1.7% to 2.1% do not sound impressive to me, particularly when you consider they're comparing two groups of crops grown using conventional practices and not comparing them to non-conventional techniques. Selective breeding, hybridization, and other non-GE techniques have been producing gains in yields year after year for decades and have a record of success that stretches back centuries.

4) While avoiding GMO's is certainly a consideration for some, the main motivation to buy organic is to avoid produce grown with chemical fertilizers, insecticides, etc

5) About profit - Economic analysis reveals organic farming profitable long-term -- ScienceDaily

6) Your last link refers to bt crops which, as I already stated, do lead to decrease use of insecticides. That is a good thing, but there are problems associated with bt crops and more importantly, NO INSECTICIDE USE is better than less insecticide use. Organic farming uses no chemical insecticides. And yes, I realize bt is not a chemical insecticide and is considered organic but when applied to crops, bt degrades within a week giving the pest too little time to develop resistance while bt proteins are constantly present in crops that have been genetically engineered to include a "bt gene" which makes it possible for pest to develop resistance.

 

[kerussll]

Why would the word "warning" need to be included? Presuming you're not trying to portray labeling in the worst possible manner, of course.

Even if the word warning is not included, that's what it is. And no evidence that this needs to exist. Food companies shouldn't have to pander to those afraid of GMOs or hurt their profit margin. Let people label their food as "GMO free" and the people who care about this will seek those foods out.

 

[kerussll]

GMO-free is a lie. Already covered this. Try to imagine ANY food plant that hasn't been altered by man over the last 10,000 years.

This is another reason why food labeling about GMOs shouldn't be mandatory. I have no idea what the standard is to be able to label your food as "GMO free," and I really don't care, since I ignore that label anyway.

 

[DDD]

A GMO apple has it all and looks and feels better than a non-GMO apple, this one in my opinion.

 

[Un biased]

1) I have read Guillame's study before. My response, which does address several of the points his study raises demonstrates that. My point about the high price of GE seed, while not a matter that his report discusses is relevant - not because he addresses it but because he does not address it.

I did not address the issue of "agrarian distress" because we were discussing farmer suicides which is a more limited issue than the more general "agrarian distress" that Guillame discusses

2) No problem.

3) The report is clear that the results on yield (which is what we were discussing) has been mixed (see report quote below) and I've noted that some GE crops (specifically bt crops) have resulted in less use of insecticides. However, they come with a new set of issues such as creating bt-resistance in pests.



One time increases of 1.7% to 2.1% do not sound impressive to me, particularly when you consider they're comparing two groups of crops grown using conventional practices and not comparing them to non-conventional techniques. Selective breeding, hybridization, and other non-GE techniques have been producing gains in yields year after year for decades and have a record of success that stretches back centuries.

4) While avoiding GMO's is certainly a consideration for some, the main motivation to buy organic is to avoid produce grown with chemical fertilizers, insecticides, etc

5) About profit - Economic analysis reveals organic farming profitable long-term -- ScienceDaily

6) Your last link refers to bt crops which, as I already stated, do lead to decrease use of insecticides. That is a good thing, but there are problems associated with bt crops and more importantly, NO INSECTICIDE USE is better than less insecticide use. Organic farming uses no chemical insecticides. And yes, I realize bt is not a chemical insecticide and is considered organic but when applied to crops, bt degrades within a week giving the pest too little time to develop resistance while bt proteins are constantly present in crops that have been genetically engineered to include a "bt gene" which makes it possible for pest to develop resistance.

what exactly do you want to know about the high price of a ge seed? They have gone up most likely through the economic theory of supply and demand also the patents.
withing that percentage there is profit to be made. No evidence is supported that shows that Ge seeds are to blame for the rates of suicide and it was faulty for the other poster who I had commented to in the first place to state such a thing without a link that even alludes to that . Agrarian distress is down due to the GE crops which shows that suicide committed over the crops would be faulty as GE would increase it not decrease . HT seeds are mixed bag of results. The yield is not one time occurrence and the increase itself makes for some healthy profits. Organic companies do surely profit off of fear mongering and make claims that are not peer reviewed and make false claims . Even in humanitarian efforts of Ge crops were vandalized ( golden rice ) Golden Rice: What it is, what it does and how good it is at doing it .
Your profit is in relation to conventionally grown crops not Ge .
Yes organic foods use less insecticides as opposed to GE , but then again so what it doesn't harm humans 10 studies proving GMOs are harmful? Not if science matters | Genetic Literacy Project and BT still uses less insecticides than convention in the first place .

Resistance has and always be an issue farmers face and can be mitigated by crop rotation

 

[radcen]

Even if the word warning is not included, that's what it is. And no evidence that this needs to exist. Food companies shouldn't have to pander to those afraid of GMOs or hurt their profit margin. Let people label their food as "GMO free" and the people who care about this will seek those foods out.

Ah, the truth comes out. This is what it's really all about, isn't it?

By logical extension, of course, you also disapprove of any mandatory package labeling. Who cares how much sodium is in a product, for example. It doesn't matter if a product has gobs of sugar that a customer might want to avoid (doesn't have to be for health reasons, either) because said avoidance might affect the manufacturer's bottom line.

 

[sangha]

I'd like to request that you break your longer posts up into paragraphs and put a line break in between the paragraphs. My eyes are not what they used to be. TIA.

what exactly do you want to know about the high price of a ge seed? They have gone up most likely through the economic theory of supply and demand also the patents.withing that percentage there is profit to be made.

I did not ask for any info concerning the price of GE seed.

No evidence is supported that shows that Ge seeds are to blame for the rates of suicide and it was faulty for the other poster who I had commented to in the first place to state such a thing without a link that even alludes to that . Agrarian distress is down due to the GE crops which shows that suicide committed over the crops would be faulty as GE would increase it not decrease .

I did not agree with the charges and I agreed that the anti-GMO claims concerning suicides was inaccurate. All I did was point out that the reports about the matter did not prove that GE crops played no role in the matter.

HT seeds are mixed bag of results. The yield is not one time occurrence and the increase itself makes for some healthy profits. Organic companies do surely profit off of fear mongering and make claims that are not peer reviewed and make false claims . Even in humanitarian efforts of Ge crops were vandalized ( golden rice ) Golden Rice: What it is, what it does and how good it is at doing it .

I did not say the yield was a one time occurance. I said the increase in yield was a one time occurance. If the planting of GE corn increases the yield of one acre from 100 bushels to 102 bushels (a 2% increase which is in line with the findings you posted earlier), that increase only happens once. the 2nd year they plant the GE corn will not result in a 2nd increase to (approx) 104 bushels.

I am not a technophobe and I do not believe the GE technology is evil. Like any other technology, it can be used responsibly or irresponsibly. In the case of Golden Rice, I have no objections. It's benefits, though not as great as touted, are undeniably a good thing while the detrimental effects are negligible. However, if we're going to talk about GE crops, we have to look at the sum total of GE crops being grown and the overwhelming majority of those crops are either BT of HT crops, both of which have serious issues.

SO let's have a responsible and reasonable discussion about the matter - one where I recognize the benefits (both realized and potential) and you recognize the dangers. And let's avoid the overheated rhetoric and hyperbole one often encounters when people discuss this issue. For example, your argument that organics appeal is based on fear. I could just as easily say that GE's appeal is based on the fear that, without GE's, we will not be able to feed everyone. That argument is just as much based in fear as the argument you made, and just as false.

Your profit is in relation to conventionally grown crops not Ge .

As your link indicated, the boost in yield (and therefore profits) from the use of GE seed is small (around 2%) while the differential between organic and non-organic was many times larger than 2%. IOW, even if they used GE for the comparison, the organic crop would still be far more profitable.

Yes organic foods use less insecticides as opposed to GE , but then again so what it doesn't harm humans 10 studies proving GMOs are harmful? Not if science matters | Genetic Literacy Project and BT still uses less insecticides than convention in the first place .

Insecticides do harm humans. They also harm the environment and using no insecticides is better than using less. Also, because BT is always present in BT crops, it encourages the development of BT resistance in pests.

And the use of insecticides is not the only issue. There's also the use of chemical fertilizers, herbicides, fungicides, run-off pollution, soil erosion, etc

Resistance has and always be an issue farmers face and can be mitigated by crop rotation

Crop rotation, though useful as a means to control pests, has no effect on the development of disease resistance in pests.

 

[Un biased]

I'd like to request that you break your longer posts up into paragraphs and put a line break in between the paragraphs. My eyes are not what they used to be. TIA.



I did not ask for any info concerning the price of GE seed.



I did not agree with the charges and I agreed that the anti-GMO claims concerning suicides was inaccurate. All I did was point out that the reports about the matter did not prove that GE crops played no role in the matter.



I did not say the yield was a one time occurance. I said the increase in yield was a one time occurance. If the planting of GE corn increases the yield of one acre from 100 bushels to 102 bushels (a 2% increase which is in line with the findings you posted earlier), that increase only happens once. the 2nd year they plant the GE corn will not result in a 2nd increase to (approx) 104 bushels.

I am not a technophobe and I do not believe the GE technology is evil. Like any other technology, it can be used responsibly or irresponsibly. In the case of Golden Rice, I have no objections. It's benefits, though not as great as touted, are undeniably a good thing while the detrimental effects are negligible. However, if we're going to talk about GE crops, we have to look at the sum total of GE crops being grown and the overwhelming majority of those crops are either BT of HT crops, both of which have serious issues.

SO let's have a responsible and reasonable discussion about the matter - one where I recognize the benefits (both realized and potential) and you recognize the dangers. And let's avoid the overheated rhetoric and hyperbole one often encounters when people discuss this issue. For example, your argument that organics appeal is based on fear. I could just as easily say that GE's appeal is based on the fear that, without GE's, we will not be able to feed everyone. That argument is just as much based in fear as the argument you made, and just as false.


As your link indicated, the boost in yield (and therefore profits) from the use of GE seed is small (around 2%) while the differential between organic and non-organic was many times larger than 2%. IOW, even if they used GE for the comparison, the organic crop would still be far more profitable.



Insecticides do harm humans. They also harm the environment and using no insecticides is better than using less. Also, because BT is always present in BT crops, it encourages the development of BT resistance in pests.

And the use of insecticides is not the only issue. There's also the use of chemical fertilizers, herbicides, fungicides, run-off pollution, soil erosion, etc



Crop rotation, though useful as a means to control pests, has no effect on the development of disease resistance in pests.

Sorry about that , I don't mean to be a detriment to your eyes


1 You did mention the prices of said seeds and that the study did not address it .

2. You are right it did not say it was entirely guiltless in the suicide rate , but I did point out that if it did have something to do with it then It would increase Agrarian distress not lower it and the poster who I had commented to had made claims that the GE crops where to blame for the unfortunate happenings.

3 you did say one time increases so please excuse me for the misunderstanding . The 2% increase yields were accounted for to be contributed solely by GE crops. Organic foods have a specialty market and they are in some instances incredibly expensive than conventional and GE .

4 I never said their were no dangers as with all technology there is going to be danger present , I also never said you were a technophobe or ant-science . The appeal of organic through fear has been shown through the slanderous things that they tout .

5 insecticides do not harm humans , but they are a concern for the environment I shall not deny that

6 No , evolution of the pest is what causes resistance in both GE and non Ge crops and crop rotation helps stave of resistance How pesticide resistance develops | Growing Grapes for Juice and Wine

( note I had a bit more to say but the system made me re-log in so I will be busy bashing my computer )

 

[Ikari]

what exactly do you want to know about the high price of a ge seed? They have gone up most likely through the economic theory of supply and demand also the patents.
withing that percentage there is profit to be made. No evidence is supported that shows that Ge seeds are to blame for the rates of suicide and it was faulty for the other poster who I had commented to in the first place to state such a thing without a link that even alludes to that . Agrarian distress is down due to the GE crops which shows that suicide committed over the crops would be faulty as GE would increase it not decrease . HT seeds are mixed bag of results. The yield is not one time occurrence and the increase itself makes for some healthy profits. Organic companies do surely profit off of fear mongering and make claims that are not peer reviewed and make false claims . Even in humanitarian efforts of Ge crops were vandalized ( golden rice ) Golden Rice: What it is, what it does and how good it is at doing it .
Your profit is in relation to conventionally grown crops not Ge .
Yes organic foods use less insecticides as opposed to GE , but then again so what it doesn't harm humans 10 studies proving GMOs are harmful? Not if science matters | Genetic Literacy Project and BT still uses less insecticides than convention in the first place .

Resistance has and always be an issue farmers face and can be mitigated by crop rotation

Price fixing and the rate at which it has gone up is also likely contributed to the tight relationship with the government and our corporate capitalism model of economy.

GMOs aren't going to kill anyone, they're still food. But why can we not have the label? We have to label wild vs. farmed for fish and all sorts of other stuff, this is just information. And yes, some people will look to avoid it, but it's not going to cause the demise of GMO. Some people avoid farmed fish, but that industry isn't going to dry up.

Out of curiosity, are there studies that measure the nutritional value of GMO produced products compared to their "natural" counterpart?

 

[sangha]

Sorry about that , I don't mean to be a detriment to your eyes

No problem and thank you for putting in the effort.

1) I was unclear. The report does mention the increased cost of GE seed but it doesn't talk about how that could lead to increased indebtedness and indebtedness was something it noted as a major factor in causing suicide. That's not to say that GE's does or does not increase suicide. I'm just pointing out the limits of the report and what it says.

As I said, the claims of the anti-GE crowd are, at best, exagerrated but to be honest, it as nothing to do with my concerns about GE's. My concern is more related to the environmental effects of using GE's (not to mention the legal and political aspects)

2) See above.

3) I was entirely clear so the misunderstanding was understandable. I'm glad you understand that I was pointing out that GE crops have not produced ever-increasing yields (on a per acre basis) year after year.

And yes, organics do command a handsome premium. There's a good reason for that.

4) No, you didn't make any accusations. I just wanted to ensure the discussion didn't veer off in that direction with a discussion of "fear based" tactics. The fact is both sides do that. The proof for that is in the OP's comments in this thread. According to the OP, if you have any concerns about GE, you're a science denier who wants poor people to starve. I prefer to avoid the arguments that misportray one side or the other as ignorant boobs manipulated by propoganda, and I see your argument about fear as being in that vein even if it is less dramatic a charge than the OP's.

5) Insecticides most certainly do harm humans and they harm the environment and the environment is my main concern here. In addition, they require energy to produce (and transport) and they cost money (so they lower the productivity rate)

6) Your link doesn't talk about crop rotation.

And "evolution of the pest" is a rather non-specific argument. The fact is that evolution of a species occurs in response to the environment. An environment which includes an insecticide allows for the development of resistance to the insecticide.

( note I had a bit more to say but the system made me re-log in so I will be busy bashing my computer )

I look forward to it. I've enjoyed our discussion and the absence of personal attacks and overheated rhetoric.

 

[clownboy]

The industrial process for creating urea is older than the Haber process for creating AN. In addition, as you pointed out yourself, it wasn't just the use of AN that caused the post-war increase in yields. IOW, your focus on AN is inappropriate and will be ignored.

And there's no evidence that any increase in yields is attributable to GE corn.



And before the jump, many farms used horses and oxen instead of tractors. They also did not use insecticides, fungicides, herbicides or modern irrigation equipment and the water supply system was not nearly as well developed as it is now.

IOW, it wasn't just about AN, no matter how obsessed you are with it.



I talk to farmers regularly.

I'm sure you don't to comment on that last. You'd know that the farmers have cut back on pesticide use, from the variety they used in the beginning, after WWII because guess what, modern pesticides are another one of Haber's contributions. They were his retasked chemical weapons. Modern large scale use is single dose one pesticide (like Roundup).

Also, in the beginning of that bump after WWII water was used much more efficiently. We still had farmers using contour farming that was used as a partial solution for the Dust Bowl. That use has faded over the decades to where now it's virtually gone.

And to your first point, bogus. AN gets the title for the champ cause of the agri boom after WWII.

 

[sangha]

I'm sure you don't to comment on that last. You'd know that the farmers have cut back on pesticide use, from the variety they used in the beginning, after WWII because guess what, modern pesticides are another one of Haber's contributions. They were his retasked chemical weapons. Modern large scale use is single dose one pesticide (like Roundup).

Also, in the beginning of that bump after WWII water was used much more efficiently. We still had farmers using contour farming that was used as a partial solution for the Dust Bowl. That use has faded over the decades to where now it's virtually gone.

And to your first point, bogus. AN gets the title for the champ cause of the agri boom after WWII.

I've already explained my policy of ignoring your obsession with AN.

 

[clownboy]

I've already explained my policy of ignoring your obsession with AN.

Of course, and it's easy to see. Avoiding and distracting from where you were wrong didn't work and you got called on it. Now your fallback, rather than just admit your were wrong, is to ignore. Have fun with that.

 

[Un biased]

Price fixing and the rate at which it has gone up is also likely contributed to the tight relationship with the government and our corporate capitalism model of economy.

GMOs aren't going to kill anyone, they're still food. But why can we not have the label? We have to label wild vs. farmed for fish and all sorts of other stuff, this is just information. And yes, some people will look to avoid it, but it's not going to cause the demise of GMO. Some people avoid farmed fish, but that industry isn't going to dry up.

Out of curiosity, are there studies that measure the nutritional value of GMO produced products compared to their "natural" counterpart?

Price fixing perhaps I cant prove or disprove it .

GMO means genetically modified organism and all plants have been altered through human artificial selection and are not truly organic. As Neil Degrasse Tyson said "Perhaps there could be two different designations: GMO-Agriculture GMO-Laboratory."

Your so called natural counterpart does not exist anymore and nutrition has been breed out of fruit since the first time humans have Learned to farm

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/o...tion-out-of-our-food.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

GMO's can have nutrition added into their genetic profile so humans can have the nutrition back that was once lost to them . Golden Rice is an example as it had vitamin A added which will help save lives and prevent blindness , unfortunately many of the trial fields have been vandalized.

 

[Un biased]

No problem and thank you for putting in the effort.

1) I was unclear. The report does mention the increased cost of GE seed but it doesn't talk about how that could lead to increased indebtedness and indebtedness was something it noted as a major factor in causing suicide. That's not to say that GE's does or does not increase suicide. I'm just pointing out the limits of the report and what it says.

As I said, the claims of the anti-GE crowd are, at best, exagerrated but to be honest, it as nothing to do with my concerns about GE's. My concern is more related to the environmental effects of using GE's (not to mention the legal and political aspects)

2) See above.

3) I was entirely clear so the misunderstanding was understandable. I'm glad you understand that I was pointing out that GE crops have not produced ever-increasing yields (on a per acre basis) year after year.

And yes, organics do command a handsome premium. There's a good reason for that.

4) No, you didn't make any accusations. I just wanted to ensure the discussion didn't veer off in that direction with a discussion of "fear based" tactics. The fact is both sides do that. The proof for that is in the OP's comments in this thread. According to the OP, if you have any concerns about GE, you're a science denier who wants poor people to starve. I prefer to avoid the arguments that misportray one side or the other as ignorant boobs manipulated by propoganda, and I see your argument about fear as being in that vein even if it is less dramatic a charge than the OP's.

5) Insecticides most certainly do harm humans and they harm the environment and the environment is my main concern here. In addition, they require energy to produce (and transport) and they cost money (so they lower the productivity rate)

6) Your link doesn't talk about crop rotation.

And "evolution of the pest" is a rather non-specific argument. The fact is that evolution of a species occurs in response to the environment. An environment which includes an insecticide allows for the development of resistance to the insecticide.


I look forward to it. I've enjoyed our discussion and the absence of personal attacks and overheated rhetoric.

1 could lead doesn't necessitate that it will lead

2 It is understandable with the concerns about the environment

3 " I was entirely clear so the misunderstanding was understandable. " Not sure if that was sarcasm or a typo .

4 I see your point , fear is a potent tool used to control those who are afraid .

5 Insecticides to be used on crops humans consume go through testing and must meet standards
Human Health Issues | Pesticides | US EPA

6 That was more showing how pest evolve over time Healthy Farm Practices: Crop Diversity and Rotation | Union of Concerned Scientists

UC IPM: UC Management Guidelines for Managing Pesticide Resistance on Floriculture and Ornamental Nurseries

Evolution of the pest was to mean how the pest evolved to resist said pesticides and insecticides. The pest that had survived the pesticide will breed with others who had survived and passing on that gene to future generations.
Insecticide/ herbicide/pesticide allows for resistance , and most farmers use at least one of those.

 

[sangha]

1 could lead doesn't necessitate that it will lead

2 It is understandable with the concerns about the environment

3 " I was entirely clear so the misunderstanding was understandable. " Not sure if that was sarcasm or a typo .

4 I see your point , fear is a potent tool used to control those who are afraid .

5 Insecticides to be used on crops humans consume go through testing and must meet standards
Human Health Issues | Pesticides | US EPA

6 That was more showing how pest evolve over time Healthy Farm Practices: Crop Diversity and Rotation | Union of Concerned Scientists

UC IPM: UC Management Guidelines for Managing Pesticide Resistance on Floriculture and Ornamental Nurseries

Evolution of the pest was to mean how the pest evolved to resist said pesticides and insecticides. The pest that had survived the pesticide will breed with others who had survived and passing on that gene to future generations.
Insecticide/ herbicide/pesticide allows for resistance , and most farmers use at least one of those.

1) that's the point I was trying to make

2) Agreed

3) Neither. I'm saying that it is easy to see why you didn't understand what I was referring to because I wasn't clear about what I was referring to

4) Agreed

5) Yes, we regulate insecticides in the interests of safety but that doesn't mean they don't harm humans

6) I misunderstood your intent. Thanks for the clarification

 

[kerussll]

Ah, the truth comes out. This is what it's really all about, isn't it?

By logical extension, of course, you also disapprove of any mandatory package labeling. Who cares how much sodium is in a product, for example. It doesn't matter if a product has gobs of sugar that a customer might want to avoid (doesn't have to be for health reasons, either) because said avoidance might affect the manufacturer's bottom line.

Of course it's about profit margins! Somebody asked why companies are afraid to put this on their products. It's pretty obvious why. Not saying that companies should always get to decide what labels they get to put on their product. Labels for things that are evidence-based like nutrition labels are in the best interest of the consumer, so they are mandated. There is not sufficient evidence that GMOs cause harm to warrant labeling them.

 

[Un biased]

1) that's the point I was trying to make

2) Agreed

3) Neither. I'm saying that it is easy to see why you didn't understand what I was referring to because I wasn't clear about what I was referring to

4) Agreed

5) Yes, we regulate insecticides in the interests of safety but that doesn't mean they don't harm humans

6) I misunderstood your intent. Thanks for the clarification

1 ,2,4,6 - Agreement and readability that is not how you debate on here




3 If it was entirely clear then there would not have been a misunderstanding


5 For them to be used on crops it needs to pass safety inspections and testing to show that it will not harm humans or at least the ones consuming it before it is to be sprayed on crops
Food and Pesticides | Pest Control and Pesticide Safety for Consumers | US EPA