5 ms·

With shift to non-GMO sugar, farmers will abandon environmental and social gains

40 points by nkurz 11y ago

colordrops 11y ago
The article reads like an ad for Roundup, especially the first quote by the farmer.
- personjerry 11y ago
  Welcome to the age of sponsored content. Semi-related reading: http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html
  - colordrops 11y ago
    Crazy that I got two downvotes within 20 seconds of posting this.
    - bpodgursky 11y ago
      I downvoted because it doesn't say anything about the points raised or content of the article, it just tries to discredit the entire source, which is a commenting style I find particularly odious.
- BinaryIdiot 11y ago
  I mean, you're certainly not wrong. The article went from discussing the issue of going back to non-GMO on the environment to a full-on "here's the data for like 50 things that shows how awesome GMO is". While I am certainly for using GMOs (there is too much great science behind it) this article just screams "someone paid me to write this". I would have loved to see something much more focused on the topic at hand: large companies switching to non-GMO sugars to appease the current market forces and what this may mean as far as food production, etc could go. I mean the article touched on that a tiny bit here and there but not in any satisfying way in my opinion.
  - smaddox 11y ago
    Bill Nye had an interesting chapter on his change of view on GMO's in one of his recent books. Personally, I see genetic engineering as the path to apotheoses. The risk of it leading us the opposite direction is very real, though. The solution is not to avoid it all together, but rather to tread carefully.
    - 7sigma 11y ago
      thats why gmos are the most tested foods in history (despite what the naysaysers say) Mutagenic crops devised with stuff like cobalt 60 was never tested. Also you can breed a potato to be poisonous. In the end its a case by case basis Edit: spelling
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
cmrdporcupine 11y ago
The comparison photo between the non-RoundupReady and RoundupReady planting is notable to me not so much because of the difference in the plant health but in the fact that it's depressing just to look at the 'soil' they're growing in. Is it typical to grow sugar beets in what is basically pure sand with no humic matter? Bleak.
- burfog 11y ago
  It's a root crop. Objects in the soil (twigs, leaves, stones, bark, etc.) block root growth. The same goes for carrots and potatoes. Think of it as hydroponics. It's even done for non-root crops. All tomatoes in Florida grow in pure sand. Just add water and fertilizer. BTW, this is partly because we turn our best farmland into condos. San Jose was the best place in the world for apricots; now look at it.
  - cmrdporcupine 11y ago
    I am well aware of growing practices. I live on 7 acres farmland and have taken courses in agri etc. You're describing a pretty reductionist model of plant growth. Plants don't just need NPK and a few micronutrients. The interface between a healthy plant and its soil involves millions of microorganisms. And a healthy carbon content in the form of humus etc. in the soil is extremely important for water conservation and consistent root growth. Not to mention getting carbon into the top soil is a great way of getting it out of the atmosphere...
    - burfog 11y ago
      Hey, at least they have sand! Lettuce is often grown without anything solid at all. It's just liquid, indoors, under red and blue LED lighting.
x5n1 11y ago
I personally think that the focus on producing crops at breakneck speeds to feed the billions starving all over the world is a sad thing. Reduce your population you miserable people you are killing the planet. But somehow everyone believes that technology will save us all at the cost of everything else, we will survive and move to a new planet in our spaceships. > when societies industrialize, their birth rates drop How long will it take society birth rate drop to cause population to reach 1600s levels. Like they say don't hold your breath. Some day all this stuff will lead to salvation, but other than rhetoric, not in my life time or those of my children. It's a good story, but in real terms, our impact is not in any way getting better it's getting worse. And using technology, green tech, whatever, to fight technology to make everything alright just slows things down it does not actually fix anything. I doubt it ever will. Call me a pessimist about these sorts of things.
- dlp211 11y ago
  Sure, you start.
  - x5n1 11y ago
    Gotta get my voice in the wilderness in there somehow.
- Bluestrike2 11y ago
  Or technology could help us maintain this one into the future and feed everyone. Even today, the biggest problem isn't food production but transport and access. Technology can absolutely help improve those areas, while providing the tools to enable more efficient local food production. And while reproducing is literally what we do, when societies industrialize, their birth rates drop. More efficient agriculture allows workers to be shifted to other sectors, a critical step in improving the quality of life in least developed countries as well as developing countries.
ced 11y ago
This is relevant information about the author, that should have been added to the article: Funding for Dr. Kniss’s program at the University of Wyoming has been provided by the following sponsors: Arysta LifeScience, BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, FMC, Hatch Act Funds – USDA, Loveland Industries, __Monsanto__, NovaSource, Repar Corporation, StateLine Bean Cooperative, Syngenta, United States Department of Agriculture National Insitute for Food and Agriculture, University of Wyoming Department of Plant Sciences, University of Wyoming School of Energy Resources, Valent, Western Sugar Cooperative, Winfield Solutions, Wyoming Agricultural Experiment Station, Wyoming Crop Improvement Association, Wyoming Department of Agriculture, Wyoming Seed Certification.
- epistasis 11y ago
  So, you see BASF, Bayer, Dow, Dupont, and you decide that Monsanto is the only one to highlight? These are not so significantly different.
  - colordrops 11y ago
    Monsanto is the manufacturer of Roundup, which is featured very prominently in the article.
BrainInAJar 11y ago
What a fucking joke. "before <roundup ready> we had crop failures, we had sprayers running all the time" Roundup is carcinogenic. All Roundup-Ready sugarbeet means is the farmer uses a different type of toxic chemical.
- BinaryIdiot 11y ago
  > Roundup is carcinogenic. To be fair it's a useless distinction to simply say something is "carcinogenic". There are 5 groups of carcinogens and many foods that people eat even have chemicals that fall into those groupings ("organic" or GMO). Yes part of roundup falls into Group 2A which means it's probably carcinogenic to humans but you forget that these chemicals are both usually gone by the time the food is shipped (though you should always clean it just in case) but also in such low quantities that many studies are showing it's likely not harmful in the typical, or even heavy, usage. Regardless I don't think it's fair to try and paint is as black and white. > All Roundup-Ready sugarbeet means is the farmer uses a different type of toxic chemical. Not really. Roundup Ready means the seeds will continue to live when Roundup is used. Without that trait you have to use something much weaker (and therefore much larger quantities) to achieve something near the same affect. You should talk to some farmers. It will help shape your perspective :)
hoodoof 11y ago
It seems almost a corporate cliche to argue that any shift from GMO means "the environment pays". Only Monsanto is capable of arguing that the most environmentally friendly option for agriculture is GMO.
- BinaryIdiot 11y ago
  > Only Monsanto is capable of arguing that the most environmentally friendly option for agriculture is GMO. You should talk to some farmers. Seriously, it's a great way to get another perspective of someone that has to do "organic" and GMO based farming. Monsanto gets a bad wrap but a large majority of the negative press they get is simply false [1]. Regardless there are plenty of other organizations doing GMOs even if you do have an axe to grind with Monsanto. [1] http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top...
- jasonjei 11y ago
  On the one hand, the precautionary principle argues we should be careful of GMOs and research the long-term consequences of GMO. But there's been enough time, and it seems it's safe enough, and it's at least in GA if not public beta. On the other hand, GMOs have saved countless lives where if it weren't for GMO I'm sure millions of people would be suffering. The truth is the whole world can't shop at Whole Foods. Sustainability might eventually push out the need for GMO. But GMO despite the nastiness of Monsanto has helped many lives. I personally shop local and support local farms (that's easy in SF with the Ferry Building, Divis, and Clement). But until local farms make a resurgence worldwide, it will be difficult to push out GMO. (In fact, the seeds of a lot of GMO products cross-pollinate with so-called non-GMO; soy is one of those products where it is difficult to find unadulterated variants, despite being labeled "organic.")
  - Bluestrike2 11y ago
    The precautionary principle can also be misunderstood and mis-applied. GMOs are already subject to ridiculous amounts of scrutiny for little reason than ill-informed fear. For years, the findings produced by that scrutiny have clearly rejected the idea that GMO is dangerous. But the fear lives on, in large part because people parrot the precautionary principle without recognizing that the principle necessitates a consideration of plausibility as well. Their refusal to recognize their own ignorance on the subject is no different than that of climate change deniers decrying the "scientific cabal looking for grant money." I'm not criticizing you here, because clearly you're trying to look at both sides of the issue (though I'd argue there's an empirical side, and an imagined one). But that's incredibly rare. People are scared of genetic modification, manufacturers and stores are jumping on the bandwagon so they don't lose customers, and everyone loses out without even realizing it. Anyhow, sustainable agriculture is--for better or worse--a very politicized term. It means different things to different people. But if the general idea is an approach to agriculture that seeks to minimize ecological impacts, then there's no reason to argue that genetic modification is in opposition to it. They're not. Every goal of sustainability can be furthered through genetic modification. But too many advocates of sustainability refuse to even consider the possible benefits of genetic modification.
foxylad 11y ago
I imagine sugar producers are far more concerned about the current focus on the health effects of heavy sugar consumption. Surely reduction in general demand is going to have a greater impact on prices than a small trend towards non-GMO sugar.
mikekchar 11y ago
Let me preface this comment with the acknowledgement that it's crazy talk. I don't think it can work in our modern economies. However, I have often wondered what the cost of manual labour is compared to the cost of distribution. Especially when we are talking about herbicide, we're not actually talking about something for which there is no alternative. Manual labour will work just as well (actually probably better because you can be more selective). Anyone who has grown a garden knows this. The question is, how much more expensive is it? Just randomly googling, I notice an article stating sugar beet is 20.30 GBP per tonne. That's apparently 1.3 US cents per pound (gotta love google calculator). Sugar is trading at 16.7 US cents per pound. Apparently standard sugar beets yield 130 kg of sugar per tonne, which handily comes out to 10.0 US cents out of the 16.7 US cents per pound of the sugar. I don't live in the US, but it's looking like the retail price is somewhere around USD $2.50 per pound (ha ha, got the price from Amazon). So the breakdown is $0.10 for the beets, 0.07 for the processing and $2.33 for distribution and packaging. The amazing thing for me is that back when I brewed beer as a hobby in Canada, I bought bulk malt directly from the maltster. 55 pound bags delivered across the country only cost a couple of dollars. There is a huge loss happening somewhere in the middle. I guess what I'm saying is that we are pinching the farmer more and more and more to shave a few cents off the price of our produce. We could double the production price and it still is an order of magnitude lower than the distribution price. Avoiding manual labour at potential cost of the environment seems insane to me. It would make much more sense to see if we can fix the distribution problem.
- raddad 11y ago
  I have driven tractor for a farmer. He claimed the cost to control weeds was about the same whether he sprayed with his tractor, hired a crop duster or migrant labor. He was a beet farmer.

40 points by nkurz 11y ago

colordrops 11y ago

The article reads like an ad for Roundup, especially the first quote by the farmer.

personjerry 11y ago
Welcome to the age of sponsored content. Semi-related reading: http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html
- colordrops 11y ago
  Crazy that I got two downvotes within 20 seconds of posting this.
  - bpodgursky 11y ago
    I downvoted because it doesn't say anything about the points raised or content of the article, it just tries to discredit the entire source, which is a commenting style I find particularly odious.
BinaryIdiot 11y ago
I mean, you're certainly not wrong. The article went from discussing the issue of going back to non-GMO on the environment to a full-on "here's the data for like 50 things that shows how awesome GMO is". While I am certainly for using GMOs (there is too much great science behind it) this article just screams "someone paid me to write this". I would have loved to see something much more focused on the topic at hand: large companies switching to non-GMO sugars to appease the current market forces and what this may mean as far as food production, etc could go. I mean the article touched on that a tiny bit here and there but not in any satisfying way in my opinion.
- smaddox 11y ago
  Bill Nye had an interesting chapter on his change of view on GMO's in one of his recent books. Personally, I see genetic engineering as the path to apotheoses. The risk of it leading us the opposite direction is very real, though. The solution is not to avoid it all together, but rather to tread carefully.
  - 7sigma 11y ago
    thats why gmos are the most tested foods in history (despite what the naysaysers say) Mutagenic crops devised with stuff like cobalt 60 was never tested. Also you can breed a potato to be poisonous. In the end its a case by case basis Edit: spelling

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

cmrdporcupine 11y ago

The comparison photo between the non-RoundupReady and RoundupReady planting is notable to me not so much because of the difference in the plant health but in the fact that it's depressing just to look at the 'soil' they're growing in. Is it typical to grow sugar beets in what is basically pure sand with no humic matter? Bleak.

burfog 11y ago
It's a root crop. Objects in the soil (twigs, leaves, stones, bark, etc.) block root growth. The same goes for carrots and potatoes. Think of it as hydroponics. It's even done for non-root crops. All tomatoes in Florida grow in pure sand. Just add water and fertilizer. BTW, this is partly because we turn our best farmland into condos. San Jose was the best place in the world for apricots; now look at it.
- cmrdporcupine 11y ago
  I am well aware of growing practices. I live on 7 acres farmland and have taken courses in agri etc. You're describing a pretty reductionist model of plant growth. Plants don't just need NPK and a few micronutrients. The interface between a healthy plant and its soil involves millions of microorganisms. And a healthy carbon content in the form of humus etc. in the soil is extremely important for water conservation and consistent root growth. Not to mention getting carbon into the top soil is a great way of getting it out of the atmosphere...
  - burfog 11y ago
    Hey, at least they have sand! Lettuce is often grown without anything solid at all. It's just liquid, indoors, under red and blue LED lighting.

x5n1 11y ago

I personally think that the focus on producing crops at breakneck speeds to feed the billions starving all over the world is a sad thing. Reduce your population you miserable people you are killing the planet. But somehow everyone believes that technology will save us all at the cost of everything else, we will survive and move to a new planet in our spaceships. > when societies industrialize, their birth rates drop How long will it take society birth rate drop to cause population to reach 1600s levels. Like they say don't hold your breath. Some day all this stuff will lead to salvation, but other than rhetoric, not in my life time or those of my children. It's a good story, but in real terms, our impact is not in any way getting better it's getting worse. And using technology, green tech, whatever, to fight technology to make everything alright just slows things down it does not actually fix anything. I doubt it ever will. Call me a pessimist about these sorts of things.

dlp211 11y ago
Sure, you start.
- x5n1 11y ago
  Gotta get my voice in the wilderness in there somehow.
Bluestrike2 11y ago
Or technology could help us maintain this one into the future and feed everyone. Even today, the biggest problem isn't food production but transport and access. Technology can absolutely help improve those areas, while providing the tools to enable more efficient local food production. And while reproducing is literally what we do, when societies industrialize, their birth rates drop. More efficient agriculture allows workers to be shifted to other sectors, a critical step in improving the quality of life in least developed countries as well as developing countries.

ced 11y ago

This is relevant information about the author, that should have been added to the article: Funding for Dr. Kniss’s program at the University of Wyoming has been provided by the following sponsors: Arysta LifeScience, BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, FMC, Hatch Act Funds – USDA, Loveland Industries, __Monsanto__, NovaSource, Repar Corporation, StateLine Bean Cooperative, Syngenta, United States Department of Agriculture National Insitute for Food and Agriculture, University of Wyoming Department of Plant Sciences, University of Wyoming School of Energy Resources, Valent, Western Sugar Cooperative, Winfield Solutions, Wyoming Agricultural Experiment Station, Wyoming Crop Improvement Association, Wyoming Department of Agriculture, Wyoming Seed Certification.

epistasis 11y ago
So, you see BASF, Bayer, Dow, Dupont, and you decide that Monsanto is the only one to highlight? These are not so significantly different.
- colordrops 11y ago
  Monsanto is the manufacturer of Roundup, which is featured very prominently in the article.

BrainInAJar 11y ago

What a fucking joke. "before <roundup ready> we had crop failures, we had sprayers running all the time" Roundup is carcinogenic. All Roundup-Ready sugarbeet means is the farmer uses a different type of toxic chemical.

BinaryIdiot 11y ago
> Roundup is carcinogenic. To be fair it's a useless distinction to simply say something is "carcinogenic". There are 5 groups of carcinogens and many foods that people eat even have chemicals that fall into those groupings ("organic" or GMO). Yes part of roundup falls into Group 2A which means it's probably carcinogenic to humans but you forget that these chemicals are both usually gone by the time the food is shipped (though you should always clean it just in case) but also in such low quantities that many studies are showing it's likely not harmful in the typical, or even heavy, usage. Regardless I don't think it's fair to try and paint is as black and white. > All Roundup-Ready sugarbeet means is the farmer uses a different type of toxic chemical. Not really. Roundup Ready means the seeds will continue to live when Roundup is used. Without that trait you have to use something much weaker (and therefore much larger quantities) to achieve something near the same affect. You should talk to some farmers. It will help shape your perspective :)

hoodoof 11y ago

It seems almost a corporate cliche to argue that any shift from GMO means "the environment pays". Only Monsanto is capable of arguing that the most environmentally friendly option for agriculture is GMO.

BinaryIdiot 11y ago
> Only Monsanto is capable of arguing that the most environmentally friendly option for agriculture is GMO. You should talk to some farmers. Seriously, it's a great way to get another perspective of someone that has to do "organic" and GMO based farming. Monsanto gets a bad wrap but a large majority of the negative press they get is simply false [1]. Regardless there are plenty of other organizations doing GMOs even if you do have an axe to grind with Monsanto. [1] http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top...
jasonjei 11y ago
On the one hand, the precautionary principle argues we should be careful of GMOs and research the long-term consequences of GMO. But there's been enough time, and it seems it's safe enough, and it's at least in GA if not public beta. On the other hand, GMOs have saved countless lives where if it weren't for GMO I'm sure millions of people would be suffering. The truth is the whole world can't shop at Whole Foods. Sustainability might eventually push out the need for GMO. But GMO despite the nastiness of Monsanto has helped many lives. I personally shop local and support local farms (that's easy in SF with the Ferry Building, Divis, and Clement). But until local farms make a resurgence worldwide, it will be difficult to push out GMO. (In fact, the seeds of a lot of GMO products cross-pollinate with so-called non-GMO; soy is one of those products where it is difficult to find unadulterated variants, despite being labeled "organic.")
- Bluestrike2 11y ago
  The precautionary principle can also be misunderstood and mis-applied. GMOs are already subject to ridiculous amounts of scrutiny for little reason than ill-informed fear. For years, the findings produced by that scrutiny have clearly rejected the idea that GMO is dangerous. But the fear lives on, in large part because people parrot the precautionary principle without recognizing that the principle necessitates a consideration of plausibility as well. Their refusal to recognize their own ignorance on the subject is no different than that of climate change deniers decrying the "scientific cabal looking for grant money." I'm not criticizing you here, because clearly you're trying to look at both sides of the issue (though I'd argue there's an empirical side, and an imagined one). But that's incredibly rare. People are scared of genetic modification, manufacturers and stores are jumping on the bandwagon so they don't lose customers, and everyone loses out without even realizing it. Anyhow, sustainable agriculture is--for better or worse--a very politicized term. It means different things to different people. But if the general idea is an approach to agriculture that seeks to minimize ecological impacts, then there's no reason to argue that genetic modification is in opposition to it. They're not. Every goal of sustainability can be furthered through genetic modification. But too many advocates of sustainability refuse to even consider the possible benefits of genetic modification.

foxylad 11y ago

I imagine sugar producers are far more concerned about the current focus on the health effects of heavy sugar consumption. Surely reduction in general demand is going to have a greater impact on prices than a small trend towards non-GMO sugar.

mikekchar 11y ago

Let me preface this comment with the acknowledgement that it's crazy talk. I don't think it can work in our modern economies. However, I have often wondered what the cost of manual labour is compared to the cost of distribution. Especially when we are talking about herbicide, we're not actually talking about something for which there is no alternative. Manual labour will work just as well (actually probably better because you can be more selective). Anyone who has grown a garden knows this. The question is, how much more expensive is it? Just randomly googling, I notice an article stating sugar beet is 20.30 GBP per tonne. That's apparently 1.3 US cents per pound (gotta love google calculator). Sugar is trading at 16.7 US cents per pound. Apparently standard sugar beets yield 130 kg of sugar per tonne, which handily comes out to 10.0 US cents out of the 16.7 US cents per pound of the sugar. I don't live in the US, but it's looking like the retail price is somewhere around USD $2.50 per pound (ha ha, got the price from Amazon). So the breakdown is $0.10 for the beets, 0.07 for the processing and $2.33 for distribution and packaging. The amazing thing for me is that back when I brewed beer as a hobby in Canada, I bought bulk malt directly from the maltster. 55 pound bags delivered across the country only cost a couple of dollars. There is a huge loss happening somewhere in the middle. I guess what I'm saying is that we are pinching the farmer more and more and more to shave a few cents off the price of our produce. We could double the production price and it still is an order of magnitude lower than the distribution price. Avoiding manual labour at potential cost of the environment seems insane to me. It would make much more sense to see if we can fix the distribution problem.

raddad 11y ago
I have driven tractor for a farmer. He claimed the cost to control weeds was about the same whether he sprayed with his tractor, hired a crop duster or migrant labor. He was a beet farmer.