5 ms·

> - GMO, again, same point above. "Sure you can have this great crop, no seeds". Again, GMO per say isn't bad, its the implementation that's bad. Why specifica

by defen 6y ago

> - GMO, again, same point above. "Sure you can have this great crop, no seeds". Again, GMO per say isn't bad, its the implementation that's bad. Why specifically is it bad? If you want non-GMO food you can just grow your own.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
Because it increases the amount of pesticides used (or incorporates them directly into the plant where they can't be rinsed off) and pollutes the natural gene pool with artificial genes. The increased amounts of pesticide run off the field and mess up the rest of the ecosystem. Now you're seeing herbicide-resistant weeds come up in these fields.
- gruez 6y ago
  >Because it increases the amount of pesticides used (or incorporates them directly into the plant where they can't be rinsed off) Does this argument work without the "all pesticides are bad" assumption? I searched up bt gene's use in pesticides[1] and it looks pretty safe. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_thuringiensis#Toxicology_studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_thuringiensis#Toxicol... >and pollutes the natural gene pool with artificial genes As opposed to the natural gene pool being constantly polluted by spontaneous mutations? Or is that fine because of the naturalistic fallacy? >The increased amounts of pesticide run off the field and mess up the rest of the ecosystem. Now you're seeing herbicide-resistant weeds come up in these fields. AFAIK this is a non-issue except to the farmers. Resistance to whatever usually comes at a cost, so in the wild the superweeds will get out-competed by their non-resistant counterparts.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    > Does this argument work without the "all pesticides are bad" assumption? I searched up bt gene's use in pesticides[1] and it looks pretty safe. Its referring to herbicide-resistant GMO crops where the pesticides are Roundup or Liberty. With regard to Bt, there's a big difference between topical application of Bt and GMO Bt corn (where the Bt is produced inside the plant so bugs are poisoned by the plant). > "all pesticides are bad" assumption Its more of a heuristic where we assume that things that are bad for biological organisms are bad for biological organisms because molecules don't make decisions about what to react with, they react with anything that forms the right molecular bonds. Since the biosphere has a lot of bimolecular pathways its not possible to categorically test everything and catalog all the possible reactions, we just know we can limit the amount of unwanted reactions by using the minimum amount of pesticide. > As opposed to the natural gene pool being constantly polluted by spontaneous mutations? They aren't in opposition because mutations don't stop when you start polluting the gene pool with GMO products. > Or is that fine because of the naturalistic fallacy? Its an application of the precautionary principle where we act in such a manner to create the least possibility of harm because the scope and extent of the effects are not known. > AFAIK this is a non-issue except to the farmers. Yes its a problem for the farmers because they can no longer rely on the herbicide to control those competitor organisms, which was the entire point of using a selective herbicide / GMO crop system. With regard to the ecosystem disruption due to pesticide runoff, its an issue for anyone who is dependent on the biosphere because of the harmful effects on biodiversity.
    - gruez 6y ago
      >Its referring to herbicide-resistant GMO crops where the pesticides are Roundup or Liberty. Roundup (aka glyphosate) seems to be pretty safe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Glyphosate_alone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Glyphosate_alone >With regard to Bt, there's a big difference between topical application of Bt and GMO Bt corn (where the Bt is produced inside the plant so bugs are poisoned by the plant). Why would there be? The wikipedia article I linked mentioned ingestion testing. It's not like they tested bt as a regular spray on pesticide, found it was safe, then approved bt gmo corn without further testing. >Since the biosphere has a lot of bimolecular pathways its not possible to categorically test everything and catalog all the possible reactions, we just know we can limit the amount of unwanted reactions by using the minimum amount of pesticide. [...] Its an application of the precautionary principle where we act in such a manner to create the least possibility of harm because the scope and extent of the effects are not known. But the scope and extent of the effects are not known. Glyphosate and bt have both been thoroughly studied. With your "precautionary principle" we'd all be not eating chocolate right now if it was first used as a pesticide (chocolate kills dogs, so if dogs were somehow a pest, it can be used as a pesticide against them). >They aren't in opposition because mutations don't stop when you start polluting the gene pool with GMO products. So mutations are intrinsically bad? In other words, if there were some way to stop naturally occurring mutations globally, you'd support it? >Yes its a problem for the farmers because they can no longer rely on the herbicide to control those competitor organisms, which was the entire point of using a selective herbicide / GMO crop system. It's a problem, but the alternative (not using any GMO/herbicide) is worst, since the weeds will still be growing out of control. At least if you used GMO/herbicide you have a few decades of weed-free growth. >With regard to the ecosystem disruption due to pesticide runoff, its an issue for anyone who is dependent on the biosphere because of the harmful effects on biodiversity. This is totally orthogonal to the discussion of GMOs. If you're worried about pesticide/herbicide run-off from farms, then you'd want to regulate it directly, rather than trying to regulate it by proxy by limiting access to technology that allows for greater pesticide/herbicide use. It's not like the threshold where herbicide levels tolerated by non-gmo crops is the same threshold that ecosystem damage occurs. Not to mention, non-gmo crops can still have their herbicide resistance raised by selective breeding.

by defen 6y ago

chordalkeyboard 6y ago

Because it increases the amount of pesticides used (or incorporates them directly into the plant where they can't be rinsed off) and pollutes the natural gene pool with artificial genes. The increased amounts of pesticide run off the field and mess up the rest of the ecosystem. Now you're seeing herbicide-resistant weeds come up in these fields.

gruez 6y ago
>Because it increases the amount of pesticides used (or incorporates them directly into the plant where they can't be rinsed off) Does this argument work without the "all pesticides are bad" assumption? I searched up bt gene's use in pesticides[1] and it looks pretty safe. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_thuringiensis#Toxicology_studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_thuringiensis#Toxicol... >and pollutes the natural gene pool with artificial genes As opposed to the natural gene pool being constantly polluted by spontaneous mutations? Or is that fine because of the naturalistic fallacy? >The increased amounts of pesticide run off the field and mess up the rest of the ecosystem. Now you're seeing herbicide-resistant weeds come up in these fields. AFAIK this is a non-issue except to the farmers. Resistance to whatever usually comes at a cost, so in the wild the superweeds will get out-competed by their non-resistant counterparts.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > Does this argument work without the "all pesticides are bad" assumption? I searched up bt gene's use in pesticides[1] and it looks pretty safe. Its referring to herbicide-resistant GMO crops where the pesticides are Roundup or Liberty. With regard to Bt, there's a big difference between topical application of Bt and GMO Bt corn (where the Bt is produced inside the plant so bugs are poisoned by the plant). > "all pesticides are bad" assumption Its more of a heuristic where we assume that things that are bad for biological organisms are bad for biological organisms because molecules don't make decisions about what to react with, they react with anything that forms the right molecular bonds. Since the biosphere has a lot of bimolecular pathways its not possible to categorically test everything and catalog all the possible reactions, we just know we can limit the amount of unwanted reactions by using the minimum amount of pesticide. > As opposed to the natural gene pool being constantly polluted by spontaneous mutations? They aren't in opposition because mutations don't stop when you start polluting the gene pool with GMO products. > Or is that fine because of the naturalistic fallacy? Its an application of the precautionary principle where we act in such a manner to create the least possibility of harm because the scope and extent of the effects are not known. > AFAIK this is a non-issue except to the farmers. Yes its a problem for the farmers because they can no longer rely on the herbicide to control those competitor organisms, which was the entire point of using a selective herbicide / GMO crop system. With regard to the ecosystem disruption due to pesticide runoff, its an issue for anyone who is dependent on the biosphere because of the harmful effects on biodiversity.
  - gruez 6y ago
    >Its referring to herbicide-resistant GMO crops where the pesticides are Roundup or Liberty. Roundup (aka glyphosate) seems to be pretty safe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Glyphosate_alone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Glyphosate_alone >With regard to Bt, there's a big difference between topical application of Bt and GMO Bt corn (where the Bt is produced inside the plant so bugs are poisoned by the plant). Why would there be? The wikipedia article I linked mentioned ingestion testing. It's not like they tested bt as a regular spray on pesticide, found it was safe, then approved bt gmo corn without further testing. >Since the biosphere has a lot of bimolecular pathways its not possible to categorically test everything and catalog all the possible reactions, we just know we can limit the amount of unwanted reactions by using the minimum amount of pesticide. [...] Its an application of the precautionary principle where we act in such a manner to create the least possibility of harm because the scope and extent of the effects are not known. But the scope and extent of the effects are not known. Glyphosate and bt have both been thoroughly studied. With your "precautionary principle" we'd all be not eating chocolate right now if it was first used as a pesticide (chocolate kills dogs, so if dogs were somehow a pest, it can be used as a pesticide against them). >They aren't in opposition because mutations don't stop when you start polluting the gene pool with GMO products. So mutations are intrinsically bad? In other words, if there were some way to stop naturally occurring mutations globally, you'd support it? >Yes its a problem for the farmers because they can no longer rely on the herbicide to control those competitor organisms, which was the entire point of using a selective herbicide / GMO crop system. It's a problem, but the alternative (not using any GMO/herbicide) is worst, since the weeds will still be growing out of control. At least if you used GMO/herbicide you have a few decades of weed-free growth. >With regard to the ecosystem disruption due to pesticide runoff, its an issue for anyone who is dependent on the biosphere because of the harmful effects on biodiversity. This is totally orthogonal to the discussion of GMOs. If you're worried about pesticide/herbicide run-off from farms, then you'd want to regulate it directly, rather than trying to regulate it by proxy by limiting access to technology that allows for greater pesticide/herbicide use. It's not like the threshold where herbicide levels tolerated by non-gmo crops is the same threshold that ecosystem damage occurs. Not to mention, non-gmo crops can still have their herbicide resistance raised by selective breeding.