5 ms·

My main problem with GMO is that it usually means: loads of pesticides and abuse of monopolistic powers, especially in poorer countries.

credit_guy 5y ago
If that’s the problem, then ban or regulate pesticides. Instead, the EU bans GMOs themselves.
ch4s3 5y ago
In practice it seems like capital intensive large scale mono-cropping does most of that without GMOs needing to make an appearance. Careful application of GMOs could probably cut the need for fertilizers and pesticides. Figuring out how to maintain some food production capacity without debt peonage in developing countries is a policy problem more than a technical problem.
- TaylorAlexander 5y ago
  In practice? A major reason for the explosion in use of the herbicide glyphosate (RoundUp) is the use of genetically modified crops that are glyphosate resistant. Because of this users of these crops can dump huge volumes of glyphosate on their farms. This is a well known example of GMO’s leading to an increase in use of biocides.
  - drewmol 5y ago
    Worth noting, the increase in desiccation practices, to prepare crops for a more scheduled harvest is also leading to a huge increase in glyphosate usage. It’s used high concentrations on crops at the last stage of crop growth just prior to harvest, in expectation of dry conditions which are ideal for harvesting, among other benefits. https://ensia.com/features/glyphosate-drying/ https://ensia.com/features/glyphosate-drying/
    - colechristensen 5y ago
      You should find a reference that has statistics for how much this is done, because I’m not sure if it’s more than rare.
  - ch4s3 5y ago
    That's not really true. Intensive herbicide use in agriculture has been around for a long time. Sugar cane plantations used so much sodium arsenite in the 1800s that it regularly killed working animals and farm employees. Glyphosate was developed to be less toxic to humans and to require far less to be appied 100 pounds per acre vs 1 ton per acre of older herbicides. Yes, 1 ton per acre was the dosage rate for carbon bisulfide, borax, and arsenic trioxide prior to glyophosphate's development in 1974. Even when glyphosate is used as a desiccant it's still used at lower rates than the chemicals it replaced, and is far less dangerous for farmers.
- klyrs 5y ago
  The abuse of monopoly powers is a very GMO-specific issue: roundup-resistant strains are patented, so where farmers used to retain enough seed to re-plant the next season, they're now hooked on a subscription model and their "non-GMO" neighbors are in risk of crippling lawsuits because an illiterate bee thought it would be cool to pollinate two fields on the same day.
  - aerostable_slug 5y ago
    > risk of crippling lawsuits because an illiterate bee thought it would be cool to pollinate two fields on the same day AFAIK, this has never happened. Monsanto states they have policy against it ever happening. The infringement lawsuits I'm aware of, including the ones the anti-GMO crowd like to trot out, sure seem like pretty clear cases of wilful infringement.
    - GauntletWizard 5y ago
      Absolutely, so let me take a different position: I acknowledge that all of the Monsanto Infringement lawsuits have involved farmers who a) Purchased Roundup-Resistant seed from Monsanto b) under contract with Monsanto c) that included a provision not to replant the seed derived from those crops. It is my opinion, as a political stance, that that provision c is against natural law as well as the laws of man, and is therefore null and void. Farmers, even big corporate ones, should be allowed to replant the seed of their crops, and it's unconscionable to restrict that.
      - thaumasiotes 5y ago
        I thought there had been a lawsuit against a farmer who intentionally planted a crop near someone else's roundup-ready crop and then bred the resulting seeds for roundup resistance. Like you, I take the view toward that (potentially hypothetical?) case that the farmer's evident intent to infringe Monsanto's intellectual property is irrelevant because he hasn't done anything wrong. In that case, he is not even party to an agreement, though note that violating a patent doesn't require you to be party to an agreement.
drewmol 5y ago
Slight correction, it leads to loads of herbicide usage (glyphosate). The process of desiccation also leads to loads of glyphosate being used just prior to harvest, on non ‘Roundup Ready’ (glyphosate resistant) crops, which may be worse as it doesn’t get rinsed off since it’s used in the drying phase. See: https://ensia.com/features/glyphosate-drying/ https://ensia.com/features/glyphosate-drying/
- sjg007 5y ago
  Ummm no, less herbicide actually
  - margalabargala 5y ago
    I think you might be confusing herbicides and pesticides. Some GMO crops can lead to less pesticide usage as the plants can sometimes be engineered to be resistant to the pests targeted. Weed plants don't generally attack the crop plant directly, instead they merely grow nearby and compete for various resources that the crops would otherwise be able to use. GMO crops can be engineered to be resistant to specific herbicides. This leads to more of that herbicide (generally glyphosate) being used, since more herbicide = fewer weeds, and amounts of glyphosate that would kill non-GMO crops are tolerated by GMO crops.
    - sjg007 5y ago
      Nope I meant herbicide. Look it up.
      - _jal 5y ago
        No. If you want your assertions to be taken seriously around here, providing your own citations for your claims would help.
        sjg007 5y ago
        You all think you know what you are talking about but never look at the research. https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14865 https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14865
spaetzleesser 5y ago
I remember all the PR about GMO that told us that GMO makes plants resistant against pests so pesticides would be less necessary. Turns out the main use for GMO was to make the plants more resistant against herbicides so even more could be used. Very disappointing and a very cynical campaign by industry. I guess the same happened with the push for plastics recycling by industry which also turned out be pure deception.
- _whiteCaps_ 5y ago
  Cory Doctorow had a good thread on this a few days ago. https://pluralistic.net/2022/04/26/plastic-fatalistic/#recycled-lies https://pluralistic.net/2022/04/26/plastic-fatalistic/#recyc...
- pydry 5y ago
  I noticed GMO propaganda mostly focuses on how safe GMO crops are by themselves and glosses over roundup completely. They have a tendency to link GMO detractors to global warming denial and antivaxxers also.
  - iratewizard 5y ago
    It works. I wouldn't be surprised if big foot, chemtrails and flat earth all receive support from people who weaponize the label "conspiracy theory"
    - spaetzleesser 5y ago
      That would be the Putin and global warming “sceptic” playbook. Put so much bullshit out that nobody believes anything anymore.
- pkaye 5y ago
  Additional pesticides/herbicides cost more money to the farmer. So why would farmers continue to use GMOs if their cost would go up?
  - 5y ago
rmason 5y ago
You have that completely wrong. GMO's ushered in reduced pesticide use and the pesticides that are used are safer. I say this as a fertilizer company agronomist that was working when GMO's appeared. The amount of fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) around GMO's is high.
- simulate-me 5y ago
  The only papers I've seen that indicate GMO has reduced pesticide use were published by various industry groups with unclear ties to pesticide manufacturers. Academic papers seem to indicate pesticide use is higher, especially as the pests develop a resistance to the pesticide. E.g. https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2190-4715-24-24 https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2190-471... > Contrary to often-repeated claims that today’s genetically-engineered crops have, and are reducing pesticide use, the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds in herbicide-resistant weed management systems has brought about substantial increases in the number and volume of herbicides applied.
  - xxpor 5y ago
    People in this thread don't agree on the definition of "pesticide" The linked paper does say insecticide use went down, but herbicide use went up.
    - simulate-me 5y ago
      Grouping insecticide and herbicide together: > Overall, pesticide use increased by an estimated 183 million kgs (404 million pounds), or about 7%.
- christophilus 5y ago
  I meant herbicides, so my original comment is wrong. That said, I’d be surprised if GMO really has managed to reduce pesticide usage. I’m pretty skeptical of big-tobacco-like scientific studies. Do you know of a good study that shows this, and which isn’t funded by Bayer or some similarly motivated company?

credit_guy 5y ago

If that’s the problem, then ban or regulate pesticides. Instead, the EU bans GMOs themselves.

ch4s3 5y ago

In practice it seems like capital intensive large scale mono-cropping does most of that without GMOs needing to make an appearance. Careful application of GMOs could probably cut the need for fertilizers and pesticides. Figuring out how to maintain some food production capacity without debt peonage in developing countries is a policy problem more than a technical problem.

TaylorAlexander 5y ago
In practice? A major reason for the explosion in use of the herbicide glyphosate (RoundUp) is the use of genetically modified crops that are glyphosate resistant. Because of this users of these crops can dump huge volumes of glyphosate on their farms. This is a well known example of GMO’s leading to an increase in use of biocides.
- drewmol 5y ago
  Worth noting, the increase in desiccation practices, to prepare crops for a more scheduled harvest is also leading to a huge increase in glyphosate usage. It’s used high concentrations on crops at the last stage of crop growth just prior to harvest, in expectation of dry conditions which are ideal for harvesting, among other benefits. https://ensia.com/features/glyphosate-drying/ https://ensia.com/features/glyphosate-drying/
  - colechristensen 5y ago
    You should find a reference that has statistics for how much this is done, because I’m not sure if it’s more than rare.
- ch4s3 5y ago
  That's not really true. Intensive herbicide use in agriculture has been around for a long time. Sugar cane plantations used so much sodium arsenite in the 1800s that it regularly killed working animals and farm employees. Glyphosate was developed to be less toxic to humans and to require far less to be appied 100 pounds per acre vs 1 ton per acre of older herbicides. Yes, 1 ton per acre was the dosage rate for carbon bisulfide, borax, and arsenic trioxide prior to glyophosphate's development in 1974. Even when glyphosate is used as a desiccant it's still used at lower rates than the chemicals it replaced, and is far less dangerous for farmers.
klyrs 5y ago
The abuse of monopoly powers is a very GMO-specific issue: roundup-resistant strains are patented, so where farmers used to retain enough seed to re-plant the next season, they're now hooked on a subscription model and their "non-GMO" neighbors are in risk of crippling lawsuits because an illiterate bee thought it would be cool to pollinate two fields on the same day.
- aerostable_slug 5y ago
  > risk of crippling lawsuits because an illiterate bee thought it would be cool to pollinate two fields on the same day AFAIK, this has never happened. Monsanto states they have policy against it ever happening. The infringement lawsuits I'm aware of, including the ones the anti-GMO crowd like to trot out, sure seem like pretty clear cases of wilful infringement.
  - GauntletWizard 5y ago
    Absolutely, so let me take a different position: I acknowledge that all of the Monsanto Infringement lawsuits have involved farmers who a) Purchased Roundup-Resistant seed from Monsanto b) under contract with Monsanto c) that included a provision not to replant the seed derived from those crops. It is my opinion, as a political stance, that that provision c is against natural law as well as the laws of man, and is therefore null and void. Farmers, even big corporate ones, should be allowed to replant the seed of their crops, and it's unconscionable to restrict that.
    - thaumasiotes 5y ago
      I thought there had been a lawsuit against a farmer who intentionally planted a crop near someone else's roundup-ready crop and then bred the resulting seeds for roundup resistance. Like you, I take the view toward that (potentially hypothetical?) case that the farmer's evident intent to infringe Monsanto's intellectual property is irrelevant because he hasn't done anything wrong. In that case, he is not even party to an agreement, though note that violating a patent doesn't require you to be party to an agreement.

drewmol 5y ago

Slight correction, it leads to loads of herbicide usage (glyphosate). The process of desiccation also leads to loads of glyphosate being used just prior to harvest, on non ‘Roundup Ready’ (glyphosate resistant) crops, which may be worse as it doesn’t get rinsed off since it’s used in the drying phase. See: https://ensia.com/features/glyphosate-drying/ https://ensia.com/features/glyphosate-drying/

sjg007 5y ago
Ummm no, less herbicide actually
- margalabargala 5y ago
  I think you might be confusing herbicides and pesticides. Some GMO crops can lead to less pesticide usage as the plants can sometimes be engineered to be resistant to the pests targeted. Weed plants don't generally attack the crop plant directly, instead they merely grow nearby and compete for various resources that the crops would otherwise be able to use. GMO crops can be engineered to be resistant to specific herbicides. This leads to more of that herbicide (generally glyphosate) being used, since more herbicide = fewer weeds, and amounts of glyphosate that would kill non-GMO crops are tolerated by GMO crops.
  - sjg007 5y ago
    Nope I meant herbicide. Look it up.
    - _jal 5y ago
      No. If you want your assertions to be taken seriously around here, providing your own citations for your claims would help.
      - sjg007 5y ago
        You all think you know what you are talking about but never look at the research. https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14865 https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14865

spaetzleesser 5y ago

I remember all the PR about GMO that told us that GMO makes plants resistant against pests so pesticides would be less necessary. Turns out the main use for GMO was to make the plants more resistant against herbicides so even more could be used. Very disappointing and a very cynical campaign by industry. I guess the same happened with the push for plastics recycling by industry which also turned out be pure deception.

_whiteCaps_ 5y ago
Cory Doctorow had a good thread on this a few days ago. https://pluralistic.net/2022/04/26/plastic-fatalistic/#recycled-lies https://pluralistic.net/2022/04/26/plastic-fatalistic/#recyc...
pydry 5y ago
I noticed GMO propaganda mostly focuses on how safe GMO crops are by themselves and glosses over roundup completely. They have a tendency to link GMO detractors to global warming denial and antivaxxers also.
- iratewizard 5y ago
  It works. I wouldn't be surprised if big foot, chemtrails and flat earth all receive support from people who weaponize the label "conspiracy theory"
  - spaetzleesser 5y ago
    That would be the Putin and global warming “sceptic” playbook. Put so much bullshit out that nobody believes anything anymore.
pkaye 5y ago
Additional pesticides/herbicides cost more money to the farmer. So why would farmers continue to use GMOs if their cost would go up?
- 5y ago

rmason 5y ago

You have that completely wrong. GMO's ushered in reduced pesticide use and the pesticides that are used are safer. I say this as a fertilizer company agronomist that was working when GMO's appeared. The amount of fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) around GMO's is high.

simulate-me 5y ago
The only papers I've seen that indicate GMO has reduced pesticide use were published by various industry groups with unclear ties to pesticide manufacturers. Academic papers seem to indicate pesticide use is higher, especially as the pests develop a resistance to the pesticide. E.g. https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2190-4715-24-24 https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2190-471... > Contrary to often-repeated claims that today’s genetically-engineered crops have, and are reducing pesticide use, the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds in herbicide-resistant weed management systems has brought about substantial increases in the number and volume of herbicides applied.
- xxpor 5y ago
  People in this thread don't agree on the definition of "pesticide" The linked paper does say insecticide use went down, but herbicide use went up.
  - simulate-me 5y ago
    Grouping insecticide and herbicide together: > Overall, pesticide use increased by an estimated 183 million kgs (404 million pounds), or about 7%.
christophilus 5y ago
I meant herbicides, so my original comment is wrong. That said, I’d be surprised if GMO really has managed to reduce pesticide usage. I’m pretty skeptical of big-tobacco-like scientific studies. Do you know of a good study that shows this, and which isn’t funded by Bayer or some similarly motivated company?