GMOs - Continued

Ill do the same.

Thanks, all.

Ken

Back to GMOs, I just found that article by Consumer Union's Michael Hansen about concerns re GMO foods and toxicity:

http://consumersunion.org/news/consumers-union-statement-on-new-long-term-study-of-feeding-ge-grains-to-pigs/

Thanks for the link to the paper, GG. I will read through it--Jeez, these papers are tough for a non-biologist!

I also want to make a point, maybe in reality more like pose a question. I don't know yet--not having read the article--specifically what the GMO crops were bred for, but, the paper itself makes a big deal of the fact they're GMOs. It may well be that, if the GMO is a Bt variety, that consuming an entire diet of foods containing "Bt Toxin" can lead to problems. I find it hard to believe, though, that GE itself is the problem. An example from the other direction: the 'Lenape' potato was conventionally bred and, after release, was found to have issues relating to toxins inherent in all potatoes to some degree. It made some people quite ill. What would you think if the headlines of new articles read a;long these lines? "Toxicology Study Involving Traditional Plant Breeding Methods (TPB) Shows TDP Potatoes Are Poisonous".

In and of itself, GE is nothing more than swapping genes between organisms, something that has gone on from the beginning of life on earth. GE itself CAN'T be THE problem. The introduced genes certainly can result in issues, but so can genes introduced by conventional means; see 'Lenape' potato. I am still creeped out by transgenetics, which Bt corn definitely is, but I am (naively?) optimistic that testing like that in the subject paper will minimize potential issues.

I do believe we worry inordinate amounts over new and/or poorly understood technologies. To go back to my nuclear issue for an example, we fear radiation, which is everywhere. I wonder how many of us realize that there were zero Fukushima deaths caused by radiation (same is true for Three Mile Island). About 18,500 people died from the tsunami that caused the Fukushima disaster. In the case of Fukushima, estimates are that roughly 100 additional cancers will result from the exposure. Some studies suggest perhaps 1,000--2,000 additional cancers. Radiation aside, estimates are that roughly 2 million deaths per year result from air pollution, another reason to eventually do away with coal-fired electric plants.

Willy, but GE is not the same kind of plant breeding and selection that's gone on since the beginning of life on earth. With GE we can take the genes of a mosquito and implant them in the genetic code of a fish or a variety of soybeans. Natural selection or even selective breeding can't produce offspring that contains radically different organisms' code in its genetic makeup. And when we tinker with those codes, unintended consequences often arise. People who are concerned about GMOs feel that much more testing needs to occur before they are released into the environment and can contaminate non-GMO varieties, as has already happened in numerous places. Right now an Australian organic farmer is suing his neighbor because his neighbor's GMO crops contaminated the farmer's organic ones and he has lost his organic certification and now has a product that he can't sell. Furthermore China is no longer accepting large shiploads of corn from the U.S. because they've found traces of GMO contamination in them.

My observations on the GMO paper referenced above in GG's post:

1) It seems very thorough to my non-biologist mind. I do believe it was not peer reviewed and would like to see comments from people who are in the field. The results do suggest that the GM feed has a physical effect.

2) I was most disturbed by the statement that 22.7 weeks is the lifespan of a typical commercial pig. Wow. What a dismal life.

3) I was puzzled by a reference to "other GM crops" (page 39) such as potatoes, tomatoes, and peas. I didn't think any such crops have been released for public consumption yet. I certainly could be wrong about this.

4) I learned that pigs are raised in a "piggery". A small thing, but...

5) On page 42, it states that "male piglets were neutered at three days of age in order to fulfill market requirements for meat free of "boar taint"". I must admit that I don't like learning about how our meat is raised.

Finally, I was most disturbed by the fact that the authors thanked, among others, Mr. Yoga, Jeffrey Smith. To me, that taints their entire study.

This message was edited Feb 24, 2014 11:49 AM

GG--I do understand how GE differs from traditional breeding, that's why I made a separate comment about transgenics. I still maintain it is not logical to assert that GE itself is the cause of any issues that arise. It is just the technique. I do believe that transgenic crops deserve more evaluation before they are released and I hope that, if the study you referenced is a valid one, more studies will be done. Transgenic crops can results from non-GE techniques. Triticale is one good example. Its a cross between wheat and rye--a cross that cannot happen in nature and was accomplished without using molecular GE techniques.

Here is a reference to a good discussion of Jeffrey Smith's "Genetic Roulette": http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-content/genetic-roulette/.

I just found an interesting video dealing with the broader issues that are being touched on in the organic, GMO, and climate warming threads. Specifically, it's about politics clouding your objective lens. I've only watched a few minutes so far (it's about an hour long), but I think most of the contributors here might find it very interesting.

It's here: http://theprogressivecontrarian.com/

One of the problems with GMO literature is that on both sides it attracts hyperbole and emotionally-driven rhetoric. I don't put any credence in people like Jeffrey Smith, but I am impressed when European and other countries take a much more conservative approach to GMOs than we do.

Unfortunately I can't watch the video because I have a data cap on my internet access; makes it hard for me to check out lots of things that people recommend to me!

Willy,
I posted similar to this on Climate Change. I watched the entire video and did not see anything new or of great interest.

I trust Science, it is just some of the Scientists i do not trust.

For people that are religious, It is fine to trust God, but they should not Trust all the Preachers.

It was worth the time it took to watch it, but that was about all it was worth to me.

The speaker with the fluttering hands would have been more impressive if he had put them in his pockets while speaking.

GG, you might not have liked,, or agreed with quite a bit that was said about GMOs.

Ernie

No GMO peas, tomatoes or potatoes on the market. And no varieties of those crops have ever been commercialized. Bt potatoes were developed in the mid 1990's but never commercialized. The flavorsaver tomato came the closest but wasnt ever fully commercialized.

Gmo crops that are commercialized right now are limited to corn, soybeans, cotton, sugarbeats, alfalfa, and canola. The only crop where pollen can move to non transgenic crops is corn. Corn pollen can travel up to 600 ft.

I am pretty sure that GM canola has pollinated neighboring wild mustards, no?

It is possible.

http://www.gmo-safety.eu/science/oilseed-rape/275.oilseed-rape-his-family.html

After 18 years on the market it hasnt yet been an issue. And 99.6 percent of canola is now gmo.

I was interested to learn that until 30 or 40 years ago, rape seed oil was not fit for human consumption. Then it was bred to minimize one "bad" form of oil and replace it with a "good" form of oil. At that point, it became "canola", short for "Canadian Oil". I don't think the breeding was GE, though I'm not sure of that. I do know it wasn't done by simply breeding rape in the old fashioned way.

drobarr, I'm glad you are "in the biz" and can provide some factual info and personal experience. Same to Rick, who seems to be very well informed on things biological. I have a technical background, but it ain't in biology. I struggle with the technical articles and papers.

Hey, maybe in 2024, we can have a GMO reunion somewhere and all meet face to face. lol, again.

Update on the GM paper: I was just casually looking the GMO/pig uteri sturdy again and I noticed the following: The author's organizations seemed to be a bit on the non-university side. I picked one author, one who represents one "Verity Farms" in Maurice, Iowa. A quick visit to their website revealed anti-GMO links and, lo and behold, explains that Verity is proud of their commercial product, Verity Revitalized Water. To quote them directly: "Verity Revitalized Water contains greater caloric capacity to perform work, expel wastes, absorb temperature changes and enhance energetic influences." Like the claims of several other outfits I've seen, some folks can alter the physical properties of water. Remarkable.

I didn't bother to research the other "authors".

My conclusion is even stronger in the "this paper is bs" camp.

Willy, I struggle with the journal articles also! I haven't worked in biochemistry in 35-odd years, so don't take me as any kind of authority.

I read the original long-term pig-feeding journal article, and I was more impressed by the authoers' statement that they looked closer and developed new techniques for looking for smaller changes than were done in any normal feeding study or autopsy.

June issue of the peer-reviewed Journal of Organic Systems
Lead researcher Judy Carman
the study itself: http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf
(You can download the PDF. It is 17 pages and dense scientific jargon. Great study.)

"Researchers said there were no differences seen between pigs fed the GM and non-GM diets for feed intake, weight gain, mortality, and routine blood biochemistry measurements."

It would interesting to see what abnormalities their state-of-the-art enhanced scrutiny would find as a result of other dietary practices.

It was a great study in most ways, and presented very well and sounded honest and unbiased to me.
90% of the GM corn was a triple-stacked GE cultivar (two Bt genes and one RoundupReady mod.)
The soy was all RR RoundupReady .

The non-GM corn and soy were fairly close to the GM feeds, but not genetically near-identical varieties.

The piggery workers were somehow kept blind to which group of pigs were which (nice touch!), but still fed one set with GM feed and the other set with normal feed.

Too bad they didn't store the GE feed as mold-free as they stored the conventional feed. Their testing showed "allowable" amounts of highly toxic aflatoxin and some other mold toxin in the GE feeds (I THINK from Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus parasiticus).

"2.08 ppb total aflatoxins and 3.0 ppm total fumonisins in a pooled sample of the GM feed
and no aflatoxins and 1.2 ppm total fumonisins in a pooled sample of the non-GM feed.
No other mycotoxins were detected. "

That "allowable" amount of mold toxins MIGHT have caused the changes they observed, or other mold products might have caused the inflammations and organ size changes. Certainly the "allowable" limits did not use all the new techniques that these admirable researchers developed to put an extra-powerful microscope on the results of 100% GM fodder.

As I said at the time, the test actually supports "pro-GMO" activists more than "anti-GMO" activists. A really good long-term study feeding 100% GMO feeds found only changes so slight that usually no one would have noticed them!

As they said:

“The results indicate that it would be prudent for GM crops that are destined for human food and animal feed, including stacked GM crops, to undergo long-term animal feeding studies preferably before commercial planting, particularly for toxicological and reproductive effects.”

There certainly are many tests that are required already before GMOs get licensed - I had assumed some of those were long-term feeding studies! I see that the Consumer's Union says: "There have been very few animal feeding studies of GE food to date, and extremely few that lasted longer than 90 days."

A 6-month feeding study certainly is a long one, but I agree there is value, especially in triple-stacked GMOs, and ones with brand-new genetic additions.

I guess it is arguable whether the long-term studies need to have tests invented and performed that are more advanced and sensitive than any food product has ever been subjected to before. Including tests that, when they come out positive (some organs enlarged by 25% which I guess is statistically significant with 168 newly-weaned pigs including controls). I would love to know whether the stomach inflammation was related to Bt, aflatoxin or poor feed storage. "More studies are desirable ..."

Of course, the best long-term feeding study is that farm animals have been eating a high % of GM crops for 15 years. Damage is not discernible.

drobarr said:
>> Gmo crops that are commercialized right now are limited to corn, soybeans, cotton, sugarbeets, alfalfa, and canola.

My sole source for the following is the very pro-GMO article in Technology review cited far above ...

"So far, the short list of transgenic crops used directly for food includes virus-resistant papaya grown in Hawaii, Bt sweet corn ... and a few varieties of squash that resist plant viruses".

I don't know if the papaya and squash varieties are commercialized yet, but that article made it sound like they were. I don't know.

That same article said:
The Indonesian ag agency expects to approve a blight-resistant potato "soon".

J.R. Simplot hopes to commercialize its own blight-resistant potato GM potato by 2017.

Monsanto may try again to commercialize a GM wheat some time.

Cornell researchers are working with India, Bangladesh and the Philippines to make an insect-resistant eggplant available to farmers there.

Thanks, Willy. I've re-read that first MIT article about three times. It was the first time I saw Talens and Crispr mentioned, and that firm that offers GE "toolkits" for a few hundred dollars was thrilling or chilling, or both.

I need to read the second Talens & Crispr article - human gene-tailoring, am I right?

I was amazed to learn the commercial potato cultivars for the US' Northeast are specialized for regions only 500 miles in radius! That small a change in day length and climate makes a difference. How much more of a difference would variable or changed weather make?

Whether or not you think any degree of unusual climate is likely to occur soon (or after a few decades) , those plant physiologists are thinking ahead (or, at least, thinking about things relevant to parts of the world that don't have access to plenty of fertile, well irrigated agricultural land with steady, predictable climates.)

Several people in that article made the point that the GE revolution has not benefited the Third World much at all, and has mostly affected crops where profits could be increased, and profits for the GE company assured. If the GE revolution is ever to address issues like drought, heat, salinity, and plant diseases in poor regions, some mechanism other than mega-corporations seeking profit will be needed. Maybe Talens and Crispr and non-transgenic GE methods leading to relaxed regulatory standards will help meet that goal, i.e. feeding the next 2 billion people to be born.

A couple of thoughts regarding your last posts, Rick.

The Talens/crispr article does discuss all GE, but it mentioned human genetic diseases also. I hadn't seen much mentioned on that aspect in other places.

"Mendel in the Kitchen" discusses some GE (Golden Rice and at least one other that escapes me now) that has been donated to other organizations and that is aimed at feeding and providing better nutrition for the poor. This really is a worthwhile read.

My overall impression of commercialized GE crops to date is that their potential promise is largely unmet so far, especially with regard to food/nutrition value.

I am still not as skeptical of the profit motive as some others here.

>> I am still not as skeptical of the profit motive as some others here.

I'm sure that I only talk about what I think of as shortcomings of our entire economic system, not its benefits.

The profit motive is good at what it does, but doesn't address things like monopolies, oligopolies, selective regulations, and the partial list of illegal and improper business practices that I learned about in a "business ethics" course.

That course had dozens of names for different anti-competitive practices, many of which were technically illegal but easily sleazed around. Like Inuits having many names for "snow", businessmen know of so many ways to conspire against competitors and then beat the rap that just naming them and defining each takes hours.

Well, to be fair, I AM the kind of liberal that would like to see poor children, people with devastating illnesses and old people have alternatives to getting sick or dieing in the streets. Things that the profit motive does not provide. And also things that go far beyond minimal health care, things that different political philosophies could disagree about "legitimately".

There is pretty good fossil evidence that even Neanderthals took care of some unproductive members of the tribe, like hominids with broken legs and disabling arthritis. Whoever compared House Freshmen Representatives against the Affordable Care Act to Neanderthals was being unfair, unkind and probably libelous ... to the Neanderthals.

YMMV

I just learned what YMMV meant--thanks.

A quick tangent for a chuckle. Last night, I caught an episode of Family Guy, Which I haven't watched much, but I may need to rectify that in the future. Anyway, without giving the silly background of why this scene happened, Jesus, driving a car, wielding a gun, and generally acting like Mel Gibson, was driving a vehicle with the license plate "WWID". Cracked me up, and still does.

I hope I haven't crossed the line into religion too much.

I love the "What Would *I* Do" vanity plate!

One great South Park episode featured a (heavily armed) Jesus rescuing Santa Claus, at Christmas time, from Middle Eastern terrorists. My 'always cracks me up image' is Jesus in robes criss-crossed with ammunition bandoleers, slapping a magazine into an AK and saying "Let's rock".

During the rescue, Santa is saved but Jesus dies from gunshot wounds.

Afterwards, the secular townspeople decide that we should remember and revere Jesus at Christmas time "because he gave his life rescuing Santa Claus" from terrorists at that time of year.

No one remembered that there was any other connection between Jesus and Christmas ...



This message was edited Feb 26, 2014 4:33 PM

Rick,
Our economic system isnt perfect. But I think it is the system that does the best at providing the most good to the most people. Economic liberty has allowed us to prosper like no other nation has. I am not opposed to a safety net...but the vast majority of people are capable on their own to provide their own housing, food, medical care etc. I dont think the government needs to provide medical care to the 85% of people who can provide it themselves. But I have no problem helping those that dont have it...but focus should not be just giving...but helping them eventually be able to get it themselves instead of creating dependency.

Here's an article on the implications of glyphosate-resistant weeds - which evolved due to glyphosate-resistant crops - and their promotion of the use of ever-more-toxic herbicides:

http://msue.anr.msu.edu/news/24_d_and_dicamba_resistant_crops_and_their_implications_for_susceptible_non

John,
I agree that able bodied people should not receive welfare, as the worst thing you can do to a human being is to trade him or her free food and shelter, making them Dependent, in return for their Pride and Self Respect.

But people truly unable to support themselves, children and Mothers with small children need to be taken care of by the community.

Ernie

This is an interesting discussion about GMOs as a means of dealing with citrus greening:

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/blog/2927/genetically-engineered-oranges-not-all-theyre-juiced-up-to-be#

When I went to the citrus greening article, a big pop-up ad appeared. It said "DOW--Destroying Our World. Another clever phrase on the site--Monsanto or Monarchs.

I suspect these folks aren't serious scientists doing objective work.

As for the claim the GE is being promoted as the "only" solution, that's just plain hogwash. A quick look at web sites dealing with citrus greening will reveal that many approaches are being tried concurrently. IF GE citrus can help, it won't be for years. Immediate solutions will not involve GE--or any other breeding including conventional techniques.

One of the reasons I started the "organics" thread is my growing disgust with what I am seeing as plain old fashioned dishonesty, probably mixed with a great amount of ignorance, on the part of many so called environmentalist organizations. Good intentions don't feed people.

Amen Willey!

I just discovered a new podcast (I don't know about you, but I can't live without my mp3 podcasts when I walk the dog). It's called Inquiring Minds and it can be found here: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/inquiring-minds/id711675943?mt=2. Coincidences of coincidences, the last two episodes feature a discussion of GMOs and a discussion of climate change. The podcast is hosted by a PhD neuroscientist and another person I don't know about. It is a science promoting effort.

I have yet to listen to either podcast mentioned above.

Willy, just because there's a pop-up ad touting anti-Monsanto whatevers doesn't mean that the site isn't quoting a serious scientific article. I usually try to link to the article on the journal's original site but I didn't bother here. You should still read it. Pro-GMO pieces are often quoted on GMO-industry sites as well but that doesn't mean that no science exists to support them.

GG--My post was a bit too harsh; I should have taken more time to write it. Nonetheless, I did read the article. It isn't a paper, it's an opinion piece. It isn't research, it's an article written by someone who has no intention of ever thinking GMOs could be useful or good. As my earlier post noted, the writer claims GE is being pushed as the only solution to citrus greening,. In the writer's own words: "And with growers and producers at their wits’ ends, there’s been a lot of talk about genetic engineering (GE) as the only solution—notably at Friday’s Agricultural Outlook Forum at USDA, where USDA researcher Ed Stover pushed transgenics as the “best possibility” for the industry, and Marylou Polek, vice president for science and technology at the Citrus Research Board, touted it as “the only long-term solution”."

I can guarantee that not one scientist or grower associated with this very serious problem (your morning OJ could soon be very pricey) believes the GE is the immediate answer. It can't possibly be the answer as the industry could be destroyed before a GE solution is found, proven, and implemented. As I said, a quick Internet search reveals that many solutions are being explored, some of which the article writer herself later discusses. To present GE companies as thinking only GE will solve the problem is flat dishonest. Even in the quote I cited above, the pro-GE people note that GE is a LONG TERM answer.

She then harps on "monocultures". I live in a big citrus state and I can tell you that even homeowners with a single tree have lost that tree. This disease strikes all citrus from limes to grapefruit to oranges. No doubt a monoculture approach hastens the spread of the disease. But what is the alternative? Make our orchards ten times bigger and fill them with other plants. We haven't the land to significantly expand the size of growing areas. In Phoenix, orchard after orchard is being converted to housing tracts.

Finally, I don't think it was a pop-up ad per se; it was a part of the site itself. The same phrase is permanently a part of the article page; check the upper right at the top of the page.

As you know, I do have concerns about GE crops, especially as relates to the hastening of resistance to some herbicides (Bt), but that isn't a feature of GE per se, it can and does happen to any "cide" or antibiotic. By the time DDT was outlawed, it's my understanding that it was becoming ineffective anyway.

I believe that most "concerned" environmental writers and bloggers are very good at using a few dozen words--monocrop, diversity, Frankenfood, etc--without really having a grasp of the bigger pictures. As I wrote a couple weeks ago, this saddens me and is most definitely NOT a conclusion I wanted to reach.

I agree Willy. It is not a paper and it isn't scientific. Organic production is also a monoculture. Resistance is an issue with both conventional and organic methods.

GG, thanks for that link about making new GE crops that will be resistant to 2,4D and dicamba. Hey, if they can RESIST 2,4-D, maybe we can use them to decontaminate SuperFund toxic waste sites!

http://msue.anr.msu.edu/news/24_d_and_dicamba_resistant_crops_and_their_implications_for_susceptible_non

I kind of expected GE to go in this direction eventually, but I had not read about it already happening:

“... several companies are actively developing crops that can resist glyphosate, 2,4-D and dicamba herbicides,”

As soon as resistance builds up to the newer, less-toxic Roundup, I expected that we would develop GE crops that resist more toxic herbicides. Sadly, then, the motivation to use the highly toxic herbicides IN MODERATION is less: they won't kill the crops as much as they used to.

Also:
"Egan also said that if farms become too reliant on herbicides, farmers will find it more difficult to use integrated weed management approaches. Integrated weed management includes planting cover crops, rotating crops and using mechanical weed control methods. Farmers can use herbicides in this management approach, but must use them in a targeted, judicious fashion."

I guess one small glimmer of hope is that, if there are three very different herbicides that different GE crops can resist, there are OPTIONs for weed management that won't increase three-way resistance in weeds AS FAST as reckless applications would. If farmers follow practices designed for everyone's long-term best interests, having three herbicides in their arsenal COULD let them mitigate the weed-tolerance problem. But not if very many of them shoot for short-term profit or reduced labor and reduced risk to themselves, in the current season.

Hey, here's an idea for a "herbicide" that weeds could not develop resistance to: nanotechnology, or rather inch-scale robots.

I've given up on training slugs to eat only weeds, but vision systems and robotics are almost up to the task. Right now, they might cost thousands of dollars each and be the size of cats, and trail power cords behind them, but robotic technology is shrinking and becoming cheaper very quickly.

(Deleting an apology for bringing up science fiction ... Google robotic weeding.)

John, you said some political/economic things that I partly agree with and partly disagree with.

Helping hard-working or willing people to get some technical training makes more sense than years of unemployment insurance, but I do fear that "middle class" jobs and "blue collar" jobs are getting fewer and worse-paid, while high-tech jobs are not everyone's cup of tea (and there may not be enough of those to go around, either). Not blaming, just worrying.

I know there is a strong political undercurrent in all of the GMO discussion, but I'm going to reinforce my own intent to stay closer to science than politics in the future (despite my ranting about Neanderthals last time).

Hopefully you've already heard 99.9% of anything political I might bring up "on the other side" and my failure to make as good an answer as you deserve won't deprive you in any way.

I don't actually have anything new or interesting to contribute to the "entitlement / Neanderthal" political debate

Rick,
Here is another subject that you and i can debate over, and that is what has harmed the middle class.

The lack of control of our borders, because emigrants, whether from Greece or Mexico, are almost always that Country's brightest and bravest. Not all illegals remain gardeners and laborers. Many of them have stepped up in to skilled trades, and other traditional middle class jjobs, so not only have the several million immigrants caused a labor surplus in the lower paid jobs, hurting that group, they have also taken many good paying jobs that were formerly the mainstay of the middle class. And both the increased qualified applicants and their willingness to work for less money, has prevented the increased salaries and wages the Middle class were getting before the influx.

The second source of damage to the middle class is this: The growth of our Government has required a large increase in taxes to support it. Regardless of what the average person is led to believe, ALL taxes are paid by the consumer, and since the Middle Class is the largest group of consumers, being more numerous than rich people and having more money to spend than poor people, they are the ones that wind up paying most of the taxes.

Businesses have to treat the taxes they pay exactly like they treat other expenses, and pass them all on to the consumer. Consumers, of course cannot pass on their expenses since they have nothing to sell.

So, with wages being held down, and taxes and expenses for everything going up, the middle class is in an extreme squeeze. I am amazed that they have managed to do as well as they have.

Ernie

You ever try to yank a dandelion out of the ground only to have the top break off? The taproot stays in the soil and grows back. This is a form of weed resistance. No matter how you control weeds...be it chemical or organic or physical or cultural methods...weeds will eventually adapt.

So its important to rotate modes of action, rotate control methods so as weeds are selected by the use of one method you can use another to keep one step ahead. Growers are well aware of resistance issues and very few only rely on chemical controls alone.

Dicamba and 2,4-D tolerant crops (soy, corn, cotton) will first be sold in 2015. I am directly involved in some of these projects. These two broad spectrum herbicides have been in use for over 60 years. They will help combat resistance and allow growers to had another mode of action to rotate with. Even though these herbicides have been used for so many years in crops and turf etc there are almost no issues with resistance. These herbicides can already be used in corn but the resistance put into corn via GMO methods will minimize injury that is currently seen in these crops and widen the application window.

I have had personal experience with both Roundup and 2 4 D. I used Roundup three or four times a year on thirty miles of large ornamental tree rows, As only the rows were irrigated, that was where the weeds grew. The trees were sold and the rows renewed about every five years, and during that time, the weeds did not show any resistance, nor did the Roundup seem to harm the soil.

But we had four miles of electric fence where the ground had to be kept weed free so as to not short out the fence. I used 2 4 D on that, and as the ground was never disturbed, it became sterile in some parts of it. The point i am making is that different weed killers are needed for different jobs, and will always be needed is some situations.

Ernie

One thing I think that gets forgotten here is that farmers who use GE crops don't have to use them. Those that do use them do so for what they perceive to be benefits. If the product isn't worth its cost, they don't have to, and surely won't, buy it.The other aspect of this is that the farmers are a heck of a lot smarter, more knowledgeable anyway, than we are about the pros and cons of each and every practice or tool they use. It's kind of insulting and sanctimonious in a way for us to apparently assume that farmers are just dumb fools being led around by Monsanto.

Another thought on profits. Why is it that evil profit mongerers are always companies like Exxon and Monsanto, yet Trader Joe's, the New York Times, Starbucks, and Apple never earn the "profit grubbing" moniker? Your local food coop is "for-profit" and likely quite pricey as well. I think dragging the term "profit" into these discussions is somewhat similar to an ad hominem attack. Non-profit, by the way, does not mean that profits aren't earned. Indeed if a non-profit lose money, they are gone just like a "for profit" business. Legally, non-profit just means that profits cannot be distributed to shareholders.