Broken promises of GMO's- not much in way of larger yields, no reduction in pesticide use

[kevin 714]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/business/gmo-promise-falls-short.html?_r=0

An analysis by The Times using United Nations data showed that the United States and Canada have gained no discernible advantage in yields — food per acre — when measured against Western Europe, a region with comparably modernized agricultural producers like France and Germany. Also, a recent National Academy of Sciences report found that “there was little evidence” that the introduction of genetically modified crops in the United States had led to yield gains beyond those seen in conventional crops.

One measure, contained in data from the United States Geological Survey, shows the stark difference in the use of pesticides. Since genetically modified crops were introduced in the United States two decades ago for crops like corn, cotton and soybeans, the use of toxins that kill insects and fungi has fallen by a third, but the spraying of herbicides, which are used in much higher volumes, has risen by 21 percent.

By contrast, in France, use of insecticides and fungicides has fallen by a far greater percentage — 65 percent — and herbicide use has decreased as well, by 36 percent.

 

[CoorsLight]

There have been a couple independent, peer-reviewed studies dating back to 2008 or so (IIRC) that have come to the same conclusion. GMO agriculture doesn't deliver on promises, encourages increased use of glyphosate in most cases, and modified genes have been released into the environment with no research on long term effects on other biota. Not to mention the questionable ethical issues with corporations owning genetic codes and therefore owning self-replicating organisms. It's shocking that people don't appreciate the kind of power you give a company like Monsanto when their genetic code can cross pollinates with pure strains, and now Monsanto owns the progeny. It's an almost biblical threat to humankind when companies can legally own all the seed.

Don't give me that shit that selective breeding is the same as genetic modification. It only shows you know nothing of either one.

 

[carries an axe]

How disappointing. I honestly hope there are real world applications to benefit from.

 

[CoorsLight]

Maybe there will be in the future, with CRISPR gene editing and the decision to introduce of genes that are actually beneficial. (And hopefully extremely well-researched before being let into the "wild").

But as it is right now, we have crops that produce their own, indiscriminate pesticides that are expressed throughout the life cycle, killing beneficial insects as well, and we also have crops that tolerate increased pesticide use. No benefit unless you are the one selling the seed or the spray.

 

[jdhu]

How disappointing. I honestly hope there are real world applications to benefit from.

+1

 

[afm199]

There have been a couple independent, peer-reviewed studies dating back to 2008 or so (IIRC) that have come to the same conclusion. GMO agriculture doesn't deliver on promises, encourages increased use of glyphosate in most cases, and modified genes have been released into the environment with no research on long term effects on other biota. Not to mention the questionable ethical issues with corporations owning genetic codes and therefore owning self-replicating organisms. It's shocking that people don't appreciate the kind of power you give a company like Monsanto when their genetic code can cross pollinates with pure strains, and now Monsanto owns the progeny. It's an almost biblical threat to humankind when companies can legally own all the seed.

Don't give me that shit that selective breeding is the same as genetic modification. It only shows you know nothing of either one.

:thumbup

Been saying this for years.

 

[Yakoo752]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/business/gmo-promise-falls-short.html?_r=0

damn paywall :mad

it's just a sign-in, I've been avoiding reading the NYT online because I assumed it was a paywall

 

[Nucking Futs]

This news was on Reddit a few days ago and all the top replies tore the times article to shreds. There were dozens of counterpoints, but the one I remember best was the fact that yields in America have always been high, and the GMO's didn't help those yields that much, but in drought and low yield areas GMO's made huge gains.

I'll see if I can find that conversation later.

Actually if you just google "Reddit GMO study" a shit ton of info comes up.

 

[redruM]

It's shocking that people don't appreciate the kind of power you give a company like Monsanto when their genetic code can cross pollinates with pure strains, and now Monsanto owns the progeny. It's an almost biblical threat to humankind when companies can legally own all the seed.

Bayer bought Monsanto last month. What a match. That was the corporate tag team that made the killer Agent Orange all possible. Yep, good ol' Bayer/IG Farben. Brought the world Mustard Gas in WWI, and Zyklon-B in WWII. Some involved were the Nazi scientists our gov gave sanctuary to during the Nuremberg trials.

Bah! They're all just good capitalists. These are stories of big greedy business, nothing more. Nothing nefarious afoot - that was then, this is now!

:nchantr

Yeahhh, about that "bad science" we were talking about...

 

[kevin 714]

This news was on Reddit a few days ago and all the top replies tore the times article to shreds. There were dozens of counterpoints, but the one I remember best was the fact that yields in America have always been high, and the GMO's didn't help those yields that much, but in drought and low yield areas GMO's made huge gains.

I'll see if I can find that conversation later.

Actually if you just google "Reddit GMO study" a shit ton of info comes up.

a reddit thread as a source? :laughing


im sure theres plenty of competing opinions, some worthwhile and others not, just funny see a reddit thread as a source

 

[Yakoo752]

counter argument

http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2016/10/the-tiresome-discussion-of-initial-gmo-expectations/

which is interesting

First, the data is presented in different units (thousand metric tons for France, compared to million pounds in the US), making a direct comparison nearly impossible. Second, the pesticide amounts are not standardized per unit area, which is critically important since the USA has over 9 times the amount of farmland that France does; it would be shocking if the U.S. didn’t use far more pesticide when expressed this way. So took the data presented by Mr. Hakim and converted it into the same units, and standardized by arable land, and this is what that same data looks like:

It is true that France has been reducing pesticide use, but France still uses more pesticides per arable hectare than we do in the USA. In the case of fungicide & insecticides, a LOT more.

 

[afm199]

What has happened with GMOs, and Roundup, is evolution. Roundup is losing efficacy as plants learn to resist it. Ditto the seedstock gmo modified to resist roundup and emit toxins has simply created another evolutionary path.

 

[oobus]

Was some of this technology developed for third world countries so food production could be accomplished where it had failed before? Make them able to feed themselves?

 

[revnort]

damn paywall :mad

it's just a sign-in, I've been avoiding reading the NYT online because I assumed it was a paywall

Right click > open link in incognito window. Works with the Washington post too when you've read too many articles in a month.

 

[CoorsLight]

Was some of this technology developed for third world countries so food production could be accomplished where it had failed before? Make them able to feed themselves?

Oh GMOs were invented with the third world in mind, for sure. Just like all the cutting edge research being done in antimalarials and antiparasitics. Just like all the work private companies do to bring clean water to those who are in the most dire need. Just like all the work being done in social justice and economic development for the poor.

/sarcasm

These seeds ARE sold in the third world, which opens up a new market for pesticides (since most of the GMOs are intended for use with specific pesticides). Not to mention that if you sell seed to one farmer, you end up selling seed to all their neighbors eventually (once their crop is pollinated by the nearby GMO crop) lest they be sued for more than everything they are worth by Monsanto et al. It's a racket.