It tastes like the inside of an Erlenmeyer flask?

Yields are up on average 22% according to a recent meta-analysis. Hardier and more adaptable plants are being researched at the moment, e.g. drought resistant varieties of wheat and rice that is able to survive submerged in a flood for longer periods. There are all sorts of projects going on in addition to the most famous, Golden Rice. IIRC disease resistant plants are being researched at least with bananas and citrusfruits. But it takes on average 10 years to get a product out into the fields. The cost of testing and bureaucracy, however, is so high that universities rarely can do these products so if falls to big companies. That's why most of the applications of the technology aren't "humanitarian" in nature but are intended to make money. To me this says that we somehow have to make it less expensive to go through the regulatory process if we want the full potential of the technology. Which obviously many here don't want.

"On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries." http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629
Click to expand...

Come on, Otto. Does that pass the sniff test? A technology whose predominant innovation makes plants resistant to higher levels of pesticides results in reduced chemical usage? Of course not. Meta-analysis is only useful when it samples relevant data. A 2 minute google search confirmed my suspicion and shows that of the data your plos study referenced, 80% exclusively studied Bt crops, and 50% was just Bt cotton. Considering as of 2014, 94% of soy and 89% of corn (USDA figures) planted in the US were Roundup Ready crops, that doesn't exactly seem like a representative analysis does it?
According to this study http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/24

"Herbicide-resistant crop technology has led to a 239 million kilogram (527 million pound) increase in herbicide use in the United States between 1996 and 2011, while Bt crops have reduced insecticide applications by 56 million kilograms (123 million pounds). Overall, pesticide use increased by an estimated 183 million kgs (404 million pounds), or about 7%."

And considering the current trend is to "stack" traits, this will likely go up as Bt and RR traits are being combined in the same plants in order to take care of insect and weed pressure in one fell swoop.

Likewise the increased yield argument lacks the finer points of "intrinsic yield" vs "operational yield" (operational yield being the more oft cited, yet the tradeoff of environmental cost associated with the ag system required to produce such yields is usually ignored). RR crops aren't intrinsically higher yielding per se, they are higher yielding in systems that rely on heavy herbicide use!

Look there is a lot of alarmist BS in the anti-GMO camp, but the claim you seem to make that none of it is based in reputable science is just plain false.
 
originally posted by MLipton:
originally posted by Brian C:
... nor more nutritious plants other than the golden rice biotech PR stunt.
Click to expand...

Come on, Brian. In your righteous indignation you're now tarring a very important scientific advance as a "biotech PR stunt"? Do you think that either of the two developers, Prof. Ingo Potrykus or Prof. Peter Beyer was motivated by trying to improve Monsanto's image?

Mark Lipton
Click to expand...
Righteously indignant? I resemble that remark...
As a vegetable breeder and seed farmer I see the impacts the strategies of these biotech giants are having on the way we produce and relate to food and its potential pitfalls. While the public hems and haws about the health risks of GMO's, the IP strategies, exploitation of developing countries' agricultural systems, and the promotion of monoculture worldwide are conspiring to create a less secure food supply.
Do I question the altruistic motives of Beyer and Potrykus? No, of course not. Do I think Seminis joined and funded the research because it desperately needed a project to turn the negative public opinion of GMO's? You bet.
Furthermore, golden rice as I see it is a bandaid nutritional approach to solve a problem largely created by the policies of these very same Ag/chem companies which have promoted export monocultures in developing countries at the expense of much more nutritionally and biologically diverse crops for local consumption.

If anything this project has shown the potential good that the technology could be used for. Unfortunately that's not the direction I see the industry taking it.
 
Benbrook's study was torn to shreds pretty soon after it was published. I prefer to look for answers in papers that are sound. So yes, I'll continue to trust the Kümper & Qaim meta-analysis over Benbrook's. This critique is IMO great to read because there's a bit of back and forth between the author and Benbrook (and also another prominent anti-GMO activist Bill Freese) so you can see just how each side on the issue uses the data. http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2012/10/do-genetically-engineered-crops-really-increase-herbicide-use/
 
originally posted by Brian C:
originally posted by MLipton:
originally posted by Brian C:
... nor more nutritious plants other than the golden rice biotech PR stunt.
Click to expand...

Come on, Brian. In your righteous indignation you're now tarring a very important scientific advance as a "biotech PR stunt"? Do you think that either of the two developers, Prof. Ingo Potrykus or Prof. Peter Beyer was motivated by trying to improve Monsanto's image?

Mark Lipton
Click to expand...
Righteously indignant? I resemble that remark...
As a vegetable breeder and seed farmer I see the impacts the strategies of these biotech giants are having on the way we produce and relate to food and its potential pitfalls. While the public hems and haws about the health risks of GMO's, the IP strategies, exploitation of developing countries' agricultural systems, and the promotion of monoculture worldwide are conspiring to create a less secure food supply.
Do I question the altruistic motives of Beyer and Potrykus? No, of course not. Do I think Seminis joined and funded the research because it desperately needed a project to turn the negative public opinion of GMO's? You bet.
Furthermore, golden rice as I see it is a bandaid nutritional approach to solve a problem largely created by the policies of these very same Ag/chem companies which have promoted export monocultures in developing countries at the expense of much more nutritionally and biologically diverse crops for local consumption.

If anything this project has shown the potential good that the technology could be used for. Unfortunately that's not the direction I see the industry taking it.
Click to expand...

And that, of course, is the more interesting point. The technology itself isn't inherently worrisome but it does of course have potential for misuse (as does any tech, including traditional breeding methods). But that's a case for,regulation rather than demonizing the technology entirely (which I'm not saying you're doing)
 
Jay -- I've worked in regulation. Did you ever hear of something called a captive agency? You ought to look at what's been going on in CA with the Public Utilities Commission and how individuals in it have done everything they can to help PG&E get off the hook for its failure to keep its gas lines in compliance with the regulation which resulted in a massive explosion and fire in San Bruno killing at least eight people and destroying numerous homes. And PG&E is allowed to charge some of the highest gas and electric rates in the country.
 
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
Jay -- I've worked in regulation. Did you ever hear of something called a captive agency? You ought to look at what's been going on in CA with the Public Utilities Commission and how individuals in it have done everything they can to help PG&E get off the hook for its failure to keep its gas lines in compliance with the regulation which resulted in a massive explosion and fire in San Bruno killing at least eight people and destroying numerous homes. And PG&E is allowed to charge some of the highest gas and electric rates in the country.
Click to expand...

Of course that's also an argument for better regulation rather than banning all gas lines (which is the equivalent of what some people would like to do for GMO foods).

But yes, captive regulators are a major issue. One need look no further than Fukushima to see that.
 
The problem with the captive regulator argument is that it is these captive regulators who mean to allow GMOs. Arguing against that decision is not only as futile as arguing for better regulation in the light of that decision, but has the weakness of forcing scientifically questionable arguments supporting the ban, that won't take place anyway.

Yes, captive regulators are a problem, but the solution isn't to espouse an even more absolute position on the basis of questionable evidence.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
The problem with the captive regulator argument is that it is these captive regulators who mean to allow GMOs. Arguing against that decision is not only as futile as arguing for better regulation in the light of that decision, but has the weakness of forcing scientifically questionable arguments supporting the ban, that won't take place anyway.

Yes, captive regulators are a problem, but the solution isn't to espouse an even more absolute position on the basis of questionable evidence.
Click to expand...
But you fail to propose a solution.
 
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
The problem with the captive regulator argument is that it is these captive regulators who mean to allow GMOs. Arguing against that decision is not only as futile as arguing for better regulation in the light of that decision, but has the weakness of forcing scientifically questionable arguments supporting the ban, that won't take place anyway.

Yes, captive regulators are a problem, but the solution isn't to espouse an even more absolute position on the basis of questionable evidence.
Click to expand...
But you fail to propose a solution.
Click to expand...

Neither have you. The original debate was over whether GMOs ought to be banned. Jay and I posed regulation as the solution to the kinds of problems that can occur with GMOs, as with any other practice. You objected that regulatory agencies were captive and I responded that if we couldn't depend on regulatory agencies to oversee GMO research, a forteriori, we couldn't depend on them to ban the research. The debate was over whether GMOs should be banned. The empirical ineffectuality of regulatory agencies was always an ignoratio elenchi.

If you want to start a thread on proposing changes that will get regulatory agencies to work properly, by all means do so. I doubt I will post since I don't have any better suggestion than voting for politicians who would support the obvious changes to delink regulators from the industries they regulate and hoping they will win.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
The problem with the captive regulator argument is that it is these captive regulators who mean to allow GMOs. Arguing against that decision is not only as futile as arguing for better regulation in the light of that decision, but has the weakness of forcing scientifically questionable arguments supporting the ban, that won't take place anyway.

Yes, captive regulators are a problem, but the solution isn't to espouse an even more absolute position on the basis of questionable evidence.
Click to expand...
But you fail to propose a solution.
Click to expand...

Neither have you. The original debate was over whether GMOs ought to be banned. Jay and I posed regulation as the solution to the kinds of problems that can occur with GMOs, as with any other practice. You objected that regulatory agencies were captive and I responded that if we couldn't depend on regulatory agencies to oversee GMO research, a forteriori, we couldn't depend on them to ban the research. The debate was over whether GMOs should be banned. The empirical ineffectuality of regulatory agencies was always an ignoratio elenchi.

If you want to start a thread on proposing changes that will get regulatory agencies to work properly, by all means do so. I doubt I will post since I don't have any better suggestion than voting for politicians who would support the obvious changes to delink regulators from the industries they regulate and hoping they will win.
Click to expand...
I'm for banning until we can be sure there is no irreversible risk. Sorry, I thought that was clear from above.
 
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
The problem with the captive regulator argument is that it is these captive regulators who mean to allow GMOs. Arguing against that decision is not only as futile as arguing for better regulation in the light of that decision, but has the weakness of forcing scientifically questionable arguments supporting the ban, that won't take place anyway.

Yes, captive regulators are a problem, but the solution isn't to espouse an even more absolute position on the basis of questionable evidence.
Click to expand...
But you fail to propose a solution.
Click to expand...

Neither have you. The original debate was over whether GMOs ought to be banned. Jay and I posed regulation as the solution to the kinds of problems that can occur with GMOs, as with any other practice. You objected that regulatory agencies were captive and I responded that if we couldn't depend on regulatory agencies to oversee GMO research, a forteriori, we couldn't depend on them to ban the research. The debate was over whether GMOs should be banned. The empirical ineffectuality of regulatory agencies was always an ignoratio elenchi.

If you want to start a thread on proposing changes that will get regulatory agencies to work properly, by all means do so. I doubt I will post since I don't have any better suggestion than voting for politicians who would support the obvious changes to delink regulators from the industries they regulate and hoping they will win.
Click to expand...
I'm for banning until we can be sure there is no irreversible risk. Sorry, I thought that was clear from above.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was clear and I was responding to your argument. Evidently, now we may spool back to Jay's point about regulation and avoid the irrelevance of the empirical situation of regulatory agencies.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
The problem with the captive regulator argument is that it is these captive regulators who mean to allow GMOs. Arguing against that decision is not only as futile as arguing for better regulation in the light of that decision, but has the weakness of forcing scientifically questionable arguments supporting the ban, that won't take place anyway.

Yes, captive regulators are a problem, but the solution isn't to espouse an even more absolute position on the basis of questionable evidence.
Click to expand...
But you fail to propose a solution.
Click to expand...

Neither have you. The original debate was over whether GMOs ought to be banned. Jay and I posed regulation as the solution to the kinds of problems that can occur with GMOs, as with any other practice. You objected that regulatory agencies were captive and I responded that if we couldn't depend on regulatory agencies to oversee GMO research, a forteriori, we couldn't depend on them to ban the research. The debate was over whether GMOs should be banned. The empirical ineffectuality of regulatory agencies was always an ignoratio elenchi.

If you want to start a thread on proposing changes that will get regulatory agencies to work properly, by all means do so. I doubt I will post since I don't have any better suggestion than voting for politicians who would support the obvious changes to delink regulators from the industries they regulate and hoping they will win.
Click to expand...
I'm for banning until we can be sure there is no irreversible risk. Sorry, I thought that was clear from above.
Click to expand...
Yes, it was clear and I was responding to your argument. Evidently, now we may spool back to Jay's point about regulation and avoid the irrelevance of the empirical situation of regulatory agencies.
Click to expand...
It looks as though we were speaking of different "solutions." Accordingly, you didn't address mine and I see no need to address yours.
 
Somewhat off-topic of GMO but on-topic of regulation, or lack thereof: an article in The Guardian about food additives that don't have to show on the package.

I have read about these things before. The article is kinda Chicken Little in tone but it is probably better to know about these things than not.
 
You're right. There's not much to see in that article. He bases his idea on the IARC review which was a bit iffy to say the least: they disregarded most studies on the topic and came to a different conclusion than all other regulatory bodies I know of that have looked into glyphosate (e.g. this recent German one: http://www.bfr.bund.de/en/the_bfr_h...r_the_re_evaluation_of_glyphosate-188632.html). If one review states that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen and all others say it isn't, why trust the outlier? Also, the term "probable carcinogen" doesn't mean that you should avoid it at all costs. We wine drinkers regularly imbibe alcohol which is a known carcinogen not a probable one. And the levels of glyphosate we're exposed to are so small that even if it were a probable carcinogen we still shouldn't worry about the residues present in our foods.
 
All Bittman's article says is that a) GMOs themselves are safe, b) herbicides such as Roundup are not (big surprise) and c) food should be labelled as to its content, including labelling for GMO content. Although how he gets from b) to c) is unclear to me, I really don't see any of this as objectionable. I do find your analogy between public tolerance for carcinogenic additives in food without labelling and an individual's informed choice to drink, smoke or even drink Roundup logically objectionable though.
 
"I do find your analogy between public tolerance for carcinogenic additives in food without labelling and an individual's informed choice to drink, smoke or even drink Roundup logically objectionable though."

Why? IARC has a clear system for classifying carcinogens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinogen#International_Agency_for_Research_on_Cancer). If we can make the choice to drink a known carcinogen (alcohol) and most of us can do so in a safe way, why should we worry about traces (not additives) that are far below any known level that causes problems? Alcohol is in Group 1 on IARC's list and they put glyphosate in group 2A. And they're the only ones I know of who put glyphosate in such a group.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top