| Pages:
1
..
4
5
6 |
Chemosynthesis
International Hazard
Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Zombie, you mixed up an "rquote" for the "/rquote" early on in that post and it threw off any further quotation attempts. Easy mistake to make, and I
do it when I post in a hurry sometimes. Make sure you group your "rquote" with "/rquote" and your "quote" with "/quote".
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Appeal to aga (and Amos):
Try and formulate some of the fears you have regarding 'interaction' of transgenic organisms with the wider, living environment. It would make any
further debate more focused. Reasoning in a vacuum gets us nowhere.
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
Yes, sorry.
I will try to make my next post contain actual useful information.
May be a while.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Thanks. Look forward to it.
|
|
|
Amos
International Hazard
Posts: 1406
Registered: 25-3-2014
Location: Yes
Member Is Offline
Mood: No
|
|
I was the one saying that it might potentially put an ecosystem out of balance. Genetic modifications that allow crops to either a) mimic or directly
synthesize a pesticide to prevent themselves being eaten by pests, or b) withstand powerful herbicides meant to kill weeds, are the two that concern
me.
Overusing pesticides, and producing cultivars that directly integrate pesticide or pest-deterrent production into their genome may force the pests
that formerly ate them to evolve, developing resistance to the chemicals as a way to allow themselves to get at our crops once more. In response, we
may have to develop other, new pesticides to combat the pests. Now, some pesticides may have harmful health effects on humans, and luckily, we test
the crap out of them before they're used. But while a huge number of potential pesticides can probably be engineered if we really have to, how many of
them will be safe enough for humans to consume in trace amounts in their food? And how many of those will be safe enough for limited release into the
surrounding environment? And if it gets to the point where we're out of options, will the government just okay the least dangerous of the
available choices?
Another thing, still under topic a, is that if we do end up breeding into existence a pest that is resistant to several formerly effective
pesticides, what's to stop that pest from attacking farms that don't have the resources necessary to use the newer, less conventional pesticides? Or
destroying vulnerable plant species in the wild? I find it to be a dilemma similar to how prevalent antibiotics are in today's world, and how more and
more we are hearing about cases multiple-antibiotic-resistant bacteria that prove hard to treat.
The second area of concern works similarly: what if we accidentally breed into existence a series of weeds that can't really be killed by any of
today's means? Do we just develop stronger and stronger herbicides and blanket the ground with them? Then we have a whole new set of worries about our
food's safety and the health of the environment in response to the new herbicides.
God no, I'm not worried about the genetic material of GMOs somehow leaking out and causing mutations or whatever other crazy theories have
been perpetuated. I just think that producing GMOs like those mentioned above, which largely seem to be about increasing yields for profit, should be
regulated; after all, there are much better improvements to crops that we could seek, like making them hardier in certain climates, using less water,
less fertilizer, or being more nutritious.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I think it’s important to understand that the long history of agriculture is essentially the chronicle of a long battle between farmers and
weeds/pests and the potential of the latter to develop resistance to herbicides/pesticides. That problem much predates GM crops.
Information on resistant weed species:
http://weedscience.org/
From: https://gmoanswers.com/ask/why-are-genetically-modified-crop...
| Quote: | Firstly, there is the context and type of GM crop technology being used. This currently falls into two main types: insect-resistant crops, which
are specifically designed to make a crop resistant to a specific pest or pests and can be found in widespread use in corn and cotton crops around the
world, and herbicide-tolerant crops, where the GM technology allows crops to tolerate application of specific herbicides (notably glyphosate) for
improved weed control, and which can be found in widespread use in the crops of soybeans, corn, canola, sugar beet and cotton.
The GM insect-resistant (GM IR) technology provides a form of protection against pests and often replaces insecticides as a form of control. In corn
and cotton, the use of GM insect-resistant technology has resulted in major reductions in the usage of insecticides that have been traditionally used
to control the pests the GM technology now controls. For example, between 1996 and 2011, the use of insecticides on these crops in the countries
using the technology has fallen by nearly 240 million kg of insecticide active ingredient.
The GM herbicide-tolerant (GM HT) technology allows farmers to simplify and improve their weed control through the use of one or two herbicides that
are effective against a broad range of weeds, instead of having to often rely on the use of a larger number of herbicides that are more selective in
their ability to control weeds. In other words, the adoption of this GM technology has resulted in a change in the profile of herbicides used in many
countries. In some, mostly developing countries, the GM HT technology has also enabled farmers to significantly improve their weed control by
replacing hand weeding, which is unpopular and difficult to find people willing to do. Not surprisingly, the impact of adoption of this technology on
herbicide usage varies by crop, country and time. Using the United States as an example, in the early years of adoption across all crops, GM HT
technology use resulted in significant aggregate reductions in the volume of (weight of active ingredient) herbicides used in crops such as corn and
canola. However, there were differences among the crops, and in some, such as soybeans, the average amount of herbicide active ingredient applied
remained largely unaltered, or increased in the case of sugar beet.
Since the mid-2000s, in the main crops of corn, cotton and soybeans in the United States, the average amount of herbicide applied to crops has tended
to increase. The main reason for this has been increasing incidence of weed species becoming resistance to the main herbicide used with GM HT crops,
glyphosate, and increasing recognition among farmers, coupled with both public- and private-sector weed scientist recommendations, that
weed-management programs should diversify, and not rely on a single herbicide for total weed control. Farmers have therefore increasingly incorporated
one or two other herbicides, in addition to glyphosate, into their weed-management programs.
The development of weed species resistant to herbicides should, however, be placed in context. Nearly all weed species have the potential to develop
resistance to herbicides, and there are hundreds of resistant weed species confirmed in the International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. Reports
of herbicide-resistant weeds predate the use of GM HT crops by decades. The development of weeds resistant to herbicides is therefore a problem faced
by all farmers, not just those using GM HT technology. In fact, GM HT technology offered a solution to controlling some weeds that had developed
resistance to mainstream herbicides used in soybeans in the mid-1990s. The use of herbicides on conventional (non-GM) arable crops in the United
States is equally affected by weed-resistance issues, and herbicide use patterns on conventional crops have followed the upward trends that have
occurred in GM HT crops.
Secondly, any examination of the impact of GM crop technology should also consider the alternative if GM technology were not used. Past practices for
weed or pest control from the days before GM technology was first used are unlikely to reflect what current farmers would likely use, because of the
development of new pesticides and other control methods, the withdrawal of some old pesticides, changes in farm practices and experience and a desire
amongst farmers to maintain or improve levels of weed or pest control, rather than accept poorer levels of control that may have occurred in the past.
Any reasonable assessment of what the "alternative" pattern of pesticide use on crops would be in the absence of GM crops should therefore take these
factors into consideration, and a common approach used to do this is to consult weed or pest control scientists and advisors as to what they think are
likely alternative pest or weed control programs that would currently be applied if GM technology was no longer used. This is an approach I have used
in numerous studies in peer-reviewed journals of pesticide-use change with GM crops (an example reference is provided at the end). In summary, the key
findings of this research shows that the conventional alternative to GM crops invariably result in higher levels of pesticide being used relative to
the current levels with GM crops. This means that while, for example, total herbicide use with GM HT crops in the United States has increased in
recent years, it would have likely risen by even greater amounts if conventional (non-GM) technology had been used instead.
Lastly, any consideration of pesticide use change impacts with GM crops should assess the associated environmental impact. While the amount of
pesticide applied to a crop is one way of trying to measure the environmental impact of pesticide use, this is not a good measure of environmental
impact, because the toxicity and risk of each pesticide is not directly related to the amount (weight) applied. For example, the environmental impact
of applying 1 kg of dioxin to a crop or land is far more toxic than applying 1 kg of salt. There exist alternative (and better) measures, which have
been used by a number of authors of peer-reviewed papers, to assess the environmental impact of pesticide use change with GM crops, rather than simply
looking at changes in the volume of active ingredient applied to crops. In analysis I have been involved in undertaking for several years on pesticide
use change impact with GM crops, we analyzed both active-ingredient use changes and utilized the indicator known as the environmental impact quotient
(EIQ) to assess the broader impact on the environment (plus impact on animal and human health). The EIQ distills the various environmental and health
impacts of individual pesticides in different GM and conventional production systems into a single “field value per hectare” and draws on key
toxicity and environmental exposure data related to individual products. Developed at Cornell University in the 1990s, it provides a better measure to
contrast and compare the impact of various pesticides on the environment and human health than weight of active ingredient alone. It is, however, an
indicator only (primarily of toxicity) and does not take into account all environmental issues and impacts.
Our latest analysis, covering the period 1996–2011 (see reference at the end) shows that GM traits have contributed to a significant reduction in
the environmental impact associated with insecticide and herbicide use on the areas devoted to GM crops. Since 1996, the use of pesticides on the GM
crop area was reduced by 473.7 million kg of active ingredient (an 8.9 percent reduction), and the environmental impact associated with herbicide and
insecticide use on these crops, as measured by the EIQ indicator, fell by 18.3 percent.
In absolute terms, the largest environmental gain has been associated with the adoption of GM insect-resistant (IR) technology. GM IR cotton has
contributed a 24.8 percent reduction in the volume of active ingredient used and a 27.3 percent reduction in the EIQ indicator (1996–2011), due to
the significant reduction in insecticide use that the technology has allowed, in what has traditionally been an intensive user of insecticides.
Similarly, the use of GM IR technology in corn has led to important reductions in insecticide use, with associated environmental benefits.
The volume of herbicides used in GM corn crops also decreased by 193 million kg (1996–2011), a 10.1 percent reduction, while the overall
environmental impact associated with herbicide use on these crops decreased by a significantly larger 12.5 percent. This highlights the switch in
herbicides used with most GM herbicide-tolerant (HT) crops to active ingredients with a more environmentally benign profile than the ones generally
used on conventional crops.
Important environmental gains have also arisen in the soybean and canola sectors. In the soybean sector, herbicide use decreased by 12.5 million kg
(1996–2011), and the associated environmental impact of herbicide use on this crop area decreased, due to a switch to more environmentally benign
herbicides (-15.5 percent). In the canola sector, farmers reduced herbicide use by14.8 million kg (a 17.3 percent reduction), and the associated
environmental impact of herbicide use on this crop area fell by 27.1 percent (due to a switch to more environmentally benign herbicides).
|
I believe the past is the best predictor of the future. So far, using a variety of strategies, challenges posed by ‘nature’s war on human
agriculture’<sup>*</sup> have been met adequately. I see no reason why the advent of GMOs would change that (but I do see cases where
GMO can give the edge over non GM strategies).
<sup>*</sup> (Because that's what it is of course: those wonderfully natural critters trying to steal our resources, ruthlessly and
unrelentingly.)
Amos wrote:
| Quote: | | God no, I'm not worried about the genetic material of GMOs somehow leaking out and causing mutations or whatever other crazy theories have been
perpetuated. I just think that producing GMOs like those mentioned above, which largely seem to be about increasing yields for profit, should be
regulated; after all, there are much better improvements to crops that we could seek, like making them hardier in certain climates, using less water,
less fertilizer, or being more nutritious. |
Firstly, the GMO industry IS heavily regulated. Compare that to the ‘develop today, take to market tomorrow’ of non-GMO cross-breeding methods.
Secondly, do you have evidence that ‘making crops hardier in certain climates, using less water, less fertilizer, or being more nutritious’ really
are the priorities we should currently be looking at? And if so, do you have evidence that GM strategies cannot or are less well placed to
play a part in achieving those objectives?
[Edited on 25-4-2015 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
Chemosynthesis
International Hazard
Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
This is not meant to discredit your post, but I want to point out that GMOs are regulated, and this is in absolutely no risk of changing any
time soon. Not only is most of the research driven by government funding, which is heavily regulated in and of itself, but most research takes place
in public (government, though often state government) universities with their own internal regulatory controls in addition to the numerous government
scientists on staff in dedicated regulatory agencies such as the USDA and FDA, which provide oversight for food and drug related products.
I don't even work in the field of GMO food, but I am insulted when people insinuate my work is somehow not regulated (particularly given where I have
worked). You may wish to consider your phrasing somewhat.
Edit- Ah, one second lag behind Blogfast. He's on his game.
I can't believe I missed this from page 1:
Quote: Originally posted by ISCGora  | Please read my post.I said "There are probably some other sources just search it."
I didn't say you need to research for me so your statement is not true also: |
I read your post. You asked to
explain some fallacious "research" and so I posted a scientific rebuttle link. My next statement is factual. Maybe you need to work on your reading
comprehension. For you to fail to cite a legitimate source and then tell us to fill in the blanks in your convoluted logic with other sources while
apparently ignoring a scientific critique is ridiculous.
Let me refresh your memory on the exchange:
You made the claim "nothing can grow after maybe 5-8 years on dirt where GMOs were farmed" and asked for debate.
https://www.sciencemadness.org/whisper/viewthread.php?tid=62...
I responded in part with "Saying GMO crops do anything specific, without specifying the crop and giving actual data, is just worthless. "
Your response, rather than provide data was:
| Quote: Originally posted by Chemosynthesis |
It's not our job to do your research for you. Please provide some peer-reviewed literature with attached methodologies such as the history of the
animals used for animal studies, instead of some random website if you want any kind of semi-educated discussion on the matter, which will probably
just go over the heads of lay public anyway, and waste everyone's time. Thanks.
Also, see
1. http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-content/genetic-roulette...
2. J R Soc Med. 2008 Jun;101(6):290-8. doi: 10.1258/jrsm.2008.070372.
[Edited on 22-4-2015 by Chemosynthesis] |
My post was that our job isn't to give you citations for your argument, and that you should please provide peer-reviewed literature with the
appropriate methodologies for perusal if you want an educated response. Your behavior is not how logical thinking or debate works. You need to support
your point with evidence. When evidence seems to conflict, methodological and statistical comparisons are heavily relied on to integrate competing
assessments. This is how science generally operates, though is applicable to all rational conversation. You don't just make a statement about leaching
soil nutrients, ask someone to explain some research, then ignore their explanation and criticisms while expecting them to support your original point
for you on their own time. That's lazy and unintellectual.
The appropriate response to my polite request would be to cite a peer-reviewed paper with the specifications I requested rather than expect us to go
hunt for it. You would also read my suggestions, including the first link to a critique of the actual primary literature that is reported as hearsay
in your non-scientific, non-peer-reviewed site. When you find something you don't understand, you ask questions about it, and then address the content
rather than just dismiss it out of your ignorance and injury.
| Quote: | Also two things you gave are nothing more then as you said "semi-educated discussion on the matter".
|
They are/contain peer-reviewed sources, unlike yours, so they are lightyears ahead of what you posted. Your
source contains misleading pictures taken out of context to support a conspiracy theory in place of actual data and citation. The critique I posted
summarizes how this lack of context is misleading. It appears this truly is a semi-educated discussion, as in half of the conversation is coming from
an educated standpoint.... As I also predicted, it must have gone completely over the lay public's ability to understand, given your post; you can't
even be bothered to read! Do you want us to actually post explanations like you asked (my first source) or not?
You don't have time to read it, but you
want us to? Lazy. If this is the way you act with all your sources, you shouldn't have an opinion. Certainly you shouldn't be categorizing research
and regulation you clearly don't come close to comprehending as "minimal." You do not have the knowledgebase to make such assessments, and it's
obvious that you aren't here to have an open discussion or learn, but rather confirm a bias you hold, which is much easier than having to think, learn
new information and reconsider currently held beliefs.
[Edited on 25-4-2015 by Chemosynthesis]
|
|
|
Amos
International Hazard
Posts: 1406
Registered: 25-3-2014
Location: Yes
Member Is Offline
Mood: No
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25 |
Secondly, do you have evidence that ‘making crops hardier in certain climates, using less water, less fertilizer, or being more nutritious’ really
are the priorities we should currently be looking at? And if so, do you have evidence that GM strategies cannot or are less well placed to
play a part in achieving those objectives?
[Edited on 25-4-2015 by blogfast25] |
No, I don't have evidence that those are "better" objectives, but I think it'd be nice to focus on making sure the rest of the globe has enough to eat
long-term before we worry about inconsistency in our considerable food supply in the U.S., don't you think?
I understand that the industry is regulated(you guys made sure to mention that to me earlier), but I guess what I'd really prefer is caps on when and
how much pesticide or herbicides can be used on crops. I don't know when or how often would be considered an appropriate level, that's for
environmental analysts. And if there already IS such a system in place, my bad.
|
|
|
Chemosynthesis
International Hazard
Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Those sound like policy questions rather than scientific ones, and not specific to any particular type or technique of food source/manipulation.
|
|
|
Amos
International Hazard
Posts: 1406
Registered: 25-3-2014
Location: Yes
Member Is Offline
Mood: No
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Chemosynthesis | | Those sound like policy questions rather than scientific ones, and not specific to any particular type or technique of food source/manipulation.
|
I don't know what questions you're referring to, or what I'm supposed to interpret this post as saying.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Amos |
No, I don't have evidence that those are "better" objectives, but I think it'd be nice to focus on making sure the rest of the globe has enough to eat
long-term before we worry about inconsistency in our considerable food supply in the U.S., don't you think?
|
Fair point. But I'm not convinced that agricultural policies in some parts of the developing world are the main or only causes of malnutrition or even
famine. Extremely skewed wealth distribution, resource wars (e.g. Congo/Zaire) and often disastrous 'land reform' policies (e.g. Zimbabwe) are
political problems.
In the developed world, any (relatively rare) malnutrition isn't caused by any food shortages but merely by extreme wealth distribution. No amount or
type of agricultural management can change that.
[Edited on 25-4-2015 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
Chemosynthesis
International Hazard
Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Asking about opinion on the focus of applying scarce food resources, or the hypothetical of pesticide/herbicide use sound like policy questions.
Science doesn't decide what should be done, but looks at what has been done, objectively, and predicts what is likely to occur if something is done,
based on previous observation. Policy is subjective.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
He's less likely to read it because it goes strongly against the 'they just haven't done the science' anti-GMO mantra.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
..
4
5
6 |
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
