# Genetically modified food is safe to eat **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 9, 2019, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetically-modified-food-is-safe-to-eat/839953 "2019-09-09T21:12:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 66
**Author:** ![thorny\_locust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thorny_locust/32/431_2.png) [@thorny\_locust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thorny_locust)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2019, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetically-modified-food-is-safe-to-eat/839953/66 "2019-09-16T23:50:14Z")
I read your post, Kimstu, for what it’s worth; and also noted that it didn’t seem to be responded to. Let’s see what happens to this one (though look out – Long Post Warning!) > [@Ruken](#): > > His math is wrong. Yeah, the more I look at that it’s not a good cite. It’s wrong in other fashions also, such as that it’s comparing one specific protein in the GMO crop to total bulk of the organically permitted product, and in assuming that organic growers in general are using BT in a fashion in which few if any actually do (see response to Deeg, at the very end of this long post). > [@XT](#): > > What it generally does is just be less efficient > [@Deeg](#): > > My problem with organic farming is that it’s less efficient; 80% to 66% less efficient, depending on who you believe. If all farms in the US were to go organic we’d need a sizable increase in farmland and that comes with its own environmental impact… > [@Jackmannii](#): > > Speaking of vague notions, do those demanding a massive switch to organic farming realize the environmental degradation that would cause, both through loss of habitat (organic farming being considerably less efficient, necessitating much more land under cultivation) and harm from toxic organic pesticides including copper and sulfur-based treatments? As far as the copper and sulfur goes, I’m just going to quote from earlier posts of mine on this board in a different thread, and also refer you to my post #46 in this thread, as well as to the very end of this one: > [@How are "organic" pesticides created](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-organic-pesticides-created/833039/10): > > copper and sulfur, which the article criticized organic farmers for using as pesticides, are both essential nutrients for crops (and humans), and may be applied as such by either conventional or organic farmers as soil amendments/fertilizers. > > [https://nrcca.cals.cornell.edu/soilFertilityCA/CA1/CA1\_print.html](https://nrcca.cals.cornell.edu/soilFertilityCA/CA1/CA1_print.html) > > There is such a thing as copper toxicity; like boron and other micronutrients, while you need it, you don’t need much of it, and too much is indeed a bad idea. That’s why copper is a restricted material in organic use and “must be used in a manner that minimizes accumulation in the soil” if used as a pesticide, and requires soil testing to determine actual deficiency if to be used as a soil amendment. . > [@How are "organic" pesticides created](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-organic-pesticides-created/833039/7): > > ,But another point is that it isn’t just that organic growers use different crop treatments; it’s also that we use crop treatments differently. I’ve used copper fungicides, for instance, one year out of over thirty years farming; and then on one crop (tomatoes, in a very bad late blight year) that took up only a very small area of the farm. In order to use any pesticide, even one on the approved list, organic farmers are supposed to show that they’re using other methods – resistant varieties, timing of planting, spacing and pruning of crops for better airflow, encouragement of beneficial insects, et cetera – and are only resorting to the pesticide when/if those don’t work. As far as the efficiency question goes, to come at this from more than one direction: First, in order to properly talk about efficiency, it’s necessary to discuss what measure of efficiency is being used. Total salable yield per acre by weight? Total nutrient production per acre? Total yield, whether by weight or by nutrients, and whether or not including items eaten by the farmers, per amount of fossil fuel used? per amount of overall non-renewable resources used? per total calories required to produce a calorie of food? per impact on the topsoil, whether positive or negative? per impact on water quality? per impact on other species, including but not limited to those also edible for humans? per amount and cost of off-farm inputs required to raise the crop? per amount of human labor needed? Those are all different measures, and they’re not all going to give the same answer. (Higher costs for organic food in the USA and similar countries are affected, not only by marketing issues and the costs of organic certification, neither of which are inherent to the system itself; but also by the fact that currently in the USA the cost of running machinery and purchasing inputs – both of which draw on non-renewable resources – is generally less than the cost of human labor. This isn’t true everywhere, and may well not be true forever anywhere.) Second, results vary pretty drastically among studies even just of relative yield per acre. And many studies are done using fields that have been in production [ETA: in organic production] only briefly, and/or involving farmers with limited experience in organic areas. [The Rodale long-term studies](https://rodaleinstitute.org/science/farming-systems-trial/), [reviewed at Cornell](https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2005/07/organic-farms-produce-same-yields-conventional-farms), did indeed see a drop in organic production relative to conventional –[for the first five years. After that organic yields came back up, to equal and in some years exceed conventional yields – in particular in dry years](https://mk0rodaleinstitydwux.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/fst-30-year-report.pdf); organic systems tend to show greater resilience in shifting weather, which is likely to be very important. And third, if what we’re after is the greatest possible yield of food per acre: while research is still limited, it seems likely that the way to get that is with polyculture systems, in which multiple crops are mixed together, not just on one farm, but in one field. These systems are likely to produce a lower yield of any one crop, but a total greater quantity of nutrients (and a wider variety of nutrients, very important for people in areas with poor food distribution systems, and for the farmers themselves in areas where little money is available.) Polyculture systems are entirely unsuited for conventional farming, because they mix together crops of different families, planted at different times, not at the same growth stage at the same time, and generally harvested and eaten at different times; which means that they’re not suitable for the use of conventional (or often organic) pesticides, because herbicides that could be used on one may kill the others, insecticides that could be used on one will kill pollinators and other beneficials needed for the others, and days-to-harvest limits don’t work. They also don’t work at all with large scale machinery, and machinery that might work with such systems has for the most part not been developed. They require significant hand work – though the mix of crops does some of that work for the farmer; once well established and growing they’re generally not susceptible to damage from weeds, and weeds that appear early may be edible and considered more a part of the mix than a problem. But if you want the most possible nutrition per area, in the form most resilient to changing weather, and especially if you want it in a form accessible to people without a lot of money, polyculture’s the way to go. > **[LApeasantdev.pdf](https://agroeco.org/doc/LApeasantdev.pdf)** > > 83.35 KB > [@](#): > > Examples include multiple-use agroforestry systems managed by the Huastecs andLacondones in Mexico, the Bora and Kayapo Indians in the Amazon basin and many otherethnic groups who incorporate trees into their production systems (Wilken, 1987). Suchhome gardens are a highly efficient form of land use incorporating a variety of crops withdifferent growth habits. The result is a structure similar to tropical forests, with diversespecies and a layered configuration (Denevan et al., 1984). Because of the nearly year-round growing conditions, indigenous farmers are able to stagger crop and tree plantingsand harvesting to increase overall yields. For example the Bora plant a wide variety of crops,including some 22 varieties of sweet and bitter manioc interspersed among pineapples, fruittrees and minor annual crops.In the Amazon, the Kayapo yields are roughly 200% higher than colonist systems and175 times that of livestock > **[PDF View | AgriFutures Australia](https://www.agrifutures.com.au/pdf-view/?pdf=01-034&file=publications%2F01-034)** > [@](#): > > A recurring observation in the literature is that, quite simply, polycultures yield more total production anddo so with greater stability and lower risk than monocultures. Vandermeer (1981) stated ‘thegeneralisation is that a relative yield advantage is usually obtained from a polyculture [greater] than thatobtainable from separate monocultures’. Kass (1978) confirmed that ‘intercropping will produce higheryields than mixed cropping’. Trenbath (1974) believed that ‘multiple cropping yields are often higher,more consistent from season to season and more likely to be sustained over the longer term’, the first toadd the element of sustainability. His early extensive review of 344 multiple cropping systems showedthat their yield in biomass tended to lie above the mean of monocultures and the frequency ofoveryielding is significantly greater than that of under-yielding in the polyculture. [https://www.aftaweb.org/latest-newsletter/temporate-agroforester/93-2006-vol-14/january-no-1/94-measuring-and-optimizing-polyculture-yields.html](https://www.aftaweb.org/latest-newsletter/temporate-agroforester/93-2006-vol-14/january-no-1/94-measuring-and-optimizing-polyculture-yields.html) > [@](#): > > One very common intercropping system used in the Americas is growing beans with maize. The LER values for this system usually range from 1.3 to 1.8. > Another case study of intercropping radishes in a pear orchard found an LER value of 1.65 to 2.01 relating to economic and biomass yield respectively. [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259415303\_Diverse\_perennial\_crop\_mixtures\_sustain\_higher\_productivity\_over\_time\_based\_on\_ecological\_complementarity](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259415303_Diverse_perennial_crop_mixtures_sustain_higher_productivity_over_time_based_on_ecological_complementarity) > [@](#): > > We seeded seven perennial forage species in a replicated field experiment at two locations in Iowa, USA, and evaluated biomass productivity of monocultures and two- to six-species mixtures over 3 years after the establishment year under management systems of contrasting intensity: one or three harvests per year. Productivity increased with seeded species richness in all environments [https://permaculturenews.org/2019/01/07/the-polyculture-market-garden-study-results-from-year-4-2018/](https://permaculturenews.org/2019/01/07/the-polyculture-market-garden-study-results-from-year-4-2018/) > [@](#): > > This year’s results show the polyculture outperforming the control in yield by approx 46 kg and taking approx. 45 minutes longer to manage. (Note: this was very small scale plots.) > **[Associational Resistance in Squash Monocultures and Polycultures in Tropical...](https://academic.oup.com/ee/article-abstract/15/2/285/2393505?redirectedFrom=fulltext)** > > Abstract. Herbivore densities, weed composition and abundance, and crop yields per land unit were compared between squash monocultures and traditional maiz > [@](#): > > although yields of each component crop were decreased, total crop yields were higher in polycultures when estimated as a land equivalent ratio. > **[Organic polyculture of passion fruit, pineapple, corn and cassava: the...](https://www.scielo.br/j/cagro/a/FRCRMj7hfZnY5MffnjBBYbr/?lang=en)** > > The organic fruit crop should incorporate the principles of sustainable agriculture, with a... > [@](#): > > The land-use efficiency of the polyculture system was between 2.45 (with sunn hemp) and 2.77 (with tropical kudzu) times greater than that achieved by individual monocultures. [https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=17&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwit2ca4jNbkAhUzIjQIHTzKBX04ChAWMAZ6BAgJEAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fojs.ethnobiology.org%2Findex.php%2Febl%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F721%2F411&usg=AOvVaw3BCpmhGW4ZABPQsgB\_CkS3](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=17&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwit2ca4jNbkAhUzIjQIHTzKBX04ChAWMAZ6BAgJEAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fojs.ethnobiology.org%2Findex.php%2Febl%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F721%2F411&usg=AOvVaw3BCpmhGW4ZABPQsgB_CkS3) (Seems to be downloadable pdf only) > [@](#): > > This article compares food yields and other nutrient contributions from the Three Sisters, comprised of interplanted maize, bean and pumpkin, with monocultures of these same crops. The Three Sisters yields more energy (12.25 x 106 kcal/ha) and more protein (349 kg/ha) than any of the crop monocultures or mixtures of monocultures planted to the same area. > [@XT](#): > > As it happens, I’ve been to India How about a couple of cites from India? [http://orgprints.org/9783/](http://orgprints.org/9783/) a field experiment was conducted at the research farm of Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, India during 2003-06 in rice-wheat-green gram cropping system [. . .] The rice grain yield (4.0 t ha-1) obtained under combined application of four organic amendments was at par with the yield recorded under recommended dose of chemical fertilizer application. An interesting observation recorded was that there was no serious attack of any insect pest or dis-ease in organically grown crop. Soil microbial population (Actinomycetes, Bacteria, Fungi and BGA) enhanced due to the application of organic amendments in compari-son to absolute control as well as recommended fertilizer application that in turn re-sulted in a notable enhancement in soil dehydrogenase and phosphatase enzyme activity. Soil organic carbon and available phosphorus contents were also found to be significantly increased due to organic farming practice over control as well as chemical fertilizer application. [https://crops.confex.com/crops/wc2006/techprogram/P11639.HTM](https://crops.confex.com/crops/wc2006/techprogram/P11639.HTM) A field experiment to know the effect of application of organics on the productivity of groundnut (cv. JL-24) was conducted in organic deficient Vertisols (Medium black soil) under rainfed farming situations at the Main Agricultural Research Station, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, Karnataka (India) during rainy season of 2004. [. . .] The results indicated that organic farming in groundnut produced 18.18 and 22.09 % higher dry pod yield and higher kernel yield over inorganic farming (2970 and 2345 kg dry pod and kernel yield/ha, respectively). Further, use of organics in groundnut production also resulted in higher pod number/plant (23.04 %), dry pod weight/plant (13.08 %), double seeded pods (6.62 %), shelling percent (3.34 %), sound mature kernels (3.94%), 100-kernel weight (0.14%) and harvest index (3.16 %) as compared to inorganic farming (20.4, 28.912 g, 136, 78.94 %, 88.42 % 50.76 g and 0.411, respectively). Groundnut crop in organically amended plot did not show moisture stress during the period of dry spell of 38 days due to greater moisture conservation. On the contrary, groundnut in inorganic farming showed moderate to severe moisture stress during same initial dry spell period. > [@Deeg](#): > > Viewing a farm as a whole organism and employing crop rotation can be done with GMO just as easily as non-GMO. Using GMOs just gives you a bigger toolbox. Theoretically, quite possibly. Though I, at least, and a number of other organic growers, would want a different and more open attitude to testing and research first. Access to GMO seed for research purposes was heavily restricted for years > **[Do Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research?](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research/)** > > Scientists must ask corporations for permission before publishing independent research on genetically modified crops. That restriction must end ; and while a number of universities are now allowed to do such research without individual permission for each study, there’s still not an entirely open situation > **[Does Big Ag dominate crop research and the global seed supply, controlling...](https://geneticliteracyproject.org/gmo-faq/does-big-ag-dominate-crop-research-and-the-global-seed-supply-controlling-the-world-food-market/)** > > Consolidation in the global seed market has not stifled innovation or spiked the prices farmers have to pay for seeds. . A living organism can’t be withdrawn once it’s released, and so requires extra caution. We’re having enough trouble with chlorofluorocarbons, which came into common use because they were genuinely considered less toxic than their predecessors – and genuinely were, except that we had no idea they’d have effects in an area it hadn’t even occurred to us to test; but at least those don’t manufacture and release more of themselves. In practice, what’s currently available in GMO’s is things we wouldn’t want in the toolbox. We don’t want to use dicamba or glyphosphate; and we don’t want to use BT in the fashion in which GMO crops use it. Organic growers who do use BT apply it only when and if the target pest is present or can reasonably be expected (based on previous area specific history, current year appearance of the pest in nearby locations, scouting for adults, and relevant weather reports, not on just looking at the date) to be imminently present in the field at the growth stage at which it’s vulnerable to BT, and the crop is simultaneously at a growth stage at which it’s susceptible to the pest. We don’t use even biologicals by applying them continuously from seeding until and after harvest, whether or not the pest even shows up that year. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetically-modified-food-is-safe-to-eat/839953)._