GMO OMG the movie - Who controls the future of your food?

Full blown blizzard here this afternoon & going for the rest of upper Midwest & east in the next few days. A few people will die from it, none that I now of from BT.

It's pretty clear to me that living results in death.

LOL!!! I see that the same people are regurgitating the same garbage in knocking GMOs despite the fact that they can't even buy a GMO seed. Irrational fear is hilarious at times, which is why I rarely stop by anymore. The "but, but, but, I read it on the internet so it must be true" mentality is astounding given that they have no facts what-so-ever to support them. Equally amazing is that the links they provide are always asking for donations to support their cause.

This message was edited Jan 26, 2014 7:13 PM

I hope this thread doesn't deteriorate the way previous threads on this topic have. Thus far we've been able to discuss the subject with mutual respect, and it would be nice to keep it that way.

You are right Greenhouse_gal. Sorry if my comments in trying to be silly came across disrespectfully.

One thing that is interesting though is that in relatively progressive states such as WA and CA in recent elections the majority of the people voted not in favor of requiring foods to be labled as GMO.

Even though labeling will be a little more expensive for the consumer I am really not against it though i would probably not vote in favor of it. For me GMO is an indication of a more sustainable product with likely less pesticide residues and I am satisfied that it is safe or as safe or safer than organic or conventionally grown food.

Right now GMO is pretty much limited to soybean, canola, sugarbeets and corn. Still no GMO wheat, rice, potatoes, peanuts, sunflowers, or perenial crops like small fruits, tree fruits, and grapes.

For corn, soy, sugar beets or canola products one can buy organic to ensure they are not eating GMO's already. So without labeling one can avoid GMO's already if they want thus labeling isnt necesary because its a choice already in the marketplace? Of course food producers are free to state whether their food contains GMO's or specifically that their food doesnt contain GMO's if they want....but to mandate it? I think some consumers that dont want GMO's will demand that in the market and companies like Frito lay and General Mills will provide products for that segment. And Im fine with that.

I guess the argument is should a label be required for something that is proven safe? We don't label food to say a pesticide was used for example. Maybe we should put a label that explains the food was washed with dihydrogen monoxide lol...ok Sorry Greenhouse_gal...cheap shot

drobarr, that comment wasn't directed at you. You and Rick have contributed a lot of very interesting comments and information to this discussion and I hope I have, too.

You do have to look at the reasons why WA and CA ended up voting against labeling, though. A very expensive campaign was mounted by the grocers' group with falsehoods and halftruths, which convinced voters that labeling would increase food prices all around. Prior to that campaign a large majority of voters polled were pro labeling. I think they were just afraid of being priced out of the supermarket after the media blitz was launched.

Right now a lot of food producers are voting against GMOs with their pocketbook, and choosing traditional crops instead. From what I've been reading (and this is in farm bureau types of journals and newsletters) they not only get better production rates from their non-GMO crops but they can also charge more for them because the market is now demanding them. Especially producers who grow corn for China are realizing that it's a lot better to steer clear of GMOs for that market.

Funny how I live right in the middle of the corn belt & there is no price difference for non GMO or GMO corn. All gets dumped into the same bins. These elevators are handling millions of bushels of corn & soybeans. No way they can keep them separate, because they do not have the facilities to do so.
We have one small operation that buys organic crops. Some of the things that happen there, well who knows. I am a friend with an organic farmer. Couple years ago he went to buy organic oat seed. They had none so gave him some kind of wavier voucher to buy oat seed from a regular seed dealer. It was not organic, but it was approved to grow organic oats.
So when all these kind of things are under control, then maybe you can buy what you really want.

Labeling would likely increase costs. Not because it costs anymore to change the labels or add a few words. The reason it would cost more is because there would have to now be two different distribution channels that begins with the farmers combine, storage, transportation all the way up to packaging. GMO and non GMO would have to be separate much like organic is. This is part of the reason organic is more costly apart from higher production costs.

For just one state to demand this would be unreasonable and a whole industry nationwide would not likely go through the expenses and headache just because one state demands it. So I am not convinced that a higher price is a falsehood...but I am sure both sides had some half truths for sure.

Again I'd let the market regulate this.

In general GMO crops that farmers use do out perform coventional ones...it only makes news when they dont. I know this as a fact working in the industry. Since there is no premium for growing GMO's growers do it because many see it as more sustainable, more efficient as well as also better for their bottom line. I think if the public realized that non GMO crops generally require more pesticides and more tractor fuel the consumers wouldnt be so anti GMO. But they dont have the truth. So the half truths in my view tend to be more skewed coming from the anti GMO crowd much more so than the pro GMO crowd. Many of the anti GMO folks have a notorious record for using falsehoods, emotional arguments, and fear.

This fear in my opinion is much more hazardous to ones health than one realizes...

Drobarr, I have had a front row seat watching what the environmental regulations have cost the country, since it started in the 1970's, and while every thing you listed does increase the costs that are all passed down to the consumer, you missed the biggest one. That is the huge bureaucracies that are created to do the inspections and enforce the regulations. And of course, the producers have to spend money for employees and facitlities to balance the bureaucacies and make sure their products are within regulation, and lawyers to defend any slipups.

And i can tell you absolutely, that every penney spent, both by the Agencies and by the Producers, is not paid by the producers, it is all paid for by the ultimate consumers. That is why everything we buy now costs a bigger part of our income, young people cannot buy homes, old people cannot save enough for retirement, etc. ad nauseum.

Politicians and activists promote all of this by lying to the uninformed public, telling them the costs are paid for by the Corporations, but they only finance it temporarily, and prices are immediately raised and costs are passed on to the consumers.

Some people are beginning to understand who pays for it, and that is why the labeling laws did not pass. It is just too simplistic to blame the losses on adverse advertising. How long has it been since your mind was changed by a political ad?

Ernie

In case anyone misunderstood my remarks about Bernie's silliness comment, I was not referring to the very interesting, factual and informative posts by people like RickCorey, who has educated all of us as to the processes of proper research. There have been several worthwhile contributors to this discussion, and the ones that are based on facts, not fear, deserve the respect of all of us.

Ernie

drobarr, I keep reading that because GMO crops are resistant to pesticides/herbicides, much more of that product is being used to eradicate the competition. That's why incidental foliage such as milkweed is no longer growing between soybean and corn rows, so there's no food for monarchs, whose population crashed last summer as a result. I'll post the next article I read on increased Roundup use.

There are complaints that because of GMOs there is much more pesticide residue in the corn and beets that we're eating, both on the surface and systemically. I'd be glad to see something that suggests otherwise, though.

Sally, I just want to stress that it was pure speculation on my part that MAYBE the cause of different expression was something obvious like responding to different insect damage.

Since they did not seem to be clumsy, congenital liars in other ways, I would rather assume that they discovered something subtle and repeatable and meaningful. Eventually someone will replicate it or debunk it.


Willy! I think I ruptured my spleen, laughing!

The facetious "Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" is more believable than Seneff's straight-faced "exogenous semiotic entropy".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

Umm ... when I stopped laughing I remembered how sad it is.

Everyone who has an idea, no matter how good or bad, seems to immediately shoot that idea in the foot by taking it to an illogical extreme and then proselytizing it maniacally.

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."

William Blake,
The Second Coming
1919


drobarr,
I agree with you about (normal, non-GE) plants conducting continuous chemical warfare against insects. Also:

>> How many have looked at studies to see the long term effects of all the other bacterias we come in contact with and the potential toxins they contain?

>> It is likely some of them might cause some irritation in some people.

Everyone IS trying to test GMO ingredients and GE-whole-foods to a higher standard than anyone tests anything else. In some cases that is bias or superstition (that's my main excuse for being skittish about eating GE salmon, apples and corn).

Maybe you could argue by analogy to Carl Sagan's "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Extraordinary genetic changes probably SHOULD require some extra regulatory attention. Not just for the first few crops actually approved, but as genengineers get into triple and quadruple-stacking traits, or incorporating blow fish venom or what-have-you.

Also, consider the GE apple intended to NOT turn brown when bruised or really old. I personally WANT to know if an apple is really old or been abused in transit. Won't that genetic change HIDE real reasons to throw fruit away, for no better reason than cosmetics/saleability?

However, it would have been reassuring (to me - I read a lot of science fiction) to know more about the long term environmental effect will be of multiplying Agrobacterium plasmids with scraps of "whatever" DNA dangling all over the planet. If those turn out to be "man-made jumping genes", to coin a bogeyman phrase, it might get interesting.

Unfortunately, knowing the future is impractical (and hopefully that long-shot imaginary risk won't materialize, or will be manageable).

Glad you enjoyed it, Rick. I sure did.

There are several GMO crops on the market. Some that have herbicide tolerance and some with insect resistance and some with stacked or both insect and herbicide tolerance genes. Several GMO crops are in various stages of development for herbicide tolerance as well as disease and insect resistance and traits that enhance quality or drought tolerance etc.

In the case of herbicide tolerance, pesticides such as the herbicide that the crop is resistant too will increase in the crop. For example Roundup would kill a corn plant normally. So Roundup wasnt used in corn until Roundup GMO corn was developed. So obviously Roundup use increased dramatically in corn. But just because Roundup increased doesnt mean that herbicide or pesticide use in corn has increased. Because before Roundup ready GMO corn you still had to control weeds. And you still applied herbicides. In fact you applied several different herbicides. Many of them multiple times and which were far more toxic than Roundup. Google Atrazine. Roundup ready corn simplified weed control...because now all you needed was one or two applications of Roundup and that controlled all the weeds. Wherease before you put out an herbicide such as atrizine preemergent, then came back with some sort of broadleaf herbicide at the early post timing( 3-4 corn leaf stage) and also a grass type herbicide and then another set of applications at the late post timing. Then often a layby application was needed prior to the corn getting large enough to shade the rows and compete better with any late season weeds. So though Roundup use increased, all other herbicides decreased. Roundup was so easy and so effective in Roundup ready crops with just a few years there was a 90 percent adoption rate. Weeds were also better controlled...as you mentioned less milkweed which is a terrible weed in corn.

So of course here is where the half truths are....isnt it terrible Roundup use increased? More Roundup residues... But they always neglect to report that all the other herbicides have decreased imensly...and total herbicide active ingredient per acre has decreased. Other herbicide residues have been reduced. Also number of tractor trips and applications has been reduced which minimizes the carbon footprint, is more sustainable, causes less soil compaction and is more efficient. Roundup is much safer than many other herbicides out there. But it is a pesticide and there are risks especially if the label is not followed.

As far as the monarchs are concerned...I'm not sure Roundup is the only culprit. Its good weed control in general which can be achieved by tillage and other organic methods as well. There are other herbicide tolerant GMO crops besides Roundup. I guess one could debate whether it was the job of corn growers to provide monach butterfies the habitat they need.

Insect and disease tolerant GMO crops use much less insecticide or fungicide than conventional crops and have reduced applications.

So GMO's whether they be herbicide tolerant, insect or disease resistant all reduce numbers of applications of pesticide and total pesticide used. In most cases controlling these pests has also improved compared to non GMO methods. That is why they have been adopted. When weeds, diseases and insects are better controlled...crop yield increases. Savings in tractor hours, man hours, diesel fuel etc and higher yields on less land is a win win for the environment.

From my perspective sombody who is anti GMO supports methods that require higher pesticide use, increase pollution through increased use of diesel fuel, supports inefficiencies, supports soil compaction, supports less biodiversity...since additional insecticide sprays needed in conventional systems kill a wider range of pests including important beneficials.

Speaking of milkweeds. We try not to kill them unless absolutely necessary. We have grass, wildflower & shrub strips throughout our gardens to stop soil erosion. Milkweeds flourish there. Also we let the milkweeds grow in our flower beds & asparagus beds.
Hardly any Monarchs around last summer, so not for lack of milkweeds.

I agree on the corn pesticide spraying. One thing he didn't mention. Corn rootworms are controlled by a GMO now. Before they used a deadly poison put on with the seed.
If left where birds could get it, birds were dead in an instant.
One guy though it would be good to kill nightcrawlers in his l;awn. He got the worms but also any bird for most of the summer.

You people need to study all the facts before you start condemning things.

One problem with modern day farming and agriculture in general is that we have become so efficient that only a very small percentage of people are farmers and really have a grasp on what is required to produce food. The other 98% often have views and legislate policies that make that production more difficult.
I totally agree with Country gardens...it is very frustrating when those not involved in agriculture dont understand the facts. The public is often misled or simply are ignorant to the point when something more sustainable, something more efficient comes along they reject it.
And its easy to mislead the masses when they are so far removed from Ag.
Agriculture interests should do a better job at communicating the benefits of these technologies...not only how they are greener...but also how they are better than what we were doing before. And what these technologies will be able to do in the future.

>> Insect and disease tolerant GMO crops use much less insecticide or fungicide than conventional crops and have reduced applications.

Thanks for making that point, drobarr. I think it is about THE strongest argument for GMOs.

>> only a very small percentage of people are farmers and really have a grasp on what is required to produce food.

>> And its easy to mislead the masses when they are so far removed from Ag.

Good points also.

MIT's magazine "Tech review" has a great article about GMO crops. They stress the fact that world population is still rising, but crop yields are no longer increasing fast enough to keep up with the mouths.

Increased yields fed the world while population climbed from 3 billion around 1960 to 7 billion in 2011. We did not increase cultivated acreage very much (though fertilizer and water usage did increase to support "Green Revolution" crops).

The bad new is that world population is expected to climb to 9 billion by 2030 to 2050. That has to come from somewhere. If it isn't increased yield per acre, then we have to use more land and probably much more marginal land.

If we're going to have use marginal land (and/or climate change requires drought-tolerant and extreme-weather-tolerant varieties, giving up on GE techniques would be like shooting ourselves in the foot right before we had to run for our lives.

Unfortunately, GMOs are not being developed very much for drought and heat resistance, instead focusing on relatively profitable traits like insect and herbicide resistance. (BTW, typically the most damaging heat stress is the number of extremely hot days, not average temperatures, and climate change seems to be giving us lots of extremes). Developing resistance to heat and drought sounds like it will require physiological changes, not just one-gene quickies.

Resistance to plant diseases also seems to be harder to breed for ... even hard to genetically engineer for.

Unfortunately, GE research isn't the main cost of getting a new variety into prodcution. Jumping through the testing and regulatory hoops is more time-consuming and expensive. That expense has made commercial GE a "natural monopoly" (or "legislative monopoly") of a few very large, very cash-rich companies, like Monsnato and Dupont.

Speaking of profits, one potato researcher was asked what mattered most to consumers. "Looks, looks, looks." Hence things like the GE apple that won't turn brown. That won't keep anyone from starving, but will boost someone's profits.

This Tech review article also cited the number of US permits and "notifications" for testing new transgenic crops. NONE of these have become commercial ... yet.
rice - - - - - 286
wheat - - - - 461
potatoes - - 863

This message was edited Jan 29, 2014 7:24 PM

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2010/10/genetically-modified-crops-corn-agriculture-economics-borer.html

Not only do Bt crops reduce insecticides and pests on GMO crops...they reduce pest pressure in non GMO fields around them resulting in less insecticides applied to the tune of billions of dollars. I work with some who grow corn organically and they have noticed lower European corn borrer pressure since the advent of Bt.

The most successful organic growers are surrounded by conventional growers that keep pest populations in check either chemically or by means of GMO's! Some organic growers also use conventional means on portions of their farms as well for the same goals.

Good job LA times for getting a piece of the truth out.

http://www.monsanto.com/products/Pages/droughtgard-hybrids.aspx

Actually Monsanto came out with a drought tolerant trait in corn that was developed by BASF Corporation and released last year.

And yes there are hundreds of patents on numerous crops...but it is correct that it takes 10 to 15 years and hundreds of millions of dollars to develop GMO traits. Much of this is due to the regulations and required testing mandated by the FDA, USDA, and EPA.

Over the next few years more traits will be coming out.

How many have heard of golden rice? And how it has helped to reduce vitamin A deficiency in the 3rd world. http://goldenrice.org/

Can you believe people oppose this? With all the good it does and suffering it prevents?

Here's a paper on golden rice. I have read many articles that suggest that there are a multitude of cheaper and more efficient methods of boosting vitamin A which are more accessible to the subsistence farmers who would need to purchase and grow golden rice.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/rice.php

Lets see some examples of the alternatives.

These people are used to eating rice, so I would imagine it's the best way to keep them healthy.

And here's a comment from someone who does a good job of reflecting my opinions and concerns:
"J Smith • 11 months ago
I think the point is not to knee-jerk react based on emotions, but rather to point out that, time and time again, the forces of industry often fast-track dubious research, ignore inconsistencies, or otherwise twist the facts to support their financially beneficial programs, all the while claiming that their (highly profitable) products are merely a public service. This pattern is easily demonstrable using "fact-based logic". GMO crops aren't a product that can be recalled if there's a problem. Once they're out there, they're out there. We should very carefully weigh the benefit of each altered crop against the potential permanent damage. It's all very easy to point to the masses of children who go blind because of vitamin A deficiency and suggest that those who would be cautious regarding GMO organisms are heartless and petty, but the truth is that those who are cautious about releasing GMO organisms into natural systems merely understand that narrowly focused, corporately sponsored, interventionist policies are rarely good solutions to complex, interconnected problems that involve a host of different interdependent systems. Indeed, we see time and time again where the interventions we make based on "fact-based logic" make things worse due to unforeseen consequences.

Generally speaking it's accurate to say that solving the problems of industrialism with industrial fixes is usually bad."

Here's another approach to the vitamin A problem which doesn't involve GMOs, which require buying expensive seed each year:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/08/15/158783117/saving-lives-in-africa-with-the-humble-sweet-potato

So saying that solving an industrial problem with an industrial fix is bad. But nobody has the right to say one is bad for opposing golden rice?

I totally disagree.

I dont believe there is an industrial problem nor is it an industrial fix so the whole premiss is flawed.

Second, gmo's if found to be unsafe could stop being grown at any time.

A crop field is not a natural ecosystem. Most crops are already domesticated and are dependent on their survival by humans. In fact corn itself is practically genetically modified by humans over centuries much more drastically then anything ever done in a lab. A field is artificially manipulated with fertility and chemicals regardless if organic or conventional.

Golden rice seed is free. Many of the mal nourished do not live on farms or are farmers. And most people are not able to afford any alternative foods. That is why there is mal nutrition. Golden rice makes the most sense. It was a very well thought out way to assist in nutrition and no company developed it...it came about by two European university scientists. So to try to associate this some how as industrial or in any way related to any business is a farce.

There are good people inside and outside of businesses trying to solve problems and to oppose this initiative is hard for me to even understand.

The anti gmo folks cant even accept something good resulting from gmo's or their whole argument goes down the drain.

Talk about twisting facts...

>> Actually Monsanto came out with a drought tolerant trait in corn

That's really good news, especially since (I think) corn tends to be heat-tolerant already. Do you happen to know what mechanism they improved, or the name of the strain?

>> golden rice

I heard that it was released, then was pushed off the market or withdrawn (or at least there was a push to do that) ... then improved and the amount of carotene increased ... but I hadn't heard it was back in production. Reducing nutrition-casued blindness in children is certainly humanitarian.

In the area of antibiotics and anti-fungals for human use, there was a strong tendency for drug companies to invest only in things that would sell well in rich countries. "Invest where the profit is best", not where human need is greatest. Golden rice always seemed like an exception to that idea.

I see from the "ISIS" link that funding came from
the Rockefeller Foundation
the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology,
the European Community Biotech Program
and the Swiss Federal Office for Education and Science.

I saw plenty of rage and spleen and ranting from the ISIS screed, but the only practical part I could make "sense" of was [b]the idea that poor people wouldn't NEED the golden rice if they had more food, and better variety, and Vitamin A pills. [/b]

??? At first I thought "How can they insult anyone's intelligence THAT much and expect to get away with it?" Then I thought "In effect, they object that the world is not EXTREMELY different from the way it is, and they blame science and technology and big business for every way in which things differ from their ideal image."

Although ISIS accused advocates of golden rice as saying worse things than "let them eat cake", the only part of the ISIS article that seemed to support their claim was exactly what they were accusing others of doing. For them to miss that suggests that they are not only passionate ideologues, but pretty blind to anything I recognize as the "real" world.

I would like to think that I totally missed their point, not that they were as biased and double-talking as it seemed to me.

It seemed VERY biased, to the point of bizarre, though I can't do enough research to make sense of their claims. I guess it makes sense to some audience ... which is a little scary.

Here is where one bad paper poisons another. i remember reading another ISIS BS piece, perhaps the Seneff paper. I did spend the time to be sure to my own satisfaction that they had to be idiots or propagandists to run the first paper. So I won't spend my time, a second time, to try really hard to find a pearl in the second compost heap.

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
ISIS had a reputation with me of putting out at least one sleazy snow job. Now two.

All they get from me is a fast scan now. It doesn't hang together, it looks like a feeble hook to hang more anti-GE vitriol on, they put the big scare words up front and bury the "substance" deeply so it's harder to see that the "substance" is BS.

The guys who were profiling protein "expression patterns" still have my respect and I would read carefully something they wrote. Or a critique, or someone carrying that work further.

But ISIS seems to live up to its reputation. I'll make a guess: their dogma is that "science and technology are bad" and part of their way of living up to that is not caring about evidence or logic.

Putting the word "reductionist" up front, as if it proved that anyone disagreeing with them was using an invalid part of their brain, should have been a tip-off to stop reading.

“To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason ... is like administering medicine to the dead ...”

― Thomas Paine, The American Crisis


Disclaimer: just because one online publication can't be trusted doesn't prove that they are wrong about everything. But ISIS is not a trustworthy source.

I noticed that the ISIS article cast doubt on whether promises of giving the seed away in poor countries were being carried out. My first thought was that, if they are only [u]casting doubt[/u], probably that means the seed IS being given out for free, despite the $100 million spent developing it.

Glad to see that's true.

While i doubt very many of the people that are so obsessed with the idea that Corporations are willing to kill people just to make big profits are smart enought to read and understand a profit and loss statement, if they could, they would quickly realize big corporations do not make big profits. Someone reported a couple of days ago, that it takes millions of dollars to modify just one plant. And that research, along with all the other corporate expenses, does not leave much room for profit. So, it seems to me that so much of the negative opinions must be based in plain old envy, resentment or jealousy, that some folks have more money than they do. If they would simply look around, they would see that a lot of folks have less than they do, so, by their way of thinking, their own money must have been made in crooked, dangerous, or nefarious ways.

The J Smith article, referenced above, certainly sounds to me like a very typical "knee jerk reaction based on emotions" since there is little or no truth in what he says. I have never been a part of a large corporation, but have met many corporate management employees , and everyone has been just like the rest of us. Worried they will make a mistake or do some harm that will cause them or their Corporation to lose money or reputation. And that mindset is absolutely contrary to someone that sets out to rob, pillage and steal, regardless of the deaths they cause, just to make a quick buck.
So, granting there are exceptions, however rare, blanket condemnation of the large corporations that are striving to develop a service that will provide improvements so people will buy the product, must be based in ignorance, since i have seen no facts that prove otherwise.

Ernie

Ernie,

Very well said. The reason only large corporations can develop pesticides or GMO crops or airplanes or pharmaceutical drugs is because it takes many years of investment and often hundreds of millions of dollars to develop a product. Small companies just do not have the capital. And every time regulations are increased then the amount of time and the amount of money needed to develop something increases. And as a result, fewer and fewer companies have the capital to develop anything. So it is government regulation that is determining the size of companies....how much they must spend...and ultimately what must be charged for the product so the company can stay in business.

So many Ag chemical companies have gone out of business and there has been major consolidations in the last 20 years. We are talking around 40 large international ag chemical companies to less than 10 now. And only 6 actually have R&D programs that are bringing new chemistries to market. (BASF(German), Bayer(German), Syngenta(Swiss), Monsanto(USA), Dupont(USA), Dow(USA)).

I can tell you none of these companies have any obscene profits. Many of them have years with losses. And most of what they earn they put towards R&D.

Often times after spending 250 million dollars and 10-12 years to develop a product the government decides to not approve it. By the way it takes 2 years for the government to review if it will approve it or not...and the companies pay hundreds of thousdands of dollars just to have their petition be reviewed. The costs of when a products registration is rejected has to be factored into into any future products. This idea that some how the US government just blanket approves everything an ag chemical company comes up with including GMO crops is not true. So many products have been denied registrations and many products have been taken off of the market.

Now I am not against all regulations. And I agree some are good and necesary.

"In the area of antibiotics and anti-fungals for human use, there was a strong tendency for drug companies to invest only in things that would sell well in rich countries. "Invest where the profit is best", not where human need is greatest."...more than profit it is getting back what they spent and to pay off their loan to develop the medication. So they can keep making more medications. Companies cant just give things away and still produce something of value. Before anything can be given away it needs to be paid for.

Thank goodness for big drug companies. Big ag chemical companies...for relieving so much suffering, curing so many ailments, and providing such an abundant food supply. If they didnt do it nobody could...and remember the size of those businesses are a direct reflection of the required regulations in those industries and the investment required to develop those products.

Ernie, the J Smith quote wasn't from an article; it was just a comment that someone made on a thread discussing GMOs, and I thought it was well-articulated.

Glyphosate as an estrogen disrupter is another issue entirely. Here it's implicated in human- hormone-dependent breast cancer:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23756170

Oh, and here's an article discussing the significant increase in pesticide/herbicide use due to GMO crops.

http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/24/abstract

This message was edited Jan 31, 2014 9:39 AM

Corn can be sprayed with 2,4D & not hurt it. Why would you need to GE it for 2,4D.
2,4D spraying is almost non existent now with the use of Round up. Farmers realize the danger with it & are happy with alternatives.
Monarch butterflies & bees are probably gone because of the chemicals they spray on soybeans in August to kill soybean aphids. We don't even have mosquitoes any more. It is a deadly spray & the only thing that will stop it is something in the plant that the aphids don't like. With no spraying the insects & butterflies will return.

Bernie, farmers may be happy with it but it seems that it may have serious impacts on public health.

Here's a recent Washington Post article on the impact of GMO crops on the decline in monarchs, which a professor who has studied the butterflies for decades describes as the most egregious cause of the population crash.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/29/the-monarch-butterfly-population-just-hit-a-record-low-heres-why/

I just told you the spray used on soybeans is killing all the insects & Butterflies. Did you not get it.
When there was GMO crops & no aphid killer, there were all kinds of bees & monarchs around.
Besides Monarchs do not feed on corn or soybeans!

GG,

I did not place any special significance on the word "article", so the fact that it was just a comment, is okay and does not affect the points i was making. But thanks for the clarification, in case it confused someone else.

Ernie

2,4-D as well as dicamba even though they are mainly broadleaf herbicides and are approved for use in corn, they can both cause severe injury. They can cause the corn to lean over and deformations on the brace roots. So a 2,4-D resistant corn would be beneficial to avoid the losses from crop phytoxicity.
They would allow higher rates and longer application windows.

Before GMO crops there was a lot of crop injury because herbicides with their potency to kill weeds always can damage your crop. However this is rarely seen with herbicide tolerant crops.

To minimize resistance development its good to rotate herbicide modes of action and not just depend on one herbicide.

Wouldn't it be nice to have a GMO soybean resistant to aphids? Then those sprays could stop or be significantly reduced.

I forgot about the 2,4-D damage to corn. I guess most farmers here were pretty good at timing it to minimize the damage.
I guess I feel respectable farmers & co-ops will do their best not to harm things with their growing of crops. You can't abuse the land or environment very long & still continue profitable.
I know of two farmers locally that tried the organic route. There was no way they could control weeds, so now both are out of business & renting their land to conventional farmers.
So it goes.

GG,
These studies particularly the one on glyphosate in my opinion is skewed. They took pure glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup albeit at low rates and fed it to the rodents directly on a daily basis over their entire lives. It is a worse case scenario. It is exposing them to much higher rates than what anyone is going to encounter in real life. All pesticides at high rates are toxic and can case certain problems. Even water is toxic as we all know at hi enough rates. But glyphosate is about 100 times safer than table salt and many other foods we eat.

But the reason this is skewed is the following. In soybeans for example, glyphosate is applied early in the season a few months before the soybean even flowers or sets seed. So the only residue on the soybean would be from inside the plant any glyphosate that is absorbed and then later translocated to the seed two months later. The problem is that the glyphosate is rapidly decomposed inside the soybean plant and broken down into other components and stored in vacuoles inside the leaves before the plant even reaches reproductive stage.

Residue tests conform that harvested soybean seed have no detectable glyphosate residues.

So again the study would be valid if people were exposed to the residues which they arent...unless they are spraying their food on their plate every day with glyphosate.

I am going to repeat my personal role as a guinea pig in testing the dangers of Roundup for the benefit of new followers of this thread. A helper was coiling up a sprayer hose, that was under 80 pounds of pressure,and accidentally sprayed me directly in the face from 2 feet away. I did not have time to close my mouth nor blink my eyes, and took the full force of the spray, including up my nose.

I assumed i was going to die, and headed for the house, washed out my face and mouth the best i could and prepared to meet my maker. But nothing happened. so about 20 minutes later, i went back down to the Nursery and worked the rest of the day. We were killing Lupine on the hillsides as they are poisonous to sheep, and were using a very strong solution.

As i recall, shortly after i posted this, early on, someone produced an article by a College Professor that said roundup is composed of Glycerin and Phosphorus, or something close to that, and neither component is toxic by itself, and as the roundup breaks down, the parts return to their basic states. This may need correcting by someone more knowledgeable than I, but at the time i read it, it seemed to be reassuring.

But i would think almost a steady diet of many chemicals would eventually kill anything.

Ernie

Ernie,

Im glad nothing more serious happened. Having anything under pressure can be dangerous. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup is pretty safe on the scale of toxicity...much safer than any household cleaning products or even a salty water mixture.

We have been conditioned to thinking that pesticides are super toxic materials that if we get one drop on us we are going to get cancer and die. The reality is that many pesticides are not very toxic at all...especially the herbicides and very few of them are carcinogens. However, some pesticides are very toxic, especially some of the insecticides. One should always have care using all the proper PPE and always read and follow the label regardless of their toxicity.

There is acute exposure and chonic exposure. And though a material may be safe from acute exposures it doesnt necesarily mean there are not chronic concerns and vice versa. This is where the PPE is so important for folks who use pesticides regularly to reduce exposure.

I even put on the tyvek suit to spray organic products on my fruit trees, use goggles, and spray upwind etc and do all possible to protect myself.

Roundup and most pesticides break down very quickly in the environment. If it isnt by sunlight or water it is usually by microbes. Most pesticides are microbe food...and are rapidly broken down in the soil. Glyphosate is one of the herbicides that becomes inactive in the soil very quickly and breaks down readily.

I spent 3 years spraying crops for a co-op when I was in my early 30's. We had 4x4 pickups with sprayers that were ground driven. No by passes on the pump, all spray had to go out the nozzles.
The controls were right out the window. I reached to turn the nozzles on, but my foot slipped off the brake, a line burst & the spray hit me in the face. We washed it out immediately & then headed for emergency room. It was a mixture of Treflan, Atrazine & 28% liquid nitrogen. The worst was the N, because it made my eyes burn. After the trip to ER, I was back in the field. Doctor looked up the chemicals & said neither would harm me.
I am still here 37 years later with no problems.

Drobarr,

When i see people living in dread and complaining about Roundup being used to control weeds, it does not make sense to me, when we compare Roundup to what it replaced. Sixty years ago i started an Asphalt Paving Company, and the only way to keep Bermuda grass from growing up through the asphalt parking lots was to sterilize the ground with Arsenic. It was a vile looking and smelling green syrup, that we bought in fifty gallon drums. We were all rightfully scared of it.

I do not know of anyone dying from using arsenic to kill weeds, but of course in big enough doses, Arsenic is poison. But now, there seems to be much more fear and dread from Roundup, than there was back then when it would have been reasonable. Ernie

But Arsenic is all natural.