Author Topic: Genetically engineered crops (Read 1149 times)

doctorb · « **on:** January 10, 2012, 09:35:00 am »

My daughter has a debate coming up, and the topic is genetic engineering of our food source. She has to defend it, and, as a young idealistic lady, has a preconcetption that "messing" with nature is always bad. Therefore she is not pleased with the "side" of the argument assigned to her.

While we discussed it at lenght over dinner, I am hoping that some of the learned people of the FF could help me/her out with their points of view on the subject. I think that the general public 1) doesn't like the idea of genetic engineering much and 2) doesn't have a clue what they are talking about regarding this topic. Your thoughts, especially those farmers/agriculturalists/naturalists amongst us. Trees count too!

Kansas · « **Reply #1 on:** January 10, 2012, 10:20:06 am »

They have been genetically engineering crops for centuries. They just had to work with nature a little more.

The key points for her to make is.. there are a lot of people that need fed. That genetically modified crops can use a whole lot less herbicide and insecticide, than non, and are safer for the enviroment, done properly. They can genetically alter rice I believe, to provide some key nutrients for people in poor and developing countries. Also, if I'm not mistaken, the BT corn simply has a gene that mimics a natural insecticide. There can be a whole lot more damage done by non genetically modified crops. Think shattercane, johnson grass, serica lespedesia that got introduced and all turned out to be disasters. In short, you allow advances in genetics, either through breeding or through modifying genes, or people starve. Modifying genes simply takes a bit of a shortcut.

bull · « **Reply #2 on:** January 10, 2012, 10:36:47 am »

Cross pollination is genetic modification, if it hadn't been done for I don't know how long we would not have the varieties we have today.... science is ever evolving no different than man has evolved.... Time for the schools to start teaching true science and reality !! Improvements are part of lifes cycle, we are constantly trying to improve, this has taken place since the begging of mankind...

Gary_C · « **Reply #3 on:** January 10, 2012, 11:07:35 am »

Let me point out one example of genetic engineering that was a very controversial topic some time ago but has for the most part gone away as a problem. Bovine growth hormone or Bovine Somatropin (BST) or rBST or rBGH. All are names or abreviations associated with the recombinant bovine growth hormone product that Monsanto developed and I believe still sells to dairy farmers to increase milk production in cows.

As you probably know growth hormones are a protein type hormone and like insulin are only effective if injected. If a growth hormone is eaten, it is nothing more than a small bit of protein that the stomach digests and the residue comes out the other end. And extensive research back in the 1930's I believe, found that growth hormones are indeed not effective at all when digested and are species specific, ie human growth hormones are only effective on humans and bovine growth hormones are for only bovines.

So now when Monsanto came out with this synthetic BGH that was produced by genetic engineering, there was a huge outcry. And the opponents got some doctor or doctors from that group "PCRM" to say that it would be harmful to humans. But some of the real facts are that all milk contains trace amounts of natural BGH and a protein hormone is not in any way going to be a hazard when it's ingested.

And the reason that the product that Monsanto was selling was genetically engineered is because no one wants to gather the brains of dead cows and extract the remaining BGH. So it can only be produced by synthetic means and yes, there is a very slight difference in the genetic engineered product. But knowing all the above, how can that one tiny difference be a problem?

When I was still in the dairy business, we injected rBGH or BST for a short time. We found that it did increase milk production but were doubtful that it would pay in the long run. With the work involved and the high cost of the product, we felt in the long run it would be a wash to continue using it. And the reason for that is body condition of your cows would deterioriate when they go into a negative energy balance during lactation. And artifically increasing milk production would only further deplete the body condition of your cows. And it would be hard to recover that body condition as you already push a complete balanced ration into those cows all the time. So I felt in the end that Monsanto would be the only beneficiary of BST. So we stopped using it for economic reasons. We did not in any feel it would harm the consumers in any way.

Cedarman · « **Reply #4 on:** January 10, 2012, 11:18:52 am »

Good and bad is a term only relative to humans. We assign those adjectives based on human feelings. A gun is neither good nor bad. The purposes for which it is used is good or bad depending on how people decide.
Changes to nature done by humans falls in the same category. Nature doesn't care, it simply adapts to those changes and the future is based on the outcome. A genetic change can only be considered an improvent from a human point of view. The consequences of these changes are only good or bad depending on the expected outcomes that humans feel benefits them.
Nature doesn't give a squat. Think Mt St Helens and hurrican Katrina on a small scale, think supernova on a big scale.
Nature goes on doing its thing based on chemical and physical laws established at the time of the big bang.
Debating genetic engineering based on whether it is good or bad for humans short term or long term is a whole different story.
Short term clear cutting the trees on Eastern Island was good for the folks that settled there. Long term it pretty well destroyed their society.
But Eastern Island is now different, but still doing its own thing.
To me that is the importance of the debate.

Gary_C · « **Reply #5 on:** January 10, 2012, 12:04:59 pm »

Food safety is a very emotional topic. Genetic engineering of crops has become a term that arouses very emotional responses when the facts should be more important than emotion. But many times the science is ignored or not talked about enough to effect the debate.

Another subject would be Roundup. This Monsanto product is actually nothing more than a salt. If a person ate a handful of regular salt they would get very sick. And the same thing would happen if you ate an equal quantity of Roundup. You would get equally sick, but probably not die. Bottom line is that Roundup is no more toxic than table salt.

But after Monsanto has genetically engineered crops like corn and soybeans so they do not die when roundup is applied as a contact herbicide, somehow the crops produced are toxic to humans? That's a purely emotional response and not factual.

So doctorb, surely the daughter of a scientifically trained person like you can thwart these emotional responses with facts and win this debate.

doctorb · « **Reply #6 on:** January 10, 2012, 12:24:08 pm »

Stop calling me Shirley!

Gary_C · « **Reply #7 on:** January 10, 2012, 12:31:03 pm »

Too much pressure?

Ya, those daughters can be difficult to deal with at times.

Norm · « **Reply #8 on:** January 10, 2012, 12:40:54 pm »

Unfortunately so many opinions on this subject are given with no idea of what they are talking about. They take talking points from those that oppose anything to do with modern agriculture and treat it as the truth. The vast majority of them have never been to a modern farming operation let alone read anything that is not lopsided in it's matter.

It's well known that there are no safety issues with consuming GMO crops. Even the Euros who have tried to restrict it under the safety guise have lost in the WTO courts on that point. Of course they ignore that we use a fraction of the really lethal chemicals now that GMO crops have come into widespread use. Then of course there's the huge increase in efficiency that allows us to feed an ever growing population. Organic crops will never be more than a niche and if we adopted them in large scale use billions will starve to death. Which is better, limit a method that has no proven safety risk or pick who gets to eat and who doesn't.

Golden rice is a perfect example of this mind set. Many subsistence farming countries in Africa will not allow it's importation even though it would vastly limit the problems with consuming rice as a primary food stock. Many suffer because of this short sightedness.

Roxie · « **Reply #9 on:** January 10, 2012, 01:04:29 pm »

I plant Brandywine Heirloom tomato's because I love the taste. Four or five fruits per plant is considered an excellent yield. I gave one of my heirloom plants to a horticulturist, and his produced one tomato. That is not an uncommon result.

Right next to them are my Mountain Fresh and Big Boys and I can feed the entire neighborhood from just two plants. The difference in yield per plant (with exactly the same conditions and fertilization) is for one heirloom fruit I get 2 or 3 dozen from the genetically engineered seeds. The flavor is very good and they are consistent in size and quality.

Patty · « **Reply #10 on:** January 10, 2012, 01:08:04 pm »

Hey Doc, tell your daughter to look up the biography of Norman Borlaug. This man saved countless lives throughout the world introducing them to modified grains. He is truly a hero in every sense of the word.

caveman · « **Reply #11 on:** January 10, 2012, 10:10:23 pm »

Dr. Rob, I was going to offer my opinions based on information that I have read of have been told by others but you have already received good information from the learned among us. Congratulate your daughter for me for participating in a debate. I spend a good portion of my life trying to encourage young people to become involved in meaningful activities. If the world's population increases as predicted, today's young people have their work cut out for them using genetically modified organisms (GMO's), fertilizers, and innovative agricultural techniques to ensure a safe and abundant food supply. Caveman

WDH · « **Reply #12 on:** January 10, 2012, 10:31:38 pm »

The interesting thing to me is that we have this knowledge and capability now, and we cannot just go bury our head in the sand. That is not how progress works. We have to find beneficial ways to use it. You can't unknow something once you know it. We have to move forward. This is not the Dark Ages. There have been other notable break throughs that forever changed the world and society, and there will be others. This may very well be one.

Gary_C · « **Reply #13 on:** January 11, 2012, 12:01:11 am »

Genetically engineered crops may already be the one thing preventing part of the population of this earth starving. Certainly hybrid seed as in the Borlag work in wheat and others in corn has prevented starvation of part of the world's population and no doubt genetically engineered seed is the latest development. It has allowed the pipeline to be filled with corn going to ethanol plants without any shortage of supply of corn for animal feed. It hasn't been that many years ago that farmers were lucky to average 75 bushels per acre of corn and now they are dissapointed if they don't get 200 bushels per acre.

It's easy to forecast that at some time in the future we will have converted too much land to other uses and would not be able to continue suficient food production to feed everyone. And genetically engineered crops may very well be the only thing that stands between the hungry population and starvation.

And the knowledge we now have in this genetic engineering may be the thing that saves the world if some natural disaster occurs that interrupts food production in the future. Something like a volcanic eruption that fills the upper atmosphere with a dust cloud that blocks out the sun for a year or more. Plus we may have to genetically engineer enzymes to convert biomass to fuel if we use up all the energy we have underground.

There is no end to the potential needs for genetic engineering.

SwampDonkey · « **Reply #14 on:** January 11, 2012, 05:57:18 am »

I see another side, and that is someone else controls the seed since they have a patent on it. That means if you want to grow this I get the royalties. How many years or seasons of selling seed does it take to pay for the research? The processor here tried to do it with their contracted producers and it failed because 1) it would put the seed growers out of business 2) give control to the processor 3) the public would not buy their product. Part number 3 was based on a lot of propaganda mind you, but it took the wind out of the sails of the processor.

That control is what I don't like about the whole stinking business. Monsanto has sued farmers because their GMO pollen landed in their field and the seed was planted next season with the new genes. Then Monsanto, tested the seed and asserted their clout and patent claims. Them coming on my land and "stealing" seed to test is trespass to begin with. It's all well and good if your subservient to these outfits, but when nature intervenes and blows the pollen on your seed crops then life isn't so good.

thecfarm · « **Reply #15 on:** January 11, 2012, 06:07:26 am »

We have tried to sell brandywine tomatoes at our greenhouse and veggie stand. Most people want the nine looking orange round pretty tomato. Yes,I try to educate them on taste,but looks matters to some.

Roxie · « **Reply #16 on:** January 11, 2012, 06:09:54 am »

Yes, the appearance of the Brandywine Heirloom is not for the faint of heart.

Dan_Shade · « **Reply #17 on:** January 11, 2012, 06:22:49 am »

I consider genetic engineering different than hybridizations.

Genetic engineering mixes up genes that would never happen naturally. An unintended consequence could be to trigger allergies through the population. I read an article once discussing this possibility when genitically modifying corn.

Kansas · « **Reply #18 on:** January 11, 2012, 06:45:23 am »

Depends on the genetic modification. Take Roundup ready corn. If you took thousands and thousands of acres of non genetically modified corn, sprayed it with roundup, I imagine sooner or later you would find a corn plant that was not affected by it. It stands to reason simply because there are weeds that have resistance to it. Certain strains of crops have natural resistance to a variety of diseases. Inserting a gene just shortens the time to achieve your objective. I will say, however, that they need to be careful because its hard to tell one kernel of grain from another. If I remember right, there was some incident some years back about a GM variety of corn that got mixed up that was only supposed to go for livestock. While I don't think it would have been harmful for humans, it makes for really bad publicity. We don't need that.

Faron · « **Reply #19 on:** January 11, 2012, 08:25:45 am »

One other benefit of GMOs is in the area of soil conservation. The systems we have developed in the last few years enable extensive use of no till. We save tons of soil and untold gallons of fuel in this way. As late as the early 1990's many chemicals required tillage to enhance their effectiveness.

It is important farmers understand how to properly use GMO's lest they lose their effectiveness and become useless. Roundup resistant weeds are an example. Proper placement and acreage of refuge corn is another.

Opponents of GMO's and farm chemicals in general love to portray the industry as indiscriminatly pouring poison across the landscape. Anyone who pays the bills for a season's crops knows better than that. The stuff is expensive. You have to use enough to do the job, and that is all.

Gary_C · « **Reply #20 on:** February 06, 2012, 01:50:38 pm »

So how did the debate go doctorb?

Haven't been online much lately and had to look a long way back to find this thread and bring it back up. Did we help any or is the young lady still not on the genetic engineering band wagon?

I'm not even sure of what is the definition of "genetically engineered crops."

doctorb · « **Reply #21 on:** February 06, 2012, 04:42:12 pm »

Gary_C

Thanks for asking. The debate was a week or more after the opinions were brought forth here, and I shared each and every one of them with her. Gave her an interesting perspective for both sides of the argument. Oh, her team won the debate, and she was one of the presenters and did the rebuttle. I can't say that I witnessed it, but she was DanG pleased. She was accepted early decision to Kenyon, so she's on easy street for the remainder of her senior year.

chain · « **Reply #22 on:** February 06, 2012, 08:43:29 pm »

Good to hear about your daughter's big win....but wish she had been on the 'Rachel Carson' side of things.

I'm a life long farmer, I've seen the good, the bad, and the ugly of both sides. Presently, in this area our backs are to the wall as we are running out of herbicide products that will control some major resistant weeds. I'm not arguing fooduse here but side effects from products used to enhance GM seeds.

LibertyLink is a trait that enables a relatively new herbicide, common name "IGNITE" to spray directly on the crop to control many weeds and most resistant varieties. But as a 'steward' of our soil, water, air, wildlife and domestics' I will have to decide, quite likely, to throw chance to the wind, make a crop and hopfully not hurt too many living things. The above mentioned product has lable warnings, a. twevle hour wait after applying before canines may enter a treated field[it will kill dogs] b. Absolutely no green forage from treated plants shall be fed to livestock. [OK, but what about deer, rabbits and other birds and animals?]

This is but one example of side effects from usuages. There are many other factors and issues to be argued, only time will tell...an anecdote...wondering why ducks & geese, and crows and blackbirds don't glean out waste grain from genetically modified corn fields anymore...they know frankenstine food when they see it!

BaldBob · « **Reply #23 on:** February 06, 2012, 09:53:29 pm »

Quote from: chain on February 06, 2012, 08:43:29 pm

There are many other factors and issues to be argued, only time will tell...an anecdote...wondering why ducks & geese, and crows and blackbirds don't glean out waste grain from genetically modified corn fields anymore...they know frankenstine food when they see it!

If that is in fact happening, we should be seeing published studies documenting that in the near future. I'm sure that people on both sides of the issue will be studying that and also any possible effects on wild herbivores.

Mooseherder · « **Reply #24 on:** February 06, 2012, 10:12:54 pm »

I missed this thread somehow. We get to answer these types of questions at work. I asked our category manager for some insight about GMOs last week because we had a customer asking specifics about our products and even though it's been answered before I wanted to make sure I didn't answer with dated or wrong information.
Part of What he stated in his reply is 90% of Corn production is now GMO.
That and there was 93 million acres of corn planted in 2011.

Kansas · « **Reply #25 on:** February 06, 2012, 10:32:48 pm »

Quote from: BaldBob on February 06, 2012, 09:53:29 pm

Quote from: chain on February 06, 2012, 08:43:29 pm
There are many other factors and issues to be argued, only time will tell...an anecdote...wondering why ducks & geese, and crows and blackbirds don't glean out waste grain from genetically modified corn fields anymore...they know frankenstine food when they see it!

If that is in fact happening, we should be seeing published studies documenting that in the near future. I'm sure that people on both sides of the issue will be studying that and also any possible effects on wild herbivores.

We must have different birds down here. Every morning when I go to work, I see massive flocks of snow geese out in fields that I know were genetically modified corn. The turkeys spend their time out in my fields, along with the deer. That is all genetically altered grain. I will say this however, I don't know what they are eating. The newer combines in good crops don't leave much of anything left behind, they pretty well get it all.

At the mill, when the field corn (genetically modified) gets to just a certain stage, its about as good as sweet corn. The microwave stays busy at noon. Some salt, pepper, and sqeezable butter equivalent, and that is about as good as it gets. Darned if I can tell the genetically modified difference.

Dang it.. Now I want some of that some of that field corn at just that oh so tender moment. Got 5 more months to wait.

DouginUtah · « **Reply #26 on:** February 06, 2012, 10:44:57 pm »

I wonder what happens when the GMO conglomerates, for whatever reason, do not or can not provide the seed.

Gary_C · « **Reply #27 on:** February 06, 2012, 11:15:23 pm »

Thanks for the update doctorb. Glad she did well and hope we were of some help.

Has she decided on a major yet? Molecular Biology or Environmental Studies would seem appropriate if she has an interest in these sort of things. Shouldn't have any problem finding a job in those fields.

SwampDonkey · « **Reply #28 on:** February 07, 2012, 04:32:24 am »

If it all goes GMO than someone else owns and controls the seed source. That is not good in my book.

Ron Wenrich · « **Reply #29 on:** February 07, 2012, 05:20:49 am »

That seems to be the goal all along.

SwampDonkey · « **Reply #30 on:** February 07, 2012, 05:40:41 am »

McCain tried it here and also in their contracts it said you had to use their seed. It fell flat on it's face, not because farmers organized (which is about impossible) but public pressure. I know a lot of farmers who grow their own seed potatoes. It would have put them out of business. You can bet the government would have let it all happen to.

Kansas · « **Reply #31 on:** February 07, 2012, 05:56:49 am »

You can still get non GMO seed. Far as I know, organic producers use it. But there is a reason organic is much higher than non. Organic is a lot more labor intense. Lower yields. Takes a lot more fuel. I don't think I have seen a cultivator in a farm field in years. Its all about yield, its all about lowest cost of production.

You would have to go back 100 years or more to get to when farmers stopped being slaves to someone. Farm equipment, Fuel, commercial fertilizer, then chemicals, hybrids, GMOs. A farmer today wouldn't be able to have much more than a glorified garden spot without a tremendous supporting cast. Some crops may be more traditional in how they are done. But for the mainstays of corn and soybeans, there really isn't any turning back.

Norm · « **Reply #32 on:** February 07, 2012, 05:58:32 am »

We've had such a mild winter here the geese have not migrated south. Every evening I see thousands of them feeding in the gmo fields. Deer and turkeys feed on my gmo corn and beans without any problems. Sounds to me like you have an agenda more than valid information.

Just like Japan was going to take over the USA and now the Chinese things change. I'm sure monsanto and dupont will go that way eventually. BTW there's still plenty of small seed dealers out there to buy from. We use the big two because their genetics are just that much better.

doctorb · « **Reply #33 on:** February 07, 2012, 07:59:15 am »

Gary_C

I am afraid my other daughter is the scientist. She's in her second year of college majoring in Physics with a minor in math and a minor in Education. She plans to be a teacher and good for her.

My younger daughter, who was part of this debate, is entirely different. She likes history, Spanish and literature and is going to major in international relations (current choice, we'll see how college changes that!).

Interestingly, the differing and expanded opinions on this thread helped her prepare for not only her side of the debate, but the other side's argument. If you know what your debate opponent is going to say, you can easily structure your reply. My understanding is that this course is presented to teach you to look at both sides of a question and, through information gathering, be able to expound on the virtues of either side. So, while she undoubtedly learned about genetically engineered crops through this process, I think the bigger picture is that she practiced her investigative, logical thinking, and public speaking skills.

Thanks again for your interest.

Chris Burchfield · « **Reply #34 on:** February 07, 2012, 08:34:44 am »

Glad your daughter came out on top. Good genes no doubt. As in her prep for the debate, a teacher or instructor will spend three times the amount of time required to relay the material in class.

Kansas · « **Reply #35 on:** February 07, 2012, 09:01:38 am »

I took two years of debate in high school One year the topic was "Should the USA provide a job to everyone that wants one" It was worded a little bit differently, but that was the gist of it. The other topic had to do with primaries for presidential nominations. Whether there should be a national primary or some other plan rather than what we have now.

2 years was enough.

Dodgy Loner · « **Reply #36 on:** February 07, 2012, 10:38:56 am »

Quote from: DouginUtah on February 06, 2012, 10:44:57 pm

I wonder what happens when the GMO conglomerates, for whatever reason, do not or can not provide the seed.

You have to go way back before GMO crops were available to get to the point that big corporations didn't control the major seed sources. By the 1950s, it was pretty much standard practice to purchase first generation hybrid seeds for most crops. The progeny of these hybrids did not produce as well as their parents, so farmers were unable to save their seeds and remain competive. I'm not offering opinions as to whether this is good or bad, I'm just saying that major corporations have been in control of the seed supply for our major crops for a lot longer than most people seem to realize.

chain · « **Reply #37 on:** February 07, 2012, 03:33:21 pm »

'For the sake of our democracy I choose to be the minority."

"Before 1945 only about a dozen species were known to have developed resistance to any of the pre-DDt insecticides. With the new organic chemicals and new methods for their intensive application, resistance began a meteoric rise that reached the alarming level of 137 species in 1960. No one believes the end is in sight."

Rachel Carson "Silent Spring" turns 50 this year."

Although she spoke most about chemistries of insecticides, even today we have problems with insects adapting to various enzymes and genetics.

I believe in facts not the hype the Big Boys are selling. The ugly...I was around when frogs turned upside down for miles down drainage ditches from applications of herbicides and insecticdes and the water turned yellow, I witnessed EPA & DNR sneaking around pulling their samples from our farm because of a chemical burial contamination of well water from a agri-chem manufacturer. It made the Super Fund. Yes, I may have an agenda.

red oaks lumber · « **Reply #38 on:** February 07, 2012, 06:57:11 pm »

some say genetically engineered crops are not healthy but, starving doesnt seem like a real healthy way to go either ;)so i guess take the lesser of 2 evils.

Norm · « **Reply #39 on:** February 07, 2012, 09:02:08 pm »

Yeah I'd rather see millions die of malaria. Nothing you've said has any real science behind it just fear mongering.

DanG · « **Reply #40 on:** February 08, 2012, 12:32:58 am »

I have seen no science that proves GE to be harmless, either. We all need to keep an open mind. What will we do if it is found that GE is responsible for Autism or Alzheimer's? What if we find out that PVC pipe is causing them? Teflon? Saran Wrap? Ziploc bags? Who ever heard of a kid being allergic to peanuts before the advent of "Roundup Ready?" There are questions to be answered, and I truly hope that GE is not proven to be at fault, but that possibility still exists.

Gary_C · « **Reply #41 on:** February 08, 2012, 04:27:17 am »

Quote from: DanG on February 08, 2012, 12:32:58 am

There are questions to be answered, and I truly hope that GE is not proven to be at fault, but that possibility still exists.

So just who should pay the cost for the scientific proof that the many unrelated and chance events that occur but are not in fact related? And what good would come of all that expense when like minded people with "open minds" still deny the scientific proof that is already available and what comes at great future costs and claim there still might be a connection that has yet to be found?

The odds of falling victim to one of those long shot connections are so small they are almost invisible. But there are some known connections that deserve more attention like smoking and health. So DanG I have to ask, you still smoking those DanG'ed things?

Norm · « **Reply #42 on:** February 08, 2012, 06:11:51 am »

There's plenty of studies showing it's safety, in fact the WTO ruled Europe could not block it's import on that sham after studies showed so. Just like silent spring was found to be nothing but hype much like the alar lie.

Kansas · « **Reply #43 on:** February 08, 2012, 06:48:22 am »

The reason I think GMO crops should be allowed and promoted is precisely because they are safer, not to mention we need the yields. I remember my dad talking about some of the chemicals used in earlier days. He talked about him and his brothers getting sick from them. Back then, they didn't have the extensive testing they do now. They also weren't used to using them, and taking appropriate safety measures. How many can remember the stories of a farmer taking an empty sack of Counter insecticide and tossing on the seat of an open air tractor because the seat was wet, and winding up dead from it. The guy who's hired help didn't label a sack used to pick up spilled Furadan, and accidentally mixing it in dairy feed and killing an entire herd of dairy cows. We have a safer food supply than ever before. Both for those eating it, and those that apply and use it. It seems to me I have seen too many farmers in years past die prematurely from cancer.

DanG · « **Reply #44 on:** February 08, 2012, 09:00:46 am »

All I'm doing is asking a question that needs to be asked over and over again, with each foriegn gene they introduce into a plant. Just look at the pharmaceutical industry. How many medications have been approved, then taken off the market because it was killing or crippling patients? All of those had passed the studies also. Something is going on in the last few decades that is causing new ailments and increases in old ones. We don't know what it is and until we do, everything is suspect.

I do not trust the research of the company who is aggressively pursuing their goal of owning the world's food supply.

Dodgy Loner · « **Reply #45 on:** February 08, 2012, 10:22:50 am »

Quote from: chain on February 07, 2012, 03:33:21 pm

Before 1945 only about a dozen species were known to have developed resistance to any of the pre-DDt insecticides. With the new organic chemicals and new methods for their intensive application, resistance began a meteoric rise that reached the alarming level of 137 species in 1960. No one believes the end is in sight.

The irony of this statement is that these "pre-DDT" insecticides include such compounds as lead arsenate (which my great-grandfather used to mix in a 5-gallon bucket with his bare hands - no wonder he died before I got a chance to meet him) and copper acetoarsenate, i.e. Paris Green (which, unbelieveably, is actually more toxic than lead arsenate).

The reason insects hadn't developed resistance to these chemicals is because they were far more toxic than most of the organic insecticides that followed. DDT was hailed as a safer alternative, and in fact, it was safer - to humans. For birds, of course, the same cannot be said.

Gary_C · « **Reply #46 on:** February 08, 2012, 11:19:19 am »

These chemicals, including DDT have nothing to do with genetically engineered crops nor food. The use of these chemicals, including DDT and Atrizine has been essentially eliminated by the use of a very application safe Roundup.

So the only real connection with these admittedly dangerous chemicals is their use has been essentially eliminated by the genetically engineered crops that are now resistant to Roundup.

Plus these resistant traits that have been bred into those new seed lines are actually naturally occuring. The only thing that genetic engineering has done is to allow these resistant genes that were found to occur naturally to be inserted into seed that produced better that the seed genetics where it was found.

So genetic engineering is more about putting good genes where they can do the most good for the users than creating new genes. And there are so many good things that have come and will come from mapping the human genome (human genetic engineering) that it would be extremely unwise to condem any genetic engineering.

Now dangerous chemicals are another thing. But don't associate those dangerous chemicals that actually were developed from the nerve gas technology developed post WWII with genetic engineering

And I am also no fan of that company that has made vast sums of money when the supreme court allowed patents to issued on genetic material. I think that was a big mistake that we are all paying for now. But I don't know what the alternative is to promote this kind of advancement in genetics other than having the government fund it and we all know how that alternative works.

Dodgy Loner · « **Reply #47 on:** February 08, 2012, 11:32:26 am »

Agreed, Gary, and well-said. The trend in agriculture over the last 100 years has been moving toward less pesticides and safer pesticides. GMO crops are another step in this direction, although I do agree with DanG that the risk of this technology has yet to be fully vetted.

Lead arsenate was a big improvement because your crops grew to maturity instead of being eaten by bugs. DDT was a big improvement over lead arsenate, because it was far less toxic to humans and most other animals. The plethora of insecticides that replaced DDT were a big improvement, because they could be applied in lesser quantities, were more host-specific, and did not build up in the environment. And now GMO crops are proving to be an improvement because they can completely eliminate insecticide applications in some instances (like Bt corn). But that doesn't mean they are without risk, just like all the other "improvements" over the years were not without risk. Fortunately, the technology will continue to improve, just as it always has.

submarinesailor · « **Reply #48 on:** February 08, 2012, 12:34:30 pm »

This was in yesterday's NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/dining/a-suit-airs-debate-on-organic-vs-modified-crops.html?_r=1

Bruce

Gary_C · « **Reply #49 on:** February 08, 2012, 12:54:24 pm »

That's an interesting article and it sure does point out the problems with the patents on genetic material and especially Monsanto's heavy handed pursuit of their genetic patents. I sincerely hope the decision goes against Monsanto. The owners of adjacent fields to GMO's should not be held responsible for ownership of the cross polinated crops.

But what this case really says is that the opponents of GMO's have all but given up on not having them in the foods. Now they are just after labeling them as GMO's for whatever good that will do. The GMO's are now so pervasive that it's almost impossible to avoid them and still eat food.

DanG · « **Reply #50 on:** February 08, 2012, 01:38:40 pm »

There are all sorts of factors to be considered. What about the chemicals that can now be used on the plants because they are immune to it? That would be an indirect result of GE, wouldn't it?

Gary_C · « **Reply #51 on:** February 08, 2012, 02:03:39 pm »

DanG, there are two reasons why that is not a factor.

First a plant gene that has shown resistance to say Roundup is not necessarily resistant to any other chemical. In fact it is most likely not resistant to other chemicals. And there are severe financial penalties for chancing it.

Second, there are restrictions on applying chemicals on crops and just random use is not permitted. And yes there are a few mistakes made but they are so costly to the person making the mistake that mistakes are not a factor. Plus most of the mistakes made have been in applying Roundup to fields of non Roundup resistant corn. Then you get to start over again if it's not too late in the growing season.

And yet another reason for the advantage of the higher use of Roundup resistant crops. Roundup is what's called a contact herbicide. If the weed that you want to eliminate is not germinated at the time of application, it escapes the effects of the Roundup. There is no residual soil activity or persistance. So right after you spray a field with Roundup, you could go back and plant any non resistant crop without any fear of residual effects.

And that's nothing but good for the environment.

Plus as I said in an earlier post, Roundup is no more toxic when eaten than table salt. I've even heard of Monsanto salesmen drinking a bit of it as a demonstration of the non toxicity of Roundup.

DanG · « **Reply #52 on:** February 08, 2012, 09:24:53 pm »

Quote from: Gary_C on February 08, 2012, 02:03:39 pm

Plus as I said in an earlier post, Roundup is no more toxic when eaten than table salt. I've even heard of Monsanto salesmen drinking a bit of it as a demonstration of the non toxicity of Roundup.

Have you had any contact with them lately?

Are their kids allergic to peanuts? All I'm saying here is that until y'all show me what it is, I'm not going to be sure what it ain't. What about BT corn? Is it too far of a stretch to imagine that if it is poisonous to bugs, it might have some affect on humans? I'm not blaming GE crops for all of these new ailments, but they did come along about the same time.

Don_Papenburg · « **Reply #53 on:** February 09, 2012, 12:13:00 am »

DanG , I can remember in the late 70s hearing of kids being allergic to peanuts . I was thinking how can anyone be allergic to peanuts?
GMO seeds were developed after roundup was in use for several years.

Dodgy Loner · « **Reply #54 on:** February 09, 2012, 10:41:29 am »

DanG, peanuts are among the many crops that are not available as GMOs. So I don't see how peanut allergies are related.

DanG · « **Reply #55 on:** February 09, 2012, 03:25:42 pm »

I thought they were, since most or all of the commercial peanuts are "Roundup Ready." Nevertheless, I was just using that as an example of the many ailments that have mysteriously cropped up in recent decades. As I've said several times already, my concern is that the causes of these problems have not been found, and I will suspect everything until they are.

red oaks lumber · « **Reply #56 on:** February 09, 2012, 05:31:26 pm »

if you are looking for what ails people look into the processing of what we eat. the additives, chemicals god only knows what else.thats where the problems are. not whats grown

DanG · « **Reply #57 on:** February 09, 2012, 09:53:57 pm »

You are most likely right, Red Oaks, but we need to continue looking at everything.

BaldBob · « **Reply #58 on:** February 10, 2012, 01:48:23 am »

Quote from: DanG on February 09, 2012, 03:25:42 pm

Nevertheless, I was just using that as an example of the many ailments that have mysteriously cropped up in recent decades. As I've said several times already, my concern is that the causes of these problems have not been found, and I will suspect everything until they are.

No argument from me on the need to be somewhat suspicious, however the notion that many of the ailments, that we now recognize, mysteriously cropped up in recent decades is in large part fallacious. Several factors are at play here, including but not limited to:
1. Medical science continues to progress and allows us to identify diseases and conditions which have long been with us but which we didn't suspect existed or which we attributed to other causes. Heck, forensic archeologists studying ancient mummies and even fossils have discovered that the ancients often had diseases and conditions that we had formerly considered to be of recent origin.
2. People who formerly died of diseases and conditions that we can now cure now survive to get other diseases that they are susceptible to, but used to die before those diseases could impact them.
3. Many people who formerly died before producing offspring and passing on the genes that made them susceptible to certain conditions now are contributing to the gene pool.

Dodgy Loner · « **Reply #59 on:** February 10, 2012, 09:58:22 am »

Quote from: DanG on February 09, 2012, 03:25:42 pm

I thought they were, since most or all of the commercial peanuts are "Roundup Ready."

Hmmm. Unless something has changed since I was a county agent, there aren't any Roundup Ready peanuts on the market

. I just did a Google search and couldn't come up with anything.

DanG · « **Reply #60 on:** February 10, 2012, 11:07:56 am »

Well I always reserve the right to be wrong.

However, I'm pretty sure I have seen a number of ads in ag publications touting herbicidal solutions to weed problems in peanuts, and most of them are from seed companies. Perhaps they aren't using the term "Roundup Ready".

I do know I see some awfully clean peanut fields these days. Starting tonight, I will be on a hi-speed connection for a few days. I'll do a little research and see what I can find.

Dodgy Loner · « **Reply #61 on:** February 10, 2012, 03:08:17 pm »

DanG, I just confirmed with my brother (a row crop breeder in Tifton) that Roundup Ready or any other GMO peanuts do not exist commercially. He said that peanuts are very easy to modify, but because they are a smaller crop that does not have the same financial backing as cotton, corn, soybeans, etc. there has never been a strong push for legislation that would allow GMO peanuts. Also, he mentioned that there are many excellent herbicide chemistries for peanuts that allow farmers to get excellent weed control in conventional peanut varieties. That would explain why you see such clean fields

Dodgy Loner · « **Reply #62 on:** February 12, 2012, 06:01:40 am »

Here is a link that my brother sent me after our conversation. Looks like genetic modification could be a solution to - rather than a cause of - severe peanut allergies. The researcher in the article was his biotech professor at UGA Tifton.

http://m.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/11/peanuts-with-le/

DanG · « **Reply #63 on:** February 12, 2012, 09:45:24 am »

That's pretty interesting stuff, Justin. It would be neat if they could fix the problem with GMO. It would be even neater to find out what caused it in the first place. As I said, it could be anything, even something not connected with peanuts. We have changed a lot of things in this old world in the last half-century, and there have been unanticipated results of most of those changes. As somebody said, it could be that changes in human physiology are just breeding a weaker strain of people. Folks who aren't able to reproduce are now assisted by chemical means so that they can have a baby. Some people who wouldn't have survived childhood in the past are now living longer and bearing children, passing those genes on down the line. Chemicals that didn't exist in my childhood are all around us, as is all kinds of radiation. Everything we do has to be questioned, and not just when it is brand new. The long-range results of seemingly innocuous actions can be devastating. When I was a kid, we played with mercury and licked lead based paint. Did that somehow modify our genes that we passed on to our kids and grandkids? Who knows? Milk used to come in glass bottles and water came in iron pipes. Now they come in plastic made from no telling what. One thing is for sure, we'll never run out of things to question and study!

News:

Author Topic: Genetically engineered crops (Read 1149 times)