GM Crops on the menu?

[Laika]

Genetically modified crops use genetic engineering to introduce a new trait into a planet species that does not occur naturally. These techniques are often used to increase resistance to certain pests, diseases, herbicides and chemical treatments, adaption to environmental conditions or improving the nutrients of the crops.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_crops

Do you think the scientific evidence show this is a good or bad thing overall? What is your opinion on the use of GM crops? Would you eat something if you knew it was GM? Do you eat GM now?

 

[Revoltingest]

Without evidence that it causes problems, I'm OK with GM foods.
I even have a GM van now!

 

[Quintessence]

The gripes I have about GM crops have little to do with the manner in which they are produced, but why they are produced. I see them as symptomatic of a bigger problem. GM crops only exist because industrial agriculture exists, and I have more than a few gripes against industrial agriculture.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I have no problem with the concept in general, but would support it more if they did things like modify for pest/disease resistance, instead of modifying to be able to tolerate more pesticides/chemicals for pest/disease resistance. Then again, the way they do it now = more profits for everyone.

 

[Laika]

The gripes I have about GM crops have little to do with the manner in which they are produced, but why they are produced. I see them as symptomatic of a bigger problem. GM crops only exist because industrial agriculture exists, and I have more than a few gripes against industrial agriculture.

Feel free to share btw. The OP is deliberately very open. You've got me curious now.

 

[Nous]

I agree with the dozens of scientific organizations that have reviewed the evidence on the safety of GM plant foods, as noted by the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

[T]he science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.

[. . .]

The EU, for example, has invested more than €300 million in research on the biosafety of GMOs. Its recent report[1] states: “The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.” The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.​

http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf

 

[Nous]

Do you think the scientific evidence show this is a good or bad thing overall?

It's a good thing. There is great potential in it, such as reducing use of the most harmful pesticides, increasing productivity (lowering the price of food), and adding nutrients to foods.

 

[lovesong]

Without GMOs we wouldn't have corn, bananas, wheat, or just about any other food we eat.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

They definitely need more research, thought, planning, and consideration.
http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default...s/food_and_agriculture/rise-of-superweeds.pdf

In what may sound like science fiction but is all too real, “superweeds” are over-
running America’s farm landscape, immune to the herbicides that used to keep
crop-choking weeds largely in check. This plague has spread across much of the
country—some 60 million acres of U.S. cropland are infested—and it is wreaking
environmental havoc, driving up farmers’ costs and prompting them to resort
to mor
e toxic weed-killers.
How did this happen? It turns out that big agribusiness, including the Mon-
santo Company, has spent much of the last two decades selling farmers products
that would ultimately produce herbicide-resistant weeds. And now that thousands
of farmers are afflicted with this problem, those same companies are promising
new “solutions” that will just make things worse.

Without GMOs we wouldn't have corn, bananas, wheat, or just about any other food we eat.

That's why I think the term "GMO" is problematic. We need a term that makes it clear this isn't regular natural selection modification, or even selective selection, but genetic engineering.

 

[Nous]

They definitely need more research, thought, planning, and consideration.
http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default...s/food_and_agriculture/rise-of-superweeds.pdf

GMOs that carry traits for herbicide tolerance can lead to weeds that develop tolerance to the herbicide, known as “superweeds”. Superweeds are far from being an issue unique to GMOs, and even pulling weeds by hand can lead to weeds that look like the crop itself (known as mimicry). The issue of superweeds is a serious one, and this database tracks herbicide resistant weeds as they develop across different nations. Reducing it to a “GMO-specific” problem and severely narrowing the scope of the issue, deters the efforts of finding genuine solutions to the problem. So using the “GMOs cause superweeds” excuse makes no more sense than saying that you don’t like computers because they can lead to electric shocks, when the issue is much broader in scope.​

https://www.geneticliteracyproject....-really-reflect-modern-and-organic-ag-issues/

Those last couple of sentences may sound like propaganda. They're not. When you go to weedscience.org, if you point your cursor to Resistant Weeds, you get a drop-down menu whereby you can search according to individual herbicide. There, you will find hundreds of weed species that are resistant to herbicides, only a couple of which are related to use of GM plants.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

GMOs that carry traits for herbicide tolerance can lead to weeds that develop tolerance to the herbicide, known as “superweeds”. Superweeds are far from being an issue unique to GMOs, and even pulling weeds by hand can lead to weeds that look like the crop itself (known as mimicry). The issue of superweeds is a serious one, and this database tracks herbicide resistant weeds as they develop across different nations. Reducing it to a “GMO-specific” problem and severely narrowing the scope of the issue, deters the efforts of finding genuine solutions to the problem. So using the “GMOs cause superweeds” excuse makes no more sense than saying that you don’t like computers because they can lead to electric shocks, when the issue is much broader in scope.​

https://www.geneticliteracyproject....-really-reflect-modern-and-organic-ag-issues/

Those last couple of sentences may sound like propaganda. They're not. When you go to weedscience.org, if you point your cursor to Resistant Weeds, you get a drop-down menu whereby you can search according to individual herbicide. There, you will find hundreds of weed species that are resistant to herbicides, only a couple of which are related to use of GM plants.

Every high school biology student knows that the plants that survive these herbicides, and Round Up is the epicenter of it, will pass on their genes. And if they survive it, at least some of their offspring will. And then more will survive.
It's the same exact principle behind bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics.

 

[Iti oj]

Genetically modified crops use genetic engineering to introduce a new trait into a planet species that does not occur naturally. These techniques are often used to increase resistance to certain pests, diseases, herbicides and chemical treatments, adaption to environmental conditions or improving the nutrients of the crops.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_crops

Do you think the scientific evidence show this is a good or bad thing overall? What is your opinion on the use of GM crops? Would you eat something if you knew it was GM? Do you eat GM now?

Over all could be good. as it is ehh because as you mentioned mostly used to increase pesticides and herbicides . yes I do and yes I will.

 

[Nous]

Every high school biology student knows that the plants that survive these herbicides, and Round Up is the epicenter of it, will pass on their genes. And if they survive it, at least some of their offspring will. And then more will survive.
It's the same exact principle behind bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics.

I am well aware of how herbicide-resistance evolves. Your comments suggest that you may not be entirely clear on it.

How does herbicide resistance evolve?

Herbicide applications that eliminate susceptible weeds before they reproduce create a selective advantage for any rare, resistant individuals in the weed population. Reproduction by these escapees then transmits the resistance trait to their offspring, facilitating their survival when exposed to the same herbicide SOA. Sustained use of either the same herbicide or, in some cases, the same SOA, favors survival and reproduction of these resistant biotypes, leading to a weed population in which resistant plants dominate.

Repeating the same control tactics at a given timing, whether a herbicide application or a nonchemical control method, may also result in the evolution of avoidance mechanisms in a weed population by selecting for biotypes that have not emerged, or are outside the optimal growth stage, when control is implemented.

Did biotechnology cause HR weeds?

Herbicide-resistant weeds did not begin with herbicide-resistant crops; resistant weeds have been evolving in conventional crop cultivars worldwide from selection pressure placed on them from repeated use of herbicides.

A plant does not evolve resistance because herbicides cause a genetic change in the plant that makes it resistant. Rather, a few plants with natural resistance to the herbicide survive an application of the herbicide, and as those plants reproduce and each generation is exposed to the herbicide, the number of resistant plants in the population increases until they dominate the population of susceptible plants.​

http://takeactiononweeds.com/knowing-your-weeds/resistance/

Why do you say that “Round Up is the epicenter of it”? What does that mean? (What exactly is “it”?)

How do you account for the hundreds of weed species that are resistant to dozens of herbicides other than glyphosate?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Over all could be good. as it is ehh because as you mentioned mostly used to increase pesticides and herbicides . yes I do and yes I will.

Actually, GMO crops tend to use less pesticides.

 

[Iti oj]

Actually, GMO crops tend to use less pesticides.

Could you provide a link please .

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Could you provide a link please .

Sure. Here's one article about a recent meta-analysis (emphasis mine):

A meta-analysis of 147 studies of the impact of genetically modified crops (GMO) has been published in PLOS One. The study finds that the adoption of herbicide-tolerant (HT) soybean, maize, and cotton, and insect-resistant (IR) maize and cotton has resulted in a 22% increase in average yields, a 37% overall decrease in pesticide use, and a 68% increase in farmer profits.

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/gm-impact-meta-analysis

 

[Iti oj]

Sure. Here's one article about a recent meta-analysis (emphasis mine):


http://www.theskepticsguide.org/gm-impact-meta-analysis

Thanks

 

[Quintessence]

Feel free to share btw. The OP is deliberately very open. You've got me curious now.

Not sure if it is particularly on-topic, but on the whole, GM crops happen where food production has been industrialized.

Industrial food production likes to plant dense monocultures of the same crop over large acreages. This is in contrast to traditional food production, where you have diverse crops over that same space. The problem with dense monocultures is that they are inherent breeding grounds for diseases. Thus, the nature of industrial agriculture (and this applies to food animals too) is creating the "need" for disease-resistance in part because of how we are producing these things. In some crops tools like crop rotation are used in industrial ag to attempt to offset things like disease, but things like GM are a go-to tool.

The other piece of it is capitalism - the demand for profit, and maximizing it. That has resulted in a culture where crop losses are unacceptable even if we have enough food to sustain ourselves from that harvest. We also expect yields to keep going up and up and up, because growth is good, more production is good, and anything that helps us get more production and less loss and therefore more profit is good. Genetically engineering a crop to be better or more stable than my competition and get moar profitz? Yes, please; it's a capitalist no-brainer.

The consumer should be considered too, though. The consumer then has this mentality that the produce we buy must look absolutely perfect. Blemishes and imperfections aren't tolerated in mass production industries, and industrial agriculture is no exception. That puts more pressure on growers to spray lots of poisons on their fields and use GM crops towards that aim too. I find this really weird - show me a head of cabbage with some insect holes in it and I know it was grown on a real farm, but stuff like that never makes it to the shelves in supermarkets.

So in essence, the idea of GM crops pretty much supports the model of capitalistic industrial agriculture that we have so much of in my country. You don't need it (or probably want it) for traditional farming, where things like heirloom varieties are appreciated. But all this barely touches on the problems I have with industrial agriculture. A decent summary of that written up by the Union of Concerned Scientists can be found here: http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agri...l-agriculture/hidden-costs-of-industrial.html

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not sure if it is particularly on-topic, but on the whole, GM crops happen where food production has been industrialized.

Industrial food production likes to plant dense monocultures of the same crop over large acreages. This is in contrast to traditional food production, where you have diverse crops over that same space. The problem with dense monocultures is that they are inherent breeding grounds for diseases. Thus, the nature of industrial agriculture (and this applies to food animals too) is creating the "need" for disease-resistance in part because of how we are producing these things. In some crops tools like crop rotation are used in industrial ag to attempt to offset things like disease, but things like GM are a go-to tool.

The other piece of it is capitalism - the demand for profit, and maximizing it. That has resulted in a culture where crop losses are unacceptable even if we have enough food to sustain ourselves from that harvest. We also expect yields to keep going up and up and up, because growth is good, more production is good, and anything that helps us get more production and less loss and therefore more profit is good. Genetically engineering a crop to be better or more stable than my competition and get moar profitz? Yes, please; it's a capitalist no-brainer.

The consumer should be considered too, though. The consumer then has this mentality that the produce we buy must look absolutely perfect. Blemishes and imperfections aren't tolerated in mass production industries, and industrial agriculture is no exception. That puts more pressure on growers to spray lots of poisons on their fields and use GM crops towards that aim too. I find this really weird - show me a head of cabbage with some insect holes in it and I know it was grown on a real farm, but stuff like that never makes it to the shelves in supermarkets.

So in essence, the idea of GM crops pretty much supports the model of capitalistic industrial agriculture that we have so much of in my country. You don't need it (or probably want it) for traditional farming, where things like heirloom varieties are appreciated. But all this barely touches on the problems I have with industrial agriculture. A decent summary of that written up by the Union of Concerned Scientists can be found here: http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agri...l-agriculture/hidden-costs-of-industrial.html

Do any of these criticisms apply to, say, the Golden Rice Project?

http://www.goldenrice.org

The general idea: keep using the traditional methods you always used, only with bioenriched crops that help prevent vitamin deficiency.

Admittedly, this isn't the be-all and end-all of GMO, but it's definitely a part of the mix.

 

[Quintessence]

Do any of these criticisms apply to, say, the Golden Rice Project?

I don't see how it would. Far as I'm aware, this project wasn't sprung out of capitalistic industrial agriculture.

It's certainly true that in theory, GM methods can be put to good use in ways that benefit humans without hurting non-humans. In practice, that is something of a rarity.