16 ms·

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

by 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.

by ch4s3 5y ago

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.