GM foods.

[Audioblysk]

Calm down bud. We aren't talking about computers, so no straw man for you there... We are talking about food and agriculture. You have no idea of the topic you are arguing, the chemistry/toxicology of pesticides, or really anything you're going on about. I'll send you a bottle of one of the 'regulated' pesticides and you can put some in your mouth then compare it to liquor.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/07/02/gmo-crops-mean-more-herbicide-not-less/

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2832308/

 

http://nctc.fws.gov/resources/course-resources/pesticides/Limitations%20and%20Uncertainty/Hayes%20et%20al%20in%20press%20EHP%20mixtures%20January%202006.pdf(for amphibians, but relates to humans)

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2706426/

 

http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/6775092

 

http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/8979476

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240415/

 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15287398909531366#.Vgl-_Y9Viko

 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15287398909531366#.Vgl-_Y9Viko

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1518881/

 

http://enhs.umn.edu/current/5103/gm/harmful.html

 

https://www.uclm.es/Actividades/repositorio/pdf/doc_3721_4666.pdf

 

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0069805

 

http://responsibletechnology.org/media/images/content/Press_Release_Gluten_11_25.pdf

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637

 

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

 

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx1001749

 

http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416

 

http://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/detection-of-glyphosate-residues-in-animals-and-humans-2161-0525.1000210.pdf

 

http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf

 

http://static.aboca.com/www.aboca.com/files/attach/news/risk_assessment_of_genetically_modified_crops_for_nutrition.pdf

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19146501

 

 

 

I can keep going, there are DOZENS more studies supporting my point and very few studies supporting your point that aren't put on by those set to make monetary gain from the sway of science they publish. You're resulting to name-calling at this point so I'm out. Here's some evidence I came up with on drugs and stuff. I'm really such a retard. This is a typical Eugene argument - and yet again, you're wrong.

[eugene]

in case you didn't notice you don't really have an argument anymore because the gmed products themselves are not harmful and require less pesticides in general.

[Tricone RC]

yeah the pesticide stuff is serious shit, esp now we're realising that newer pesticides and herbicides e.g. neonics, glyphosate don't degrade like they're supposed to and can actually accumulate. farmin' definitely needs to change so we don't have to use as much of that stuff. GM crops could help us there. Just depends on whether or not the people making the new crops are the same people who are making the pesticides...

[Audioblysk]

Eugene, what the hell are you talking about? I provided over a dozen references that support my points in the thread before, you gave one and didn't bother to read the mound of evidence I gave you. There is more evidence suggesting that pesticide use has gone up in total. Insecticide use has gone down, but that is one half of the term 'pesticide'.

 

You're a hoot

[eugene]

why in the world would i bother reading a barrage of context-less links to begin with? you really don't get how it works?

your whole argument is based on the fact that gmo'd products require more pesticide, but i showed you that the opposite is true according to one big meta-research. so at this point you have literally no argument.

 

the fact that pesticide can't be harmful was never my point, it's all a matter of quantity and proper usage and risks vs rewards calculations. which in the west are done in a reasonable manner.

[Brisbot]

Thanks for posting the links I'll check them out tonight.

About pesticides though. Both GMO and organic crops use them. Not all organic grown food does, but most of it does, so if you want to be an organic purist kind of person you have to make sure your sources don't use them, and chances are, especially if it's branded organic food, it does.

Organic farming though often claims the pesticides are natural vs GMO's synthetic pesticide. But what makes that better? Either synthetic or natural, they are used to kill insects. Not only that but there is much more data and regulation with synthetic pesticides, and less with 'natural' ones with virtually no regulation.


Also, please be respectful of each other, telling each other the other person is clueless doesn't do anyone any good and closes off the other person to listening to you in the first place. the goal becomes to 'win' and not to 'grow'. The idea of winning is useless in a world where both sides often make good points.

[awepittance]

craziest thing i've seen on GM foods is when Neil Degrasse Tyson shit the bed and posted that ridiculously weird tweet about how 'people have been doing GM for centuries' as if selective breeding is same as what people mean by GMO. It made me really sad because I kind of found him charming, now i just think he's a fucking moron.

[Brisbot]

Can you explain what you mean? With GMO you can go in and choose what you're changing instead of hoping for the best with breeding.

[eugene]

Insecticide use has gone down, but that is one half of the term 'pesticide'.

well if you want to stand by this particular point now you need to show that herbicide is more harmful than insecticide.

and as brisbot hints above you'll also need to link that increase specifically to gmo usage and control for other motivations/reasons.

[azatoth]

The use of "natural" as something good and safe in branding is problematic. Botulin is completely natural, but sure not good for you.

 

As for GMO's, I have no problems with genetically manipulating plants to try improving them to feed the ever growing population. But it should be very controlled and rigorous in considering future implications and not done by entities where the only interest is to make the hugest profits.

[Audioblysk]

(sigh) I don't need to show that herbicide is more harmful, they are both different and both very harmful and doesn't really suit your argument when the facts say that yes, pesticide use has increased. Also, I'm arguing against both of them and also the dangers of increase with GMO's. Neither is better and neither should have increased with the claims made about GMO's from the start. GMO's are bred to be herbicide resistant, which means they can tolerate a lot more herbicide, ergo - increase specifically in GMO usage due to tolerance and herbicide resistant weeds becoming more and more tolerant of not only glyphosate, but other pesticides after the use of glyphosate. They are applying more and more to compensate with nature adapting.

 

Herbicides increasing -

http://www.scribd.com/doc/158931501/Superweeds-How-Biotech-Crops-Bolster-the-Pesticide-Industry

 

Herbicides are toxic to plants by nature, and some herbicides have been proven to be especially hazardous to humans. The herbicide 2,4-D has been associated with health risks including endocrine disruption in humans. Dicamba is a carcinogenic herbicide that can drift to nearby communities. Isoxafutole exposure causes developmental toxicity and is a probable human carcinogen, leading to liver tumors and carcinomas in male and female rats. The EPA warns consumers that exposure to atrazine can cause organ failure, low blood pressure and damage to adrenal glands, while long-term exposure can damage the cardiovascular system and cause cancer.

 

When monsanto commercialized its 'roundup ready' crops, the company's marketing campaign described glyphosate as being "less toxic to rats than table salt". Company submitted safety studies highlighted the benign quality of glyphosate, but some of the independent, peer-reviewed research done on glyphosate-tolerant crops has revealed troubling health implications including deterioration of liver and kidney function and impaired embryonic development in rats fed GE feed. Despite these potential harms, the FDA and USDA's monitoring programs do not test for glyphosate residues on food or crops. As more Roundup was used to cope with the glyphosate-resistant weeds, the herbicide residues increased -- but the FDA and USDA merely hiked up the permitted residue levels, with the result that glyphosate-resistant crops did not exceed the allowable tolerance levels.

 

Genetically engineered herbicide tolerant crops have increased the reliance on agrichemicals that threaten the environment, wildlife, human health and farmer incomes. The emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds should cast significant doubt on the biotech seed companies' strategy of developing new varieties of crops that can tolerate more dangerous and powerful herbicides. The seed and chemical companies have put farmers on a chemical treadmill, and now they are increasing the pace. It is time for a more rational, systems-based approach...

 

 

Herbicides have declined in a way because less variety is used as apposed to before, but overall the numbers have increased. Plants bred to be HR are most commonly sprayed with glyphosate because that is what they are bred and engineered to be resistant to.

 

http://irvineschools.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Herbicides-Found-in-Hunam-Urine.pdf

 

"To this day Monsanto continues to advertise its Roundup products as environmentally friendly and claims that neither animals nor humans are affected by this toxin. Environmentalists, veterinarians, medical doctors and scientists, however, have raised increasing alarms about the danger of glyphosate in the animal and human food chain and the environment. The fact that glyphosate has been found in animals and humans is of great concern. In search for the causes of serious diseases of entire herds of animals in northern Germany, especially cattle, glyphosate has repeatedly been detected in the urine, faeces, milk and feed of the animals. Even more alarming, glyphosate was detected in the urine of the farmers."

Glyphosate probably entered human populations over the past 10 years through its increasing presence in daily foods such as meat and dairy products, vegetable and fruit produce and grains products. Glyphosate laced genetically modified Roundup soya which enters the animal food chain, is only one of the risk factors.

 

"Even more dangerous now is the increasing use of herbicides in the EU over the past several years for the desiccation of entire stocks of harvestable crop. “Spraying crops to death”, as desiccation should be more aptly called, means that herbicides are being sprayed directly on the crops shortly before they are to be harvested to facilitate the harvest by uniformly killing off all living plants (including the crops) on the field. If crops can not fully mature due to excessive rain, as was the case in the summer of 2011, herbicides are used to bring the crops to maturity by means of a “deathspray”. The method facilitates the drying of the crops as well as removing all weeds for the next sowing period, and has become common for the harvest of potatoes, cereals, canola and pulses. For potatoes, spraying herbicides on the field immediately before harvest (2.5 l/ha), hardens the skin and reduces its susceptibility to late blight and germination, which improved the potatoes shelf life. Active compounds of the herbicide directly enter the potato through the leaves; however, decomposition of the poison takes place in the body of the consumer. Syngenta’s advertising brochure has the following to say about desiccation: “For professional producers chemical desiccation now counts among the standard measures to assure high quality production [...]. In this context one also speaks of the “economic maturity” of crops, as the usage of herbicides allows for a safe termination of the harvesting procedure.” With this in mind, authorities in the EU raised the legal limit of glyphosate in bread and wheat to 100 times the legal limit for vegetables. For feed grains, the legal limit was raised 200 fold, this without that these limits are being enforced by any form of relevant random sampling. Yet, the plant protection authorities are quite aware of the negative effects of glyphosate. For example, glyphosate may not be used on malting barley or for a “kill-off” during seed propagation, as this reduces germination capacity. Beer does not brew with grains that were “sprayed to death” with glyphosate. For bread and fodder grain, however, this reduced germination capacity is not a concern. Authorities, however, forbid desiccated cereal straw to be used for fodder in the same year. Unfortunately, this regulation is neither followed nor enforced. Desiccation is one of the most egregious scandals of modern agricultural history, As such, it is worth taking a minute to consider what is actually happening in the process. Just before crops are harvested, threshed, and sold to bakeries, farmers soak them in broad-spectrum systemic herbicides to kill them off and give them the appearance of uniform maturity. One could just as well stir the glyphosate right into the bread dough. With protein-rich feed it is the same – the herbicide is spayed directly on the grain several days before it is sold as concentrated feed. Pesticide and insecticide use is associated with considerable waiting periods before harvest. However, the waiting period for glyphosate [and similar drugs such as glufosinate-ammonium (Basta/Liberty Link), deiquat or diquat (Reglone), carfentzarone (Shark, cyanamide (Azodef), cinidon-ethyl (Lotus) and pyraflufen (Quickdown)], is completely inadequate because it is classified as a herbicide. While in viticulture, for example, a waiting period of 8 weeks before harvest is mandated for the usage of purely mineral sulphide; grains can be sprayed with glyphosate a mere 7 days before harvest. There is an urgent need for action. Regardless of all the other risks associated with glyphosate, an immediate ban of desiccation must be enforced. Desiccation can be considered nothing less than negligent physical injury and is irreconcilable with current animal welfare laws. Unlike the EU, Switzerland forbids desiccation with herbicides. Yet, Swiss livestock and their consumers are not safe, as nearly half of the food and nearly two-thirds of livestock feed is imported from countries where desiccation is a standard agricultural practice."

 

Health detriments of herbicides -

 

Breast cancer concerns of glyphosate.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/tx1001749

 

 

Glyphosate is an active ingredient of the most widely used herbicide and it is believed to be less toxic than other pesticides. However, several recent studies showed its potential adverse health effects to humans as it may be an endocrine disruptor. This study focuses on the effects of pure glyphosate on estrogen receptors (ERs) mediated transcriptional activity and their expressions. Glyphosate exerted proliferative effects only in human hormone-dependent breast cancer, T47D cells, but not in hormone-independent breast cancer, MDA-MB231 cells, at 10⁻¹² to 10⁻⁶M in estrogen withdrawal condition. The proliferative concentrations of glyphosate that induced the activation of estrogen response element (ERE) transcription activity were 5-13 fold of control in T47D-KBluc cells and this activation was inhibited by an estrogen antagonist, ICI 182780, indicating that the estrogenic activity of glyphosate was mediated via ERs. Furthermore, glyphosate also altered both ERα and β expression. These results indicated that low and environmentally relevant concentrations of glyphosate possessed estrogenic activity. Glyphosate-based herbicides are widely used for soybean cultivation, and our results also found that there was an additive estrogenic effect between glyphosate and genistein, a phytoestrogen in soybeans. However, these additive effects of glyphosate contamination in soybeans need further animal study.

 

https://www.uclm.es/Actividades/repositorio/pdf/doc_3721_4666.pdf(Particularly related to GMO)

 

 

To our knowledge, this is the first study to highlight the presence of pesticides-associated genetically modified foods in maternal, fetal and nonpregnant women’s blood. 3-MPPA and Cry1Ab toxin are clearly detectable and appear to cross the placenta to the fetus. Given the potential toxicity of these environmental pollutants and the fragility of the fetus, more studies are needed, particularly those using the placental transfer approach [41]. Thus, our present results will provide baseline data for future studies exploring a new area of research relating to nutrition, toxicology and reproduction in women. Today, obstetric-gynecological disorders that are associated with environmental chemicals are not known. This may involve perinatal complications (i.e. abortion, prematurity, intrauterine growth restriction and preeclampsia) and reproductive disorders (i.e. infertility, endometriosis and gynecological cancer). Thus, knowing the actual PAGMF concentrations in humans constitutes a cornerstone in the advancement of research in

 

 

Effect of pigs fed GMO products.

http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf

 

Pigs fed a GMO diet exhibited heavier uteri and a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation than pigs fed a comparable non-GMO diet. Given the widespread use of GMO feed for livestock as well as humans this is a cause for concern. 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. Humans have a similar gastrointestinal tract to pigs, and these GM crops are widely consumed by people, particularly in the USA, so it would be be prudent to determine if the findings of this study are applicable to humans.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2706426/

 

 

We assume that Séralini et al. 5 methodology can discriminate potential false positive and GM-linked effects, avoiding to some extent false negative ones, in the best way we can do for this discussed and too limited protocol already in use for commercialized GMOs. These GM-linked effects are then considered as signs of toxicity in the 90 days, not proofs of toxicity. The biological plausibility of a subchronic or chronic side effect of the GM diet, linked to the new toxin in the mammalian regimen, or due to the mutagenesis effect of the genetic modification itself, is thus non negligible. Finally it should be stressed that statistically significant effects of GM diets, or of residues of pesticides that are contained by GMOs, have also been observed in other instances 21-25, but not in all studies 26, 27 enlightening the necessity of a case-by-case approach, and that the real toxicological studies are quite limited up to date for that 28. All these observations taken together in our opinions do not allow a clear statement of toxic effects, but to suggest them as such, because they are clearly undeniable. Now, to any good researcher similar results would mean that there is much to be improved in the planning of experimental design; and thus to increase their resolution power to obtain unequivocal statements, for instance increasing the duration and/or the number of rats tested. Generally speaking it seems to us unbelievable that a risk assessment carried out only on forty rats of each sex receiving GM rich diets for 90 days (yielding results often at the limits of significance) have not been repeated and prolonged independently. We should overall take into account the fact that the analysed GM product could be fed long-term to people and animals of various ages and sexes, and with various pathologies.

We call for more serious standardized tests such as those used for pesticides or drugs, on at least three mammalian species tested for at least three months employing larger sample sizes, and up to one and two years before commercialization, for GM food or feed specifically modified to contain pesticide residues. We also call for a serious scientific debate about the criteria for testing significant adverse health effects for pesticides or chemicals, but overall for GM food or feed products, such as MON 863.

[eugene]

(sigh) I don't need to show that herbicide is more harmful, they are both different and both very harmful and doesn't really suit your argument when the facts say that yes, pesticide use has increased.

 

 

first of all i already linked an a serious longitudinal article that claims that pesticide use has decreased, not increased.

here's the abstract again:

Abstract: The large-scale commercial cultivation of transgenic crops has undergone a steady increase since their

introduction 10 years ago. Most of these crops bear introduced traits that are of agronomic importance, such as herbicide or insect resistance. These traits are likely to impact upon the use of pesticides on these crops, as well as the pesticide market as a whole. Organizations like USDA-ERS and NCFAP monitor the changes in crop pest management associated with the adoption of transgenic crops. As part of an IUPAC project on this topic, recent data are reviewed regarding the alterations in pesticide use that have been observed in practice. Most results indicate a decrease in the amounts of active ingredients applied to transgenic crops compared with conventional crops. In addition, a generic environmental indicator – the environmental impact quotient (EIQ) – has been applied by these authors and others to estimate the environmental consequences of the altered pesticide use on transgenic crops. The results show that the predicted environmental impact decreases in transgenic crops. With the advent of new types of agronomic trait and crops that have been genetically modified, it is useful to take also their potential environmental impacts into account.

 

 

 

so if you want to continue claiming that it has increased you'll have to deal with their findings head on, or at least concede that this matter is still unclear instead of repeating stuff.

 

secondly, if as you say insecticide use has decreased but herbicide increased then you have to see how it affects your argument about GMOs being harmful in general, because it's quite possible that one is less harmful than another and so overall the net effect of the switch to GMOs is less harm to people or environment.

 

and this is non-academic but serious debunk of that over-quoted article about increased herbicide use that.

http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2012/10/do-genetically-engineered-crops-really-increase-herbicide-use/

 

all your other tldr is irrelevant.

[Audioblysk]

That data merely means that there is a decrease in the amount of active chemicals used in the fields on food, not specifically the compounding use of a specific chemical, so while you have a point, you are off base. The amount of pesticide being used on crops, is at an all time high, even if it is only one or two chemicals, and the amount of chemicals in total on the crops has gone down, it has still not decreased the amount of pesticide (specifically glyphosate) or rate of growth in amount that is used on the crops annually. The amount of glyphosate at its low-end estimated use is increasing more than any other chemical being used in the last 20 years or ever besides DDT at the beginning of this whole mess, and we all know how that went. The references to horrible health concerns I posted are very relevant and there are way more than that being studied - this is a very real issue if we are using this food for mass meat manufacture (live stock feed). You're splitting hairs on this one, the points I make are interconnected and valid and your data even supports that. None of what I've posted is irrelevant.

 

Here's a low estimate of the amount of glyphosate use by the USGS. Go ahead and go in there and show me any other pesticide that has increased in use as much as glyphosate or has ever been purchased in the last 20 years at the rate of glyphosate. Start with the most common ones and show me the rapid decrease compared to the amount of glyphosate estimated to be used if it works so well, it has decreased a few, but the total amount being bought and used is still much around the same as it only eliminated certain pesticides from being useful, while needing to re-up like a junkie to make up for resistance, in a fashion not seen by any other pesticide route ever. Your meta data isn't a bullet-proof shield on this one and you've passed up numerous things I've posted because of it, but are missing the whole of the point. That study stops 10 years ago, which even in the low-ball estimate below -- the total amount of glyphosate has nearly doubled in the 7 year period after the study you posted, even though in that data it seems to have fully replaced all the other ones by that measure... If it had gotten rid of all problems with the original application dose with full herbicidal-resistance benefits, why would you need to buy more and more of it every year? GMO farms aren't growing in number that fast to warrant that - by 2009 93% of our GMO soy and 80% of our GMO corn were already using it... and that's just the recorded data of GMO corn and Soy from Monsanto. It's being used in many other facets of our agriculture. So again, why the increase without the amount of new farms warranting it and being patent-liable to use it... Unless it isn't working correctly over a long period of time. Thus being short-sighted in the science being applied in mass.

 

http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/pnsp/usage/maps/show_map.php?year=2012&map=GLYPHOSATE&hilo=L

 

This is waaaay to big of an issue to spread out in a thread. Pesticide and modern agricultural practices and the detriment to the earth and humans are in the infantile stages of study, but things are not looking good for the most part with the commonly used ones. The exact ramifications of what we are doing to our bodies, food supply and acceptable practices for chemical safety when it comes to agriculture is no more known than when we blew up nuclear weapons and had people watch from a very unsafe distance behind some concrete. If we really want to hash this out, we'd need to debate plant genetics, soil enzymology and micro-life impact of pesticide use, environmental cost of modern agricultural practices, toxicology, chemistry, ramifications of patenting of plant genetics, ramifications of what we consider 'engineering' or 'breeding' when it comes to plants, ect.. And I don't think you can find enough meta-data to argue with me on over half those topics.

 

The point of this thread was to ask if GMO foods are bad for you. If the current paradigm of big-ag science is being controlled by a single legislative-influencing private company and required to run on the current regimen of pesticidal control as indicated by that company itself, then yes - the chemical(s) they require their crops be grown with are very harmful to you and not understood in any sense of future ramifications when requiring massive amounts of it being applied to common food crop to support their engineering. There's really no two ways about that.

[sweepstakes]

So by "amount of active ingredients" they are just talking about the number of ingredients, not the volume? I don't see how that's a great argument for GMO. If you control the genetic makeup to such a degree, it would make sense (at least to me, I am 100% ignorant obese botany noob) that you could focus the chemical treatment for the crop.

But then this seems to be just further evidence that this is being done for profit, right? For example it's easier to transport one bigass container of a single chemical than a bunch of smaller ones.

[eugene]

So by "amount of active ingredients" they are just talking about the number of ingredients, not the volume?

of course not, why would anyone read it like that in that context.

 

That data merely means that there is a decrease in the amount of active chemicals used in the fields on food, not specifically the compounding use of a specific chemical, so while you have a point, you are off base.

jesus, the whole point is whether total amount of active pesticide chemicals used decreased or increased with gmo adoption. what fucking "compounding use" are you talking about all of a sudden?

 

The amount of pesticide being used on crops, is at an all time high,

this is the opposite of what the article i brought shows. why do you keep repeating yourself like a parrot without addressing what it said? instead of dealing with that finding you suddenly switched to an increased use of some specific scary chemical? but that was never yours or mine point to begin with.

 

The references to horrible health concerns I posted are very relevant and there are way more than that being studied - this is a very real issue if we are using this food for mass meat manufacture (live stock feed). You're splitting hairs on this one, the points I make are interconnected and valid and your data even supports that. None of what I've posted is irrelevant.

it's completely irrelevant to this argument because that's not the point, the point is to find whether total use of chemicals on crops increased or decreased.

 

that graph you linked to is pointless because it simply shows raw yearly numbers, not per acre or per whatever amount of yield.

[sweepstakes]

 

So by "amount of active ingredients" they are just talking about the number of ingredients, not the volume?

of course not, why would anyone read it like that in that context.

Well, I was a little confused by it but I guess that's because I'm a dumbass?

[Audioblysk]

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186%2F2190-4715-24-24/fulltext.html#Sec10_73

 

 

Today’s pest-management related GE traits have proven popular and commercially profitable for the biotech-seed industry, but over-reliance has set the stage for resistance-driven problems in both herbicide-resistant and Bt-transgenic crops. Largely because of the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds, HR crop technology has led to a 239 million kg (527 million pound) increase in herbicide use across the three major GE-HR crops, compared to what herbicide use would likely have been in the absence of HR crops. Well-documented increases in glyphosate applications per hectare of HR crop account for the majority of this 239 million kg increase.

While Bt corn and cotton have reduced insecticide applications by 56 million kgs (123 million pounds), resistance is emerging in key target insects and substantial volumes of Bt Cry endotoxins are produced per hectare planted [corn, Additional file 1: Tables S20–S22, cotton, Additional file 1: Tables S23–S25], generally dwarfing the volumes of insecticides displaced. Documenting the full range of impacts on the environment and public health associated with the Bt Cry proteins biosynthesized inside Bt-transgenic plants remains a challenging and largely ignored task, especially given the recent move toward multiple Bt protein, stacked-trait events.

Overall, since the introduction of GE crops, the six major GE technologies have increased pesticide use by an estimated 183 million kgs (404 million pounds), or about 7%. The spread of GR weeds is bound to trigger further increases, e.g., the volume of 2,4-D sprayed on corn could increase 2.2 kgs/ha by 2019 (1.9 pounds/acre) if the USDA approves unrestricted planting of 2,4-D HR corn [Additional file 1: Table S19]. The increase in herbicides applied on HR hectares has dwarfed the reduction in insecticide use over the 16 years, and will almost surely continue to do so for several more years.

Estimating the impacts of GE crops on pesticide use is growing more complex because of gaps in NASS pesticide use data collection for the three major crops, increases in the average number of traits per GE-crop hectare planted, the registration of HR crops engineered to resist herbicides other than glyphosate, massive disruption in weed communities, and the presence of one to three, or even more, glyphosate-resistant weeds in many crop fields. It is difficult to project what the distribution, population levels, and phenotypes of weeds would have been over the last 16 years in the absence of HR technology. Inevitably, weed management systems and technology would have evolved along other trajectories in the absence of HR crops these last 16 years, resulting in heightened reliance on both pre-plant and post-emergence applications of multiple, low-dose herbicides.

A majority of American soybean, maize, and cotton farmers are either on, or perilously close to a costly herbicide and insecticide treadmill. Farmers lack options and may soon be advised, out of necessity, to purchase HR crop cultivars resistant to multiple active ingredients and to treat Bt corn with once-displaced corn insecticides. The seed-pesticide industry is enjoying record sales and profits, and the spread of resistant weeds and insects opens up new profit opportunities in the context of the seed industry’s current business model. Regulators cannot restrict the use of a previously approved HR technology because it increases pesticide use and triggers resistance, nor have U.S. government agencies turned down an application for a new HR or Bt-transgenic trait because of the likelihood it would accelerate the spread of resistant weeds or insects. Whether the USDA has the statutory authority to deny a petition for HR crop deregulation (i.e., approval) on the grounds of worsening problems with resistant weeds is a contested issue in ongoing litigation.

Profound weed management system changes will be necessary in the three major GE crops to first stabilize, and then hopefully reduce herbicide use, the costs of weed management, and herbicide-related impacts on human health and the environment. Weed management experts are largely in agreement that the percent of cropland area planted to glyphosate-based HR seeds must decline dramatically (e.g., by at least one-third to one-half) for farmers to have a realistic chance at success in preventing resistance [10, 12, 14]. Unfortunately, there appears little interest across the seed-biotech industry in increasing production of non-Roundup Ready or not-Bt transgenic seed. Since the decisions made by the seed industry in any given year determine the traits offered by the industry to farmers in next crop season, the seed industry must act first in order for farmers to turn the corner toward more sustainable weed and insect pest management systems. The many important ramifications of this practical reality – that the seed industry must act first -- have yet to be fully appreciated by farmers, weed management experts, and policy makers in the U.S.

Regulators in the U.S. have thus far done little to prevent the emergence and spread of resistant weeds, while several resistance-management interventions have been imposed as part of the approval of Bt crops. In addressing weed resistance, the hands-off regulatory posture in the U.S. reflects, in part, the basic authorities granted to the EPA and USDA in federal law. Both agencies regard weed resistance as an efficacy-economics challenge that can best be addressed by the private sector consistent with market forces. The need for novel policy interventions will grow in step with the emergence and spread of resistance weeds and evidence of adverse economic, environmental, and public health consequences triggered by markedly increasing reliance on older, higher-risk herbicides.Today’s pest-management related GE traits have proven popular and commercially profitable for the biotech-seed industry, but over-reliance has set the stage for resistance-driven problems in both herbicide-resistant and Bt-transgenic crops. Largely because of the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds, HR crop technology has led to a 239 million kg (527 million pound) increase in herbicide use across the three major GE-HR crops, compared to what herbicide use would likely have been in the absence of HR crops. Well-documented increases in glyphosate applications per hectare of HR crop account for the majority of this 239 million kg increase.

While Bt corn and cotton have reduced insecticide applications by 56 million kgs (123 million pounds), resistance is emerging in key target insects and substantial volumes of Bt Cry endotoxins are produced per hectare planted [corn, Additional file 1: Tables S20–S22, cotton, Additional file 1: Tables S23–S25], generally dwarfing the volumes of insecticides displaced. Documenting the full range of impacts on the environment and public health associated with the Bt Cry proteins biosynthesized inside Bt-transgenic plants remains a challenging and largely ignored task, especially given the recent move toward multiple Bt protein, stacked-trait events.

Overall, since the introduction of GE crops, the six major GE technologies have increased pesticide use by an estimated 183 million kgs (404 million pounds), or about 7%. The spread of GR weeds is bound to trigger further increases, e.g., the volume of 2,4-D sprayed on corn could increase 2.2 kgs/ha by 2019 (1.9 pounds/acre) if the USDA approves unrestricted planting of 2,4-D HR corn [Additional file 1: Table S19]. The increase in herbicides applied on HR hectares has dwarfed the reduction in insecticide use over the 16 years, and will almost surely continue to do so for several more years.

Estimating the impacts of GE crops on pesticide use is growing more complex because of gaps in NASS pesticide use data collection for the three major crops, increases in the average number of traits per GE-crop hectare planted, the registration of HR crops engineered to resist herbicides other than glyphosate, massive disruption in weed communities, and the presence of one to three, or even more, glyphosate-resistant weeds in many crop fields. It is difficult to project what the distribution, population levels, and phenotypes of weeds would have been over the last 16 years in the absence of HR technology. Inevitably, weed management systems and technology would have evolved along other trajectories in the absence of HR crops these last 16 years, resulting in heightened reliance on both pre-plant and post-emergence applications of multiple, low-dose herbicides.

A majority of American soybean, maize, and cotton farmers are either on, or perilously close to a costly herbicide and insecticide treadmill. Farmers lack options and may soon be advised, out of necessity, to purchase HR crop cultivars resistant to multiple active ingredients and to treat Bt corn with once-displaced corn insecticides. The seed-pesticide industry is enjoying record sales and profits, and the spread of resistant weeds and insects opens up new profit opportunities in the context of the seed industry’s current business model. Regulators cannot restrict the use of a previously approved HR technology because it increases pesticide use and triggers resistance, nor have U.S. government agencies turned down an application for a new HR or Bt-transgenic trait because of the likelihood it would accelerate the spread of resistant weeds or insects. Whether the USDA has the statutory authority to deny a petition for HR crop deregulation (i.e., approval) on the grounds of worsening problems with resistant weeds is a contested issue in ongoing litigation.

Profound weed management system changes will be necessary in the three major GE crops to first stabilize, and then hopefully reduce herbicide use, the costs of weed management, and herbicide-related impacts on human health and the environment. Weed management experts are largely in agreement that the percent of cropland area planted to glyphosate-based HR seeds must decline dramatically (e.g., by at least one-third to one-half) for farmers to have a realistic chance at success in preventing resistance [10, 12, 14]. Unfortunately, there appears little interest across the seed-biotech industry in increasing production of non-Roundup Ready or not-Bt transgenic seed. Since the decisions made by the seed industry in any given year determine the traits offered by the industry to farmers in next crop season, the seed industry must act first in order for farmers to turn the corner toward more sustainable weed and insect pest management systems. The many important ramifications of this practical reality – that the seed industry must act first -- have yet to be fully appreciated by farmers, weed management experts, and policy makers in the U.S.

Regulators in the U.S. have thus far done little to prevent the emergence and spread of resistant weeds, while several resistance-management interventions have been imposed as part of the approval of Bt crops. In addressing weed resistance, the hands-off regulatory posture in the U.S. reflects, in part, the basic authorities granted to the EPA and USDA in federal law. Both agencies regard weed resistance as an efficacy-economics challenge that can best be addressed by the private sector consistent with market forces. The need for novel policy interventions will grow in step with the emergence and spread of resistance weeds and evidence of adverse economic, environmental, and public health consequences triggered by markedly increasing reliance on older, higher-risk herbicides.

[Adieu]

You probably don't need to keep arguing the obvious fact that modern farming practices are unhealthy. There's plenty of evidence.

[caze]

craziest thing i've seen on GM foods is when Neil Degrasse Tyson shit the bed and posted that ridiculously weird tweet about how 'people have been doing GM for centuries' as if selective breeding is same as what people mean by GMO. It made me really sad because I kind of found him charming, now i just think he's a fucking moron.

 

There's really not that much difference between selective breeding and GE when you get down to it, and there's far more to modern, non-GM, crop development than selectively breeding naturally occurring traits, there's a range of stuff from simple cross-breeding (e.g. cross-pollination) to more complex chemical hybridization done in a lab (which was in part responsible for the green revolution from the 30s on). The only thing that GE gives you is more speed and precision, and makes it easier to combine genes from more diverse sources (though such cross-species genetic transfer happens in nature as well).

[caze]

You probably don't need to keep arguing the obvious fact that modern farming practices are unhealthy. There's plenty of evidence.

 

If by modern you mean large scale organic farming, then yes, it is unhealthy and bad for the environment. There's plenty of evidence.

 

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with modern industrialized farming methods, including GM, though at the end of the day they're just tools, and like any tool can be misused (but that goes for any form of farming really, crop rotation, limiting uses of pesticides, and otherwise ensuring soil protection are all important things that need to be done regardless of the technologies being used).

[Audioblysk]

What happened to ol' Eugene? I was looking forward to being called a retard today...

 

 

You probably don't need to keep arguing the obvious fact that modern farming practices are unhealthy. There's plenty of evidence.

 

If by modern you mean large scale organic farming, then yes, it is unhealthy and bad for the environment. There's plenty of evidence.

 

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with modern industrialized farming methods, including GM, though at the end of the day they're just tools, and like any tool can be misused (but that goes for any form of farming really, crop rotation, limiting uses of pesticides, and otherwise ensuring soil protection are all important things that need to be done regardless of the technologies being used).

 

 

You're gonna need to go into that more when making such a broad statement. Define 'organic' - 'large scale' - and what makes it bad for the environment when done in the true 100% organic fashion. I'm pretty sure your definition and view of organic is just as a lot of USA farms do it - half assed. No offense, but organic farming has been around much longer than our current ag-trends and practices have been cast by the way-side for easy fixes, often resulting in detrimental effect to the plant and soil biology.

 

There are many, many things wrong with modern industrialized farming methods IMO and from my experience, that list is a little too long for right now as I'm off to work, but I can get into it later if you'd like. But, I'm interested to hear your explanations and check your sources, it might be enlightening. You seem like a civil debater, so this can be fun. I do agree that fundamentally, GM can be used for very good purposes, my concern is the methods to implement it on a large scale, lack of 25+ year research before converting a nations supply in majority, pesticide use increasing even though it shouldn't with the engineering behind the plants, and of course - the privatization and monopolization of seed-stock being in cahoots with pesticide manufacturers producing more poison then ever for your food because it's 'improving it' in some terms.

[eugene]

you were waiting for a reply to that copy pasta tldr blob? i already dropped a link that criticizes that paper before:http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2012/10/do-genetically-engineered-crops-really-increase-herbicide-use/.

some very good points in the comments as well, for example, even if that TOTAL amount of pesticides increased in sheer volume (and it's doubtful) it doesn't mean that the negative effect increased, as those herbicides are improving in quality/toxicity levels with time as well.

 

also it doesn't account for production/yield growth from what i see, so basically it's a shit article to use in your argument and you're a retard.

[Adieu]

 

You probably don't need to keep arguing the obvious fact that modern farming practices are unhealthy. There's plenty of evidence.

 

If by modern you mean large scale organic farming, then yes, it is unhealthy and bad for the environment. There's plenty of evidence.

 

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with modern industrialized farming methods, including GM, though at the end of the day they're just tools, and like any tool can be misused (but that goes for any form of farming really, crop rotation, limiting uses of pesticides, and otherwise ensuring soil protection are all important things that need to be done regardless of the technologies being used).

 

 

You're cute.

[caze]

What happened to ol' Eugene? I was looking forward to being called a retard today...

 

 

You probably don't need to keep arguing the obvious fact that modern farming practices are unhealthy. There's plenty of evidence.

 

If by modern you mean large scale organic farming, then yes, it is unhealthy and bad for the environment. There's plenty of evidence.

 

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with modern industrialized farming methods, including GM, though at the end of the day they're just tools, and like any tool can be misused (but that goes for any form of farming really, crop rotation, limiting uses of pesticides, and otherwise ensuring soil protection are all important things that need to be done regardless of the technologies being used).

 

 

You're gonna need to go into that more when making such a broad statement. Define 'organic' - 'large scale' - and what makes it bad for the environment when done in the true 100% organic fashion. I'm pretty sure your definition and view of organic is just as a lot of USA farms do it - half assed. No offense, but organic farming has been around much longer than our current ag-trends and practices have been cast by the way-side for easy fixes, often resulting in detrimental effect to the plant and soil biology.

 

There are many, many things wrong with modern industrialized farming methods IMO and from my experience, that list is a little too long for right now as I'm off to work, but I can get into it later if you'd like. But, I'm interested to hear your explanations and check your sources, it might be enlightening. You seem like a civil debater, so this can be fun. I do agree that fundamentally, GM can be used for very good purposes, my concern is the methods to implement it on a large scale, lack of 25+ year research before converting a nations supply in majority, pesticide use increasing even though it shouldn't with the engineering behind the plants, and of course - the privatization and monopolization of seed-stock being in cahoots with pesticide manufacturers producing more poison then ever for your food because it's 'improving it' in some terms.

 

By large scale I'm talking about the kind of large scale organic farming going on in the US right now, rather than the smallholding style common in Britain. I've just eaten dinner and had a few glasses of wine, so I'm not going to go look up studies and shit now, but those ones use far more pesticides than either mainstream industrialised farming (and there's been less studies done (and less regulation) on the impacts of so called organic pesticides), and certainly less than GM farming, which despite your claims to the contrary use less than both.

 

All man made farming is detrimental to the soil biology btw, there is absolutely nothing natural about farming.

[manmower]

The discussion here is being steered towards what the overall effect of introducing more GMOs is or has been so far. I'd say that's a bit too vast and intimidating of an issue for me, it also confounds herbicide and insect resistant GMOs which doesn't help matters, but most importantly it's a bit beside the point.

 

Brisbot's question was more along the lines of whether there are examples of public health issues associated with specific GMOs, so here's one.