5 ms·

My objection to GMOs is not the gene modifications; it is that in practice they're modified to allow an increased use of pesticides/herbicides such as glysophat

My objection to GMOs is not the gene modifications; it is that in practice they're modified to allow an increased use of pesticides/herbicides such as glysophate. I'd rather not have glysophate in my food. However, this is difficult to quantify, and often disputed by industry groups. Ideally, the use of pesticides/herbicides would be tracked throughout the entire supply chain, so that consumers could have an accurate accounting of the use of pesticides on the food they're consuming. Sadly, the odds of this happening are nil, so we're left with the choice of buying organic and hoping the pesticides/herbicides they used aren't too bad for us. Of course, we can also buy directly from farmers, but that is not practical for most of us, and certainly not for all of our foods. I just want to be able to choose my poison ;)

sachdevap 8y ago
See that is a measured opinion that I can agree with. :) I do agree with the pesticide/herbicide use tracking and that lobbying is keeping the much needed regulations from being put in place. OP's contention ("GMO plants with all kinds of non-long-term-tested gene modifications"), however, is just meaningless speculation.
- monetus 8y ago
  What I pay attention to in that statement is "non-long-term-tested". Without multiple life-long studies that reach a consensus, people will fear GMOs are going to turn out like cigarettes.
  - sachdevap 8y ago
    We hardly put that level of scrutiny on any day to day use products. Multiple studies show that there are various carcinogens we live with on a regular basis. Thousands of new intermediary chemicals are created on an everyday basis without any sensible level of regulation. Even cigarettes, in your analogy were created without any regulation, and continue till date. Overconsumption of calories from soda is a well known problem, but as a society we love them anyway. Somehow when it comes to GMO, for some reason the burden of proof is so much higher. The chances that GMOs would be terribly bad for our health is much closer to sci-fi than reality, given how much leeway is provided for other consumer products we regularly use, apply, and consume in our lives.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      >We hardly put that level of scrutiny on any day to day use products. We really should. https://io9.gizmodo.com/seriously-scary-radioactive-consumer-products-from-the-498044380 https://io9.gizmodo.com/seriously-scary-radioactive-consumer...
sampo 8y ago
> I'd rather not have glysophate in my food. Glyphosate (you spelled it wrong) is widely used in non-GMO agriculture as well. Avoiding GMO doesn't do much in avoiding glyphosate. Glyphosate is also probably the most widely studied and the most harmless of the herbicides. Replacing glyphosate with some other chemicals is not necessarily a win. Even going organic doesn't free you from all herbicides and pesticides, some of them are allowed to be used in organic farming. And if you really go pesticide free, you start to have more insect damage in crops, which provide entry points for molds to attack the crops. And some of the toxins produced by molds are really potent. If you want to avoid residues of harmful chemicals, going 100% pesticide free is probably not the optimum.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- hollerith 8y ago
  >Avoiding GMO doesn't do much in avoiding glyphosate Uh, being able to tolerate more glyphosate was the entire reason for genetically modifying a lot of the GMOs currently in widespread use. In other words, glyphosate is used at many times the concentration it used to be used at precisely because of the introduction of GMOs (because that was the whole point of introducing those particular GMOs). >insect damage in crops, which provide entry points for molds to attack the crops. And some of the toxins produced by molds are really potent. Insect damage is easy to see (at least on whole produce, not counting processed foods); glyphosate residues on the other hand is hard to detect.
  - sampo 8y ago
    Glyphosate is also used as a "desiccant" to prepare the crop (talking about crops like grains, corn, beans, but also others) for harvest. You spray a desiccant to either kill or at least harm the crop plants, a little before harvest so that in the subsequent days the plants start to wilt and dry in the field. Then you can harvest a drier crop, need to spend less effort to dry it post-harvest, and a drier crop is less susceptible to spoilage. Your very purpose is to "desiccate", that is to kill or harm, the plants before harvest. So you don't need to care about concentrations (expect from the point of view of regulations, how much glyphosate residue is allowed in the food products). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_desiccation#Glyphosate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_desiccation#Glyphosate Using glyphosate like this is banned in some countries (Switzerland, Nordic Countries come to mind), but it is widely used in most of the world. It has nothing to do with GMOs, it is widely used to desiccate wheat, for example, and there is no GMO wheat anywhere in commercial production. I am no expert, but I'd guess this is the main source of glyphosate residues in food.

sachdevap 8y ago

See that is a measured opinion that I can agree with. :) I do agree with the pesticide/herbicide use tracking and that lobbying is keeping the much needed regulations from being put in place. OP's contention ("GMO plants with all kinds of non-long-term-tested gene modifications"), however, is just meaningless speculation.

monetus 8y ago
What I pay attention to in that statement is "non-long-term-tested". Without multiple life-long studies that reach a consensus, people will fear GMOs are going to turn out like cigarettes.
- sachdevap 8y ago
  We hardly put that level of scrutiny on any day to day use products. Multiple studies show that there are various carcinogens we live with on a regular basis. Thousands of new intermediary chemicals are created on an everyday basis without any sensible level of regulation. Even cigarettes, in your analogy were created without any regulation, and continue till date. Overconsumption of calories from soda is a well known problem, but as a society we love them anyway. Somehow when it comes to GMO, for some reason the burden of proof is so much higher. The chances that GMOs would be terribly bad for our health is much closer to sci-fi than reality, given how much leeway is provided for other consumer products we regularly use, apply, and consume in our lives.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >We hardly put that level of scrutiny on any day to day use products. We really should. https://io9.gizmodo.com/seriously-scary-radioactive-consumer-products-from-the-498044380 https://io9.gizmodo.com/seriously-scary-radioactive-consumer...

sampo 8y ago

> I'd rather not have glysophate in my food. Glyphosate (you spelled it wrong) is widely used in non-GMO agriculture as well. Avoiding GMO doesn't do much in avoiding glyphosate. Glyphosate is also probably the most widely studied and the most harmless of the herbicides. Replacing glyphosate with some other chemicals is not necessarily a win. Even going organic doesn't free you from all herbicides and pesticides, some of them are allowed to be used in organic farming. And if you really go pesticide free, you start to have more insect damage in crops, which provide entry points for molds to attack the crops. And some of the toxins produced by molds are really potent. If you want to avoid residues of harmful chemicals, going 100% pesticide free is probably not the optimum.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
hollerith 8y ago
>Avoiding GMO doesn't do much in avoiding glyphosate Uh, being able to tolerate more glyphosate was the entire reason for genetically modifying a lot of the GMOs currently in widespread use. In other words, glyphosate is used at many times the concentration it used to be used at precisely because of the introduction of GMOs (because that was the whole point of introducing those particular GMOs). >insect damage in crops, which provide entry points for molds to attack the crops. And some of the toxins produced by molds are really potent. Insect damage is easy to see (at least on whole produce, not counting processed foods); glyphosate residues on the other hand is hard to detect.
- sampo 8y ago
  Glyphosate is also used as a "desiccant" to prepare the crop (talking about crops like grains, corn, beans, but also others) for harvest. You spray a desiccant to either kill or at least harm the crop plants, a little before harvest so that in the subsequent days the plants start to wilt and dry in the field. Then you can harvest a drier crop, need to spend less effort to dry it post-harvest, and a drier crop is less susceptible to spoilage. Your very purpose is to "desiccate", that is to kill or harm, the plants before harvest. So you don't need to care about concentrations (expect from the point of view of regulations, how much glyphosate residue is allowed in the food products). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_desiccation#Glyphosate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_desiccation#Glyphosate Using glyphosate like this is banned in some countries (Switzerland, Nordic Countries come to mind), but it is widely used in most of the world. It has nothing to do with GMOs, it is widely used to desiccate wheat, for example, and there is no GMO wheat anywhere in commercial production. I am no expert, but I'd guess this is the main source of glyphosate residues in food.