As a budding organic farmer I fully support GMO labeling. Anything that allows me to charge 5 times market rate for the basically identical products is OK with me.
Make sure you get the chicken feed with the marigold petals in it. People go crazy for those orange yolks and throw stupid money at you.
Thanks. It will be interesting to see what the FDA turns up with their upcoming look at glyphosate. The link between it and breast cancer is already quite startling. Sorry for the derail.
You are trying to pin a scarlet letter on their chest based on inarticulable concerns. That MAYBE there is something wrong with GMO and people deserve to know so that they can also avoid GMO if they would like to avoid those undefined concerns.
If I’m reading the plots right, it was about 50% of herbicide active ingredient by weight in 2008. Probably higher now, given that just about everything else has been decreasing.
Please. We just had posts about hate speech laws. I think we’re on the rail.
You are pandering to anti-science curiosity.
Sure and in most of those cases, scientists were standing on your side of the argument while big industry said “don’t listen to those eggheads”
Where are all the scientists on THIS particular issue? Most of the GMO criticism are coming from “gurus” and quacks.
WHAT EVIDENCE? It was the same anti-science buffoonery that led to labelling requirements there. Much of it is to protect the local agricultural industry (nonGMO foods frequently don’t travel very well) and so they convinced their consumers that GMO food (which mostly comes from places like the USA). Its preying on fears to erect virtual trade barriers.
What if they only wanted the doctor to tell every parent that vaccines contain formaldehyde.
For imaginary possible future bad things we might find out about GMO products at some time in the future? Really?
I can’t tell if this is a fictional example or actually true.
You do realize that much of what they genetically modify these crops to do is to need LESS herbicide and pesticide. You know that right?
You know what they were using BEFORE roundup, it wasn’t pixie dust? They have never found any human problems with the active ingredient in roundup. Its basically inert to us.
Oh, it’s true, all right, just like all the rest of the talking points! 
Because it’s all about Totalitarian thought legislation and mandatory badging of undesirables in all countries that are not the US. Because the US is the leading freedom country in the world.
Well, except for any analysis ever done on the issue by any credible agency, even including the libertarian Cato Institute, which concludes – like just about any other analysis ever done on the subject, that …
The top 10 jurisdictions in order were Hong Kong, Switzerland, Finland, Denmark, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, Ireland, the United Kingdom, and Sweden. The United States is ranked in 20th place. Other countries rank as follows: Germany (12), Chile (18), Japan (28), France (33), Singapore (43), South Africa (70), India (75), Brazil (82), Russia (111), China (132), Nigeria (139), Saudi Arabia (141), Venezuela (144), Zimbabwe (149), and Iran (152).
http://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index
But my posts henceforth may be limited as I am currently in solitary confinement in a maximum security institution in Canada for saying that I dislike Koreans.
Actually, no, but I have guests coming for the weekend. But if any of them are Korean, watch out!
Damuri Ajashi, I think you’ll find that what “Roundup Ready” means, is that the crop in question, whether it be soy beans, corn, or anything else, is resistant to glyphosate. This allows the farmer to use glyphosate at whatever level they wish. Naturally under these circumstances farmers will use more than they need, as it won’t hurt crop yields. Under no circumstances would it make sense to use LESS of the chemical that the crop is currently adapted to, wouldn’t you say? This excess chemical most likely stays on the food down to consumers. Also there are links between human breast cancer and glyphosate, it has an adverse interaction within the endocrine system. There is some compelling evidence driving an FDA inquiry into the matter currently.
Great, so then label food that has dangerous levels of herbicides. Or, even better, don’t allow food to be sold with dangerous levels of herbicides at all. Guess what?* That’s what we already do…*
They may increase their round up use but probably decrease their usage of other products. They don’t use too much because the stuff costs money and they’re trying to decrease costs not raise them. I suspect you imagine farmers as Captain Planet villains who are only interested in polluting without regard to any other concern don’t you?
No, I wouldn’t say that.
One of the big advantages of herbicide resistant crops is that you can spray them throughout their lifecycle. That means that you can treat weeds when they are at the 4 leaf stage and most susceptible to small amounts of herbicide. Otherwise you end up treating weeds when they are mature, meaning much more foliage to cover and much more vigorous root systems to kill.
Herbicide resistant crops also make for easy use of zero-till techniques, which mean less weeds to start with. Instead of ploughing fields to kill weeds prior to sowing, you can sow seeds into holes and then spray the whole field for whatever weeds do come up.
None of this means that herbicide resistant crops do, on the whole, reduce the use of that herbicide, but certainly can in some circumstances.
More importantly, we know without any doubt that ROundup ready crops reduce the use of herbicides overall. For example, for the whole USA cotton crop glyphosate resistant GM plants reduced herbicide usage by over 6 million kg each year.
Glyphosate is the most benign herbicide ever created. If the amount of Glyphosate being applied is increasing by 1 million kg/year but the total amount of all pesticides, including glyphosate, is decreasing by 6 million tonnes, that’s a good thing. The amount of Glyphosate being used is a strawman unless you have some evidence that Glyphosate is more harmful than the herbicides it is replacing.
Evidence for this claim?
There are “links” between breast cancer and virtually everything. The scientific consensus is that there is no causative link between glyphosate and breast cancer. Or are we just ignoring consensus here?
Evidence, please, that Glyphosate at any level that a person might obtain from food has an adverse interaction within the endocrine system?
Everything has an adverse reaction with the endocrine system at sufficiently high doses. I’d like to see evidence that the dose received in food is sufficiently high.
Drewder, I believe that farmers are some of the hardest working people in the world. Their entire livelihood rests on the perfect storm of events before harvest time. With this in mind, it’s a gamble. And if adding more glyphosate increased the possibility for better yields, would not harm the crops, and didn’t break the bank, why wouldn’t the average farmer hedge her bets and add extra? Wouldn’t the average farmer be kicking himself if it was the roundup that could have made the difference in bushels? Roundup isn’t expensive. Roundup is certainly less expensive than the Roundup Ready seed. If you already bought the seed, you certainly at least budgeted for the herbicide that goes with it. I never set out to vilify anyone. I thought this is an interesting facet of the discussion that no one touched on here. I’ll see myself out of this thread after this post. I never had a dog in this fight to begin with.
-
Because it costs money. It doesn’t have to break the bank. If a farmer spends $100, 000 applying extra Glyphosate and it has no effect at all on yield (which it won’t if it’s over recommendation) then that is a loss of $100, 000. That won’t break the bank on a crop that sells for a million bucks, but it is still a 10% reduction in profits.
-
Because it would invalidate the licence agreement for the use of GM seed and also invalidate any crop insurance. IOW, if the manufacturer or the insurance company finds out, you’ve lost all your insurance in the event of a crop failure.
-
Because you have no evidence of this ever happening. It’s an argument from ignorance. It deserves no consideration in a rational discussion.
It wasn’t touched on because its made up. What if farmers decided to use napalm on their GM crops just in case. Wouldnt; that increase greenhouse gas emissions? An important topic that hasn’t been touched on.
Why stop with GMOs? If too many pesticides are truly your concern, then you should be demanding that your vegetables be labeled with their pesticide schedule. Every herbicide, fungicide, and insecticide application, every fertilizer used, even the water sources. For animal products you should be able to see vaccination records as well as antibiotic and hormone treatments. If you’ve got so-called organic products then there should be records of the integrated pest management practices.
Interestingly, the EU does not require labeling of animal products created via GMO inputs. So Europeans routinely consume chops, sausages etc. from animals raised on GM corn and soybeans and probably don’t realize it.
I see wolfpup does not appreciate it being pointed out that anti-GMOers employ tactics very similar to those used by antivaxers and climate change deniers (for instance, shouting “Monsanto!” in an effort to paint all of biotechnology as beholden to an upopular corporate entity, much as antivaxers yell “Big Pharma!” in an attempt to get people to reject vaccine science).
Rather than deny the striking parallels, the best course would be to consign such dishonest tactics to the dustbin, and rely on facts and evidence to make one’s argument. The problem for anti-GMOers (as with antivaxers and climate change deniers) is that evidence is overwhelmingly not on their side, so deception remains a crucial vehicle for mobilizing public opinion in their favor.
I don’t know if ‘startling’ is the right word.
Regards,
Shodan
My concern over markedly increased glyphosate use has nothing to do with highly tenuous and speculative links to cancer - especially seeing that glyphosate largely replaced herbicides that are much more dangerous to use and involve far more significant safety concerns.
The problem is that overreliance on glyphosate, or Bt, or any agricultural chemical leads to more rapid development of pest resistance, a phenomenon that long predates GM technology but which can be exacerbated when farmers don’t use good crop and chemical rotation practices and all glom on to the most popular technology at the same time.
Glyphosate is a herbicide not a pesticide.