4 ms·

The TED community is full of snobbery. HOWEVER: I'm glad they are blowing the whistle on pseudo science related to GMO food.

zzzeek 14y ago
some good articles and analysis regarding GMO, generally opposed to it as performed in practice (not necessarily in theory), from the Union of Concerned Scientists: http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/ http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-... > We see that the technology has potential benefits, but we are critics of its commercial application and regulation to date. GE has proved valuable in some areas (as in the contained use of engineered bacteria in pharmaceutical development), and some GE applications could turn out to play a useful role in food production. > However, its applications in agriculture so far have fallen short of expectations, and in some cases have caused serious problems. Rather than supporting a more sustainable agriculture and food system with broad societal benefits, the technology has been employed in ways that reinforce problematic industrial approaches to agriculture. Policy decisions about the use of GE have too often been driven by biotech industry PR campaigns, rather than by what science tells us about the most cost-effective ways to produce abundant food and preserve the health of our farmland. these are the real reasons GMO is better off being opposed, as long as companies like Monsanto are in charge of it.
- mseebach 14y ago
  This is a political argument masked as a scientific one. Unless they have peer reviewed research to back up their opinion, it's irrelevant to the point of dishonesty (appeal to authority) that they are scientists.
  - zzzeek 14y ago
    um. did you read any of the articles linked from that page. They are all based on factual evidence and peer-reviewed research. are you saying the union of concerned scientists just makes things up ? or that expert opinions are useless by the fact that they are opinions ? edit: here's a summation of much of what's linked from that page from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Yield http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_contr... > In 2009 the Union of Concerned Scientists summarized numerous peer-reviewed studies on the yield contribution of genetic engineering in the United States. This report examined the two most widely grown engineered crops—soybeans and maize (corn).[211] The report found that engineered herbicide tolerant soy and maize did not increase yield at the national, aggregate level. Maize engineered with Bt insect resistance genes increased national yield by about 3 to 4 percent. Engineered crops increased net yield in all cases. The study concluded that in the United States, other agricultural methods have made a much greater contribution to national crop yield increases in recent years than genetic engineering. United States Department of Agriculture data record maize yield increases of about 28 percent since engineered varieties were first commercialized in the mid 1990s. The yield contribution of engineered genes has therefore been a modest fraction—about 14 percent—of the maize yield increase since the mid 1990s.
    - robbiep 14y ago
      I find the UCS position interesting and have no argument with the data on yield increases or the ineffectiveness of Glyphosphate-resistant GM Crops in increasing yields (Although I find this questionable from personal experience). My experience relates to Cotton, not Maize (corn in the rest of the world) and so is more relevant to the discussion of fibre rather than food cropping I grew up on a cotton farm in Australia and witnessed first-hand the introduction of both Bt- (branded Bollgard by Monsanto) and Roundup-Ready Cotton varieties. I think an often overlooked aspect of the introduction of genetic modification is the Environmental and economic improvements. For Example. When we first started growing cotton (around 1993), in a bad (insect) season we would occasionally spray our crops 7-8 times. Stories abound of farmers getting planes in perhaps 15 times. Enter Bt-modified Cotton - 0 Sprays. These chemicals weren't good, and I think not spraying them was a big win for the environment. This, combined with intelligent management of resistance (Crops are required to have a 10% 'reserve' area of either unmodified Cotton or another crop the insect is attracted to, so that selective pressures don't evolve resistance), is surely a benefit that is hard to calculate and to the best of my knowledge no study of this kind has been made. Roundup ready cotton, when introduced, meant that we saved around $100,000 per field of cotton on Cotton Chipper costs (That is exactly what it sounds like - around 80-100 people walking through the rows of cotton with hoes to chip out weeds, which will otherwise grow and contaminate the crop). This had an economic effect for us, the grower (save money) - which I must admit was not all savings as of course the cost of the technology through seed must be taken into account). It also had an economic effect on the labourers - seasonal employees. It may be good or bad individually but economics suggests that those labourers are now driven further up the supply chain & re-allocated through the economy. Interestingly there would have been further environmental gains if Terminator seed technology had of been introduced. I dont want to get into the ethics of terminator technology for food crops as I am also concerned about the impact any use in that area would have on continual seed usage, particuarly in developing nations as most developed nation farms use hybrid seed which must be purchased each year anyway: But i digress Terminator technology, by rendering second generation seed sterile, would stop harsh chemicals being used to kill regrowth after the crop is harvested; and also mean that the soil may not have to be plowed which also has environmental effects in terms of fuel use, soil compaction, increased erosion and moisture loss.

zzzeek 14y ago

some good articles and analysis regarding GMO, generally opposed to it as performed in practice (not necessarily in theory), from the Union of Concerned Scientists: http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/ http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-... > We see that the technology has potential benefits, but we are critics of its commercial application and regulation to date. GE has proved valuable in some areas (as in the contained use of engineered bacteria in pharmaceutical development), and some GE applications could turn out to play a useful role in food production. > However, its applications in agriculture so far have fallen short of expectations, and in some cases have caused serious problems. Rather than supporting a more sustainable agriculture and food system with broad societal benefits, the technology has been employed in ways that reinforce problematic industrial approaches to agriculture. Policy decisions about the use of GE have too often been driven by biotech industry PR campaigns, rather than by what science tells us about the most cost-effective ways to produce abundant food and preserve the health of our farmland. these are the real reasons GMO is better off being opposed, as long as companies like Monsanto are in charge of it.

mseebach 14y ago
This is a political argument masked as a scientific one. Unless they have peer reviewed research to back up their opinion, it's irrelevant to the point of dishonesty (appeal to authority) that they are scientists.
- zzzeek 14y ago
  um. did you read any of the articles linked from that page. They are all based on factual evidence and peer-reviewed research. are you saying the union of concerned scientists just makes things up ? or that expert opinions are useless by the fact that they are opinions ? edit: here's a summation of much of what's linked from that page from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Yield http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_contr... > In 2009 the Union of Concerned Scientists summarized numerous peer-reviewed studies on the yield contribution of genetic engineering in the United States. This report examined the two most widely grown engineered crops—soybeans and maize (corn).[211] The report found that engineered herbicide tolerant soy and maize did not increase yield at the national, aggregate level. Maize engineered with Bt insect resistance genes increased national yield by about 3 to 4 percent. Engineered crops increased net yield in all cases. The study concluded that in the United States, other agricultural methods have made a much greater contribution to national crop yield increases in recent years than genetic engineering. United States Department of Agriculture data record maize yield increases of about 28 percent since engineered varieties were first commercialized in the mid 1990s. The yield contribution of engineered genes has therefore been a modest fraction—about 14 percent—of the maize yield increase since the mid 1990s.
  - robbiep 14y ago
    I find the UCS position interesting and have no argument with the data on yield increases or the ineffectiveness of Glyphosphate-resistant GM Crops in increasing yields (Although I find this questionable from personal experience). My experience relates to Cotton, not Maize (corn in the rest of the world) and so is more relevant to the discussion of fibre rather than food cropping I grew up on a cotton farm in Australia and witnessed first-hand the introduction of both Bt- (branded Bollgard by Monsanto) and Roundup-Ready Cotton varieties. I think an often overlooked aspect of the introduction of genetic modification is the Environmental and economic improvements. For Example. When we first started growing cotton (around 1993), in a bad (insect) season we would occasionally spray our crops 7-8 times. Stories abound of farmers getting planes in perhaps 15 times. Enter Bt-modified Cotton - 0 Sprays. These chemicals weren't good, and I think not spraying them was a big win for the environment. This, combined with intelligent management of resistance (Crops are required to have a 10% 'reserve' area of either unmodified Cotton or another crop the insect is attracted to, so that selective pressures don't evolve resistance), is surely a benefit that is hard to calculate and to the best of my knowledge no study of this kind has been made. Roundup ready cotton, when introduced, meant that we saved around $100,000 per field of cotton on Cotton Chipper costs (That is exactly what it sounds like - around 80-100 people walking through the rows of cotton with hoes to chip out weeds, which will otherwise grow and contaminate the crop). This had an economic effect for us, the grower (save money) - which I must admit was not all savings as of course the cost of the technology through seed must be taken into account). It also had an economic effect on the labourers - seasonal employees. It may be good or bad individually but economics suggests that those labourers are now driven further up the supply chain & re-allocated through the economy. Interestingly there would have been further environmental gains if Terminator seed technology had of been introduced. I dont want to get into the ethics of terminator technology for food crops as I am also concerned about the impact any use in that area would have on continual seed usage, particuarly in developing nations as most developed nation farms use hybrid seed which must be purchased each year anyway: But i digress Terminator technology, by rendering second generation seed sterile, would stop harsh chemicals being used to kill regrowth after the crop is harvested; and also mean that the soil may not have to be plowed which also has environmental effects in terms of fuel use, soil compaction, increased erosion and moisture loss.