The great GM crops myths exposed

[Brighteye]

I forget if this was mentioned before, but I'm going to have to go with whoever said there's no real "optimum".

Ideal conditions change from place to place and from time to time. Sometimes it's drought tolerance. Sometimes it's insects. Sometimes it's nasty chemicals. It's pretty much impossible to engineer an organism ideally defended against everything, seeing as how Mother Nature has been trying and failing at that for a few billion years.

But isn't that the point of a double blind study? To determine exclude extraneous variables and get at very basic qualities.

Plants need water, fertile soil, not to be eaten by pests... These can all detract from growth. If a plant is resistant to these things, then, as you say, it will perform better in their presence than another plant that is not.
However, the very act of making a plant resistant to them rather implies that they're not optimal conditions.
Hence using that same plant and comparing it to one that isn't burdened by resitance mechanisms is the same as comparing an experienced hiker with rucksack and comparing him to a sprinter. He can cope with all sorts of problems on the way, but you're not giving either person any problems, so the sprinter seems better.
My point was that the result of such a study is mostly meaningless. The real question is the prevalence of disease and so on, and the relative levels of resistance.

 

[Dr Tiny]

I decided to go read the original reseach article by Prof Gordon. Its quite interesting, in fact it is at odds with the newspaper article quoted in the original post. When manganese (Mn) was not added then indeed the genetically engineered glyphosphate resistant (GR) strain grew poorly compared to control 77 v 70 bu/ac control v GR, this has been known for years and is thought to be due to a chemical interaction between roundup and Mn - roundup chelates Mn preventing its uptake.

Supplementing the fields with 2.5lb Mn/acre saw the yield from the GR increase as Mn was incresed. At higher levels of Mn the GR crop appears to outperform the control crop by approx 10%, all the data is in the article.

Linky
http://www.ipni.net/ppiweb/bcrops.nsf/$webindex/70ABDB50A75463F085257394001B157F/$file/07-4p12.pdf

HOWEVER, one should be very careful in using Prof Gordon's results to compare the control and GR strains of soybean as the strains used in the studywere not isogenic ie there are more genetic diffences between the control strain and GR strain of soybean that could be accounting for the differences. So a discussion of yields based on this article is meaningless.
The aim of the study was to see how GR crops performed when treated with Roundup as they wanted to find the best conditions to improve yield with Roundup due to the Mn problem.

And an email from the Prof himself

The article you saw in the Independant was a total distortion of the research. My research concerned manganese application on soils that are known to respond to Mn application. We used one conventional variety and a glyphosate-tolerant near isoline (not genetically identical). The objective of the research was to improve soybean yields under optimum management conditions, not to make any statement about GM crops.

Linky
http://conspiracyfactory.blogspot.com/2008/04/exposed-great-gm-food-scare-made-up-by.html

The take home message is to be very careful when reading research in media (or any third hand account) as mistakes do occur in the reporting.

 

[Brighteye]

And an email from the Prof himself

Linky
http://conspiracyfactory.blogspot.com/2008/04/exposed-great-gm-food-scare-made-up-by.html

And for a moment I thought that you knew him and were in personal contact!

 

[Oerdin]

Plants produce fecal matter?

Learn something new every day.

What do you supposed is the main fertilizer used on organic farms?

 

[Ecofarm]

What do you supposed is the main fertilizer used on organic farms?

Usually? Animal crap. But not necessarily. Vegan compost can be as rich in nitrogen, especially with the help of worms.

On conventional farms, animal crap is toxic waste. Saved in vats created in the land complete with plastic liners waiting for the next storm to flood the county in toxic crap (literally). Get your straws!

http://www.westernliner.com/agriculture.html

 

[Narz]

claiming organic food was more nutritious or some how better for you. This also has been scientifically proven to be wrong.

Heh heh, methinks you do not understand what "scientific proof" is. Some studies have shown some organic farms to have no benefit over other convential farms. Other large studies have shown organic produce is nutritionally superior (I posted a thread on this awhile back).

You basically claimed those new studies were BS because "the old studies said organic is no better" which is about as unscientific as you can get (pretty much the definition of unscientific, ignoring new evidence)

Lastly, organic isn't really better for the environment since you tend to have lots more fecal matter in the run off which pollutes streams.

Like Eco said you don't have to use sh!t fertilizer. Also, there are ways to control runoff. Also, chemical pesticides are costly to create & produce (which is why the 3rd world will never be able to succeed with conventional agriculture, as fuel prices rise they will be less able than ever to afford the chemical slew they "need") whereas an organic farmed can produce much of his own fertilizer.

Only taking a very narrow of the issue could one deem organic more polluting. Reminds me of some schmo who claimed driving to the grocery store was actually better for the environment for walking because (if you were to buy beef, pretty much the least efficiently produced food you could buy) then the Calorie costs to walk would outweight the environmental cost of driving. Not to mention you could buy other food or even bike (a dozen or so times more efficient than walking). Focusing on one narrow sliver of the issue in order to make a point generally doesn't work.

Facts are : the long term viability of GM crops are unknown, the long term health consequences of GM crops are unknown. Eighty years ago doctors & scientists were arguing that enriched white bread would lead to superior health over whole grains because the indigestible fiber was removed and synthetic minerals were added. Call me crazy but I'll take the wait & see approach on this one. Certainly I'm not going to die from not eating GM stuff.

 

[Den Valdron]

I decided to go read the original reseach article by Prof Gordon.

Thank you for your contribution.

 

[Den Valdron]

What do you supposed is the main fertilizer used on organic farms?

Hmmm. So its a choice between different forms of fertilizer application and runoff?

 

[Den Valdron]

Here's a comprehensive multiyear study done at Cornell University looking at dozens different crops of dozens and dozens of different conventional and organic method:

http://www.neon.cornell.edu/training/ppts/OrganicFarmYieldandProfitability.pdf

You'll find that yield per acre is always superior with the GMO crops because, wonder of wonders, that's what they were designed to do.

That may be the case, but its not actually what the study you are quoting says. There is no significant reference at all in the 25 pages of the document to GMO crops that I could find. Perhaps I missed something. But certainly this document doesn't seem to contain any discussion or reference to GMO crops being always superior.

And frankly, there's a lot missing. What this document is appears to be some 25 pages of a powerpoint presentation giving selected highlights of an economic comparison of inputs and yields. There's no methodology presented, so its impossible to assess the study or compare its results. It's possible to interpret the data in support of the notion that Organic farming methods produce consistently lower yields. On the other hand, the economics, particularly contemplating input data and yields are not cut and dried (no pun intended).

In short, I found your assertions a bit misleadilng, in comparison to the study.

 

[Gogf]

GM crops should be dismissed as viable until they can consistently show they produce superior yields and are throughly safe (no tumors in lab rats and funky schnit like that).

GM has to prove itself consistantly worthy, it's not my job to prove GM unworthy.

So you're arguing that businesses (remember that's what farmers are) should not be allowed to produce a product until someone can convincingly "prove" it to be "consistently worthy," presumably to the government? That is a very radical sentiment, and I find it hard to believe that even you really believe what this quote implies.

 

[Den Valdron]

Thalidomide

So you're arguing that businesses (remember that's what farmers are) should not be allowed to produce a product until someone can convincingly "prove" it to be "consistently worthy," presumably to the government? That is a very radical sentiment, and I find it hard to believe that even you really believe what this quote implies.

 

[Gogf]

Thalidomide

Um... okay? In America, we have government organizations that regulate the sale of pharmaceuticals. This is logical because of how drugs work, and I don't think many people oppose it. But do you also believe that we should have a FTPA, or Federal Toilet Paper Administration to which all prospective toiler paper must be proven "consistently worthy"?

 

[Den Valdron]

Thalidomide is the classic example of an apparently beneficial product, thought to be safe, but not adequately tested and released on an unsuspecting public. With Thalidomide, it took almost nine months for the side effects to be observed. Another few weeks or months for the culprit to be identified. Throw in another several months for the damage to be contained. 10,000 deformed babies.

Feeling lucky?

 

[Gogf]

Thalidomide is the classic example of an apparently beneficial product, thought to be safe, but not adequately tested and released on an unsuspecting public. With Thalidomide, it took almost nine months for the side effects to be observed. Another few weeks or months for the culprit to be identified. Throw in another several months for the damage to be contained. 10,000 deformed babies.

Feeling lucky?

This is not responsive.

 

[LightFang]

Thalidomide is the classic example of an apparently beneficial product, thought to be safe, but not adequately tested and released on an unsuspecting public. With Thalidomide, it took almost nine months for the side effects to be observed. Another few weeks or months for the culprit to be identified. Throw in another several months for the damage to be contained. 10,000 deformed babies.

Feeling lucky?

Francis Kelley, you are my hero.

 

[Narz]

So you're arguing that businesses (remember that's what farmers are) should not be allowed to produce a product until someone can convincingly "prove" it to be "consistently worthy," presumably to the government? That is a very radical sentiment, and I find it hard to believe that even you really believe what this quote implies.

Products are one thing. We don't put them into our bodies.

Do I believe the FDA and USDA should be more rigorous in their standards. Certainly.

A personal example - the drug Ritalin was deemed safe for children despite not ever having been tested on children (and having very limited human trials at all). The psychiatry racket then heavily pushed for "ADD" & "ADHD" labels to be slapped on any child who's parents seemed the gullible, overly anxious types (a few years later the parents themselves were marketed themselves).

Years later it was discovered that both humans and rats suffered major long term side effects (including a notably upswing in depression, which worked out well for big pharm of course since they were just starting to cash in big on that niche ).

http://harvardscience.harvard.edu/m...ritalin-use-childhood-may-increase-depression

What do drugs have to do with food, you ask?

Both are manmade creations that effect both body & brain the likes of with the human body has never had contact with before. Both are touted as miracle cures (personally & on a global scale) and both are readily gobbled up by a gullible public who wants to believe we can genetically engineer our way our of a global (and existential) crisis without having to change our ways much (if at all).

 

[Narz]

Francis Kelley, you are my hero.

This guy

 

[Ecofarm]

In regard to nutrition:

Fruits, vegetables: There is a nutritional difference with organic production having higher levels of phytochemicals (strawberries being a classic study).

Meat and animal byproducts: There is a difference in fat, cholesteral, and health risk. Conventional products are usually higher in fat (the animals exercise less and eat garbage), cholesteral (again living conditions), and have risks such as trace anti-biotics, hormones, etc.

I think, on a personal health level, it is worth purchasing organic animal products; however, with plants you could eat conventional and take vitamins for better all-around vitamin and mineral coverage.

 

[Den Valdron]

I'm really not concerned about issues of 'consistently worthy.' For the most part, I'm willing to leave that up to the marketplace on a wide variety of issues.

On the other hand, I am concerned about public health and safety. Thalidomide is the classic example, but there's also DES (Diethylstilbestrol) another drug that was found to be a teratogen and whose effects are being felt in grandchildren of the original consumers. There are also a number of examples of carcinogens and teratogens of chemical nature, whose effects were not identified until years or decades later.

Living cells are far more complex than simple chemical or organic compounds. Yet these compounds have been found to have unpredicted, unexpected and far reaching effects. Are we to take the view that GM products contain no risks, or that there is no need to test for risk? Sorry. I'm not prepared to accept that.

Given the newness of the field, the utter lack of a track record, and the possible consequences, we aren't even in a position to accurately assess the level of risk. The market is not in a position to repair the consequences of mistakes and damage. The costs of 10,000 deformed children are borne by those children, their families and by society. The costs of millions of women victimized by DES, and their sons and daughters and grandsons and grandaughters, and a general increased risk of cancer is not borne by those who sold or prescribed the drug, but by the victims themselves and by society.

I am in favour of rigorous and extended testing of GM products to the maximum extent to ensure their safety. My view is that the current testing is inadequate. I'm not really interested in a major portion of my tax dollars, going to pay for someone's Oops. I'm not really interested in jacking up my cancer risk because someone was chasing the dollar. And I'm certainly not interested in having a flipper baby because someone figured "What could possibly go wrong."

I want testing, because if something goes wrong, it'll be guys like you and me paying for it.

Was that responsive?

 

[Dr Tiny]

Oh I agree long term testing, using the correct methodology, is needed. The problems highlighted with thalidomide for example was due to not testing it on pregnant animals.

We are starting to get medium term data back on the in field effects of GM crops. There would appear to be good news with regards the use of plants expressing Bt and decreased pesticide use.
Two studies using Bt-expressing cotton
http://www.newscientist.com/channel...5.600-modified-cotton-cuts-pesticide-use.html

Farmers who grew Bt cotton, which is modified to produce its own pesticide against bollworm larvae, applied as little as half as much conventional pesticide as growers of standard cotton, according to a two-year study of 81 cotton fields in Arizona. They still needed some pesticide because the Bt cotton continued to suffer damage from pests that attack cotton bolls above ground, such as lygus bugs and whiteflies.

Study leader Yves Carrière of the University of Arizona in Tucson says the work is the largest evaluation yet of the combined environmental and agronomic performance of GM cotton. The effects on wildlife, particularly ants and beetles, were the same whether GM or non-GM cotton was grown (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0508312103).

There was no difference in overall yields, but GM cotton yielded 9 per cent more per kilogram of insecticide applied, so GM farmers prospered by spending less on insecticides than conventional growers.

And,
http://www.newscientist.com/channel...otton-still-potent-after-all-these-years.html

TO THE surprise of many researchers, genetically modified cotton plants are continuing to fend off the pink bollworm after eight seasons. It was expected that the pest would have evolved resistance to a toxin produced by the GM cotton in as little as three years.

"The Bt crops produce toxin all the time. So in terms of generating resistance, we thought it would be like spraying with insecticides very often, if not more or less continuously," says Bruce Tabashnik, an entomologist at the University of Arizona, in Tuscon.

But instead of developing genetic tricks to evade the Bt toxin, pink bollworms (Pectinophora gossypiella) continue to be killed by it. Since cultivation of Bt cotton began in 1997, Tabashnik and his colleagues tested an average of more than 2500 larvae per year from up to 17 cotton fields in Arizona. They found that only about 1 in 50,000 of the larvae exhibited resistance (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 102, p 15389). In the meantime, insecticide use in the state is down 60 per cent and so are losses to the pink bollworm.

The resistance gene the team did see gave only partial protection, and the insects need two copies of the gene to express the trait. Even this modest resistance seems to come at a cost: when the pests eat unmodified cotton they do worse than their non-resistant cousins. Planting refuge areas of unmodified cotton plants near to the Bt crop seems to have diluted the pressure for resistance genes to be selected.

The study was part-funded by Monsanto. But Tabashnik says the biotech company played no part in designing or publishing the study.

I would have thought reduced pesticide use would be a good thing for the farmer (reduced costs), for the consumer (lower price, no pesticide in food chain (ok ok this was cotton)) and the environment (no pesticide run off).

Bt is a toxin that kills insects that eat the plant, plants expressing it will be poisonous to the insect. The nice thing with Bt is you do not need your entire crop to be Bt-expressing, one field of Bt crop is enough, after all dead insects dont do much damage to GM or non-GM crops.