4 ms·
In this case, the problem is that there's a huge difference between public perception and reality. For instance, you talk about herbicides: A modern GMO actuall
by hibikir 11y ago
In this case, the problem is that there's a huge difference between public perception and reality. For instance, you talk about herbicides: A modern GMO actually lets you use LESS herbicides and insecticides, and often far less dangerous ones than many that are OK for labeled organic crops, and happen to be far more toxic.
As far as updates on the field producing toxins, GMOs are actually more controlled, genetically speaking, than something that doesn't come from big agribusiness. I can irradiate my seeds to create mutations to use then on traditional breeding, and call myself organic afterwards!
As far as growing well in an area or not, that's why there is testing. Selling a seed that yields poorly to a region would lead to a major economic damage to whichever company is selling those seeds, so everything we can find at a seed store from a major manufacturer, whether GMO or not, will have more than enough agronomic information to make a farmer's decision easy. And besides, I don't know how many farmers you've talked to, but they tend to be a pretty conservative bunch, as far as making sure that they don't bet a lot of hectares on tech that they haven't tested first in a smaller part of their fields, and only plant everywhere if they expect a significant profit. When yields are already very good, and grain is cheap, expensive seeds just sell less across the board.
You don't get much opposition to GMOs among farmers: they just go with what is more profitable for them. Same thing for industrial companies that use the GMOs products to feed cattle or make biodiesel. It all comes down to people that are afraid of what they don't understand, and just choose to be afraid in ways that work well with their political affiliations.
If we were REALLY afraid of food being dangerous, and with untested genetics, we'd actually ban the organics, because there's a lot more genetic variation that is unaccounted for in traditional farming products than in something that comes from agribusiness.
- EvanPlaice 11y agoProducing higher yields is not analogous to producing healthier food. The interests of farmers (ie produce more yield/mass that is impacted less by weeds/pests) do not match the interests of consumers (ie purchase healthy/tasty food with no unforseen side-effects). Considering the turnaround time between the time a seed is purchased and when the resulting food is consumed, the 'testing period' of newly introduced GMO breeds is very long compared to software iterations. At the very least, consumers should be able to trace what GMO breed they're consuming and where it was produced. That way, if there are any unforseen side effects, it'll be easier to trace the source. Just look at the fallout caused by pistachio yields that have been contaminated with E Coli and Salmonella. The long shelf life of nuts means that contaminated foods could still be sitting on store shelves years later. I'm all for GMO foods if it improves farming effectiveness but the process needs something similar to version control to track quality and a way to clearly indicate GMO foods so people can opt out of beta testing new breeds.
- batbomb 11y ago> A modern GMO actually lets you use LESS herbicides and insecticides, and often far less dangerous ones than many that are OK for labeled organic crops, and happen to be far more toxic. Citation needed.
- projct 11y agohttp://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/natural-vs-synthetic-chemicals-is-a-gray-matter/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/natural-vs-sy...
- batbomb 11y agoDid you even read the blog? (also note, it's a blog) None of that blog actually supports the claim: > A modern GMO actually lets you use LESS herbicides and insecticides, and often far less dangerous ones than many that are OK for labeled organic crops, and happen to be far more toxic. Nor does it ever mention herbicides, only pesticides. Nor does it mention that you may actually be harming yourself by consuming organic produce vs GMO produce, which is what the claim was alluding too.
- splawn 11y agoherbicides: http://www.agbioforum.org/v15n3/v15n3a01-fernandez-cornejo.htm http://www.agbioforum.org/v15n3/v15n3a01-fernandez-cornejo.h... pesticides: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....
- batbomb 11y agoAgain, neither of these articles, nor anything in here (http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1282246/err162.pdf http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1282246/err162.pdf), supports the preposterous claim that organic farming is leads to the use of more herbicides and insecticides, which are more toxic (which ones?) than the use of glyphosate et. al. In fact, in the USDA report I just cited, in the first abstract there is even the claim: > However, overreliance on glyphosate and a reduction in the diversity of weed management practices have contributed to the evolution of glyphosate resistance in some weed species. It is indeed true that traditional, non-organic means of farming likely requires the use of more (non-organic-certified) herbicides and pesticides, of which some may be more toxic than glyphosate. Nuance! The allusion that farming with GMO+glyphosate is "far less dangerous" than standard organic farming practices is not supported by research.