4 ms·

> This is not about "societal benefit". Nobody but Monsanto benefits from Roundup Ready products That's just not true. Society benefits because we can avoid ap

by Blahah 13y ago

> This is not about "societal benefit". Nobody but Monsanto benefits from Roundup Ready products That's just not true. Society benefits because we can avoid applying much more toxic and environmentally damaging herbicides and pesticides by using engineered resistance to pests or to harmless herbicides. > They are a net detriment to society since the continual use of glyphosate will select for Roundup resistant weeds This is a fallacy. All herbicide use selects for herbicide resistance. Herbicide resistance is a problem completely independent of GMOs, and is in no way exacerbated by using GMOs. Farmers have to use a huge quantity of herbicide regardless of whether they are growing GMOs cotton or organic quinoa. > Then there's the issue of residual glyphosate in our food supply. The whole point of using glyphosate is that it's one of the least harmful herbicides ever discovered. There is very little evidence of harm to humans even at much high doses than you would get in a lifetime of eating glyphosate-soaked food. Contrast that to every other broad action herbicide, which have various levels of toxicity but invariably higher than none.

unclebucknasty 13y ago
>This is a fallacy. All herbicide use selects for herbicide resistance. Herbicide resistance is a problem completely independent of GMOs, and is in no way exacerbated by using GMOs Actually, it's your comment there that contains the fallacy. Roundup-Ready GM crops are designed to survive Roundup dosing (obviously). This leads to an overall increase in Roundup use and a corresponding increase in Roundup resistance. You may say that herbicide resistance can be found to exist with non-GMOs, but you cannot say that "resistance is in no way exacerbated by using GMOs". The latter is positively and obviously false.
- Blahah 13y ago
  > Roundup-Ready GM crops are designed to survive Roundup dosing (obviously). This leads to an overall increase in Roundup use and a corresponding increase in Roundup resistance. Right, but without roundup farmers have to use at least as much of a different set of herbicides, at different times in the crop cycle. Using roundup leads to an increase in the overall resistance to roundup and a decrease in the resistance to 2,4-D, paraquat, etc. The problem exists independently of GMOs. >you cannot say that "resistance is in no way exacerbated by using GMOs" Yes, I can. Resistance to Roundup is exacerbated by using Roundup-Ready GMOs, while resistance to other herbicides is decreased.
  - unclebucknasty 13y ago
    >Yes, I can. Resistance to Roundup is exacerbated by using Roundup-Ready GMOs, while resistance to other herbicides is decreased. No, you can't. Well, you can...in the same way that you can say up is down and down is up. That's literally what you're doing. You previously stated that resistance is no way exacerbated by using GMOs. Now you're saying that it is for one GMO, but trying to qualify it with a "but". Too late. You've already conceded the point. Now you're trying to lawyer it. With your initial claim refuted, we can move on to your qualifier. That is, whether there is some secondary effect whereby resistance to other herbicides is decreased in direct proportion would be another question. But, you fail on that point as well. Resistance is dose dependent. GMOs allow higher dosing. It's the entire point. The more herbicide-resistant GMOs we use, the more herbicides we'll use and the more resistance we'll see. It's really as simple as that.
    - Blahah 13y ago
      It's no use trying to be clever with words when you aren't being clever with facts. You are simply wrong, empirically and logically. > You previously stated that resistance is no way exacerbated by using GMOs. Now you're saying that it is for one GMO, but trying to qualify it with a "but". Too late. You've already conceded the point. Now you're trying to lawyer it. Total rates of herbicide resistance have not increased since the introduction of herbicide resistant GMOs. The rate of glyphosate resistance has increased, while the rate of resistance to many other herbicides (e.g. ureas, dinitroanilines, atrazine) has slowed by a greater total rate. > Resistance is dose dependent. GMOs allow higher dosing. It's the entire point. 1. Dose dependence of resistance doesn't mean what you think it means. When we say resistance is dose dependent, that means the plant is resistant only up to a threshold dose, beyond which it will suffer the normal symptoms of toxicity. It does not mean "the more herbicide we apply the more resistance there will be". 2. Glyphosate resistance does not allow higher dosing, it allows lower dosing after the crop has been planted (non-resistant crops in general have the land treated with extreme doses several weeks before sowing). 3. Herbicides select for resistance with different strengths, related to how easily mutations can lead to resistance. Glyphosate is a relatively low selector for resistance. Atrazine is an example of a very strongly resistance-selecting herbicide. By reducing the use of strongly-selecting herbicides like atrazine, Roundup-ready decreases the aggregate strength of selection for resistance. > The more herbicide-resistant GMOs we use, the more herbicides we'll use and the more resistance we'll see. No. The introduction of herbicide resistant GMOs has led to a reduction in the rate of herbicides applied for most crops, or approximately similar rates of less harmful herbicides applied in other crops.

by Blahah 13y ago

unclebucknasty 13y ago

>This is a fallacy. All herbicide use selects for herbicide resistance. Herbicide resistance is a problem completely independent of GMOs, and is in no way exacerbated by using GMOs Actually, it's your comment there that contains the fallacy. Roundup-Ready GM crops are designed to survive Roundup dosing (obviously). This leads to an overall increase in Roundup use and a corresponding increase in Roundup resistance. You may say that herbicide resistance can be found to exist with non-GMOs, but you cannot say that "resistance is in no way exacerbated by using GMOs". The latter is positively and obviously false.

Blahah 13y ago
> Roundup-Ready GM crops are designed to survive Roundup dosing (obviously). This leads to an overall increase in Roundup use and a corresponding increase in Roundup resistance. Right, but without roundup farmers have to use at least as much of a different set of herbicides, at different times in the crop cycle. Using roundup leads to an increase in the overall resistance to roundup and a decrease in the resistance to 2,4-D, paraquat, etc. The problem exists independently of GMOs. >you cannot say that "resistance is in no way exacerbated by using GMOs" Yes, I can. Resistance to Roundup is exacerbated by using Roundup-Ready GMOs, while resistance to other herbicides is decreased.
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  >Yes, I can. Resistance to Roundup is exacerbated by using Roundup-Ready GMOs, while resistance to other herbicides is decreased. No, you can't. Well, you can...in the same way that you can say up is down and down is up. That's literally what you're doing. You previously stated that resistance is no way exacerbated by using GMOs. Now you're saying that it is for one GMO, but trying to qualify it with a "but". Too late. You've already conceded the point. Now you're trying to lawyer it. With your initial claim refuted, we can move on to your qualifier. That is, whether there is some secondary effect whereby resistance to other herbicides is decreased in direct proportion would be another question. But, you fail on that point as well. Resistance is dose dependent. GMOs allow higher dosing. It's the entire point. The more herbicide-resistant GMOs we use, the more herbicides we'll use and the more resistance we'll see. It's really as simple as that.
  - Blahah 13y ago
    It's no use trying to be clever with words when you aren't being clever with facts. You are simply wrong, empirically and logically. > You previously stated that resistance is no way exacerbated by using GMOs. Now you're saying that it is for one GMO, but trying to qualify it with a "but". Too late. You've already conceded the point. Now you're trying to lawyer it. Total rates of herbicide resistance have not increased since the introduction of herbicide resistant GMOs. The rate of glyphosate resistance has increased, while the rate of resistance to many other herbicides (e.g. ureas, dinitroanilines, atrazine) has slowed by a greater total rate. > Resistance is dose dependent. GMOs allow higher dosing. It's the entire point. 1. Dose dependence of resistance doesn't mean what you think it means. When we say resistance is dose dependent, that means the plant is resistant only up to a threshold dose, beyond which it will suffer the normal symptoms of toxicity. It does not mean "the more herbicide we apply the more resistance there will be". 2. Glyphosate resistance does not allow higher dosing, it allows lower dosing after the crop has been planted (non-resistant crops in general have the land treated with extreme doses several weeks before sowing). 3. Herbicides select for resistance with different strengths, related to how easily mutations can lead to resistance. Glyphosate is a relatively low selector for resistance. Atrazine is an example of a very strongly resistance-selecting herbicide. By reducing the use of strongly-selecting herbicides like atrazine, Roundup-ready decreases the aggregate strength of selection for resistance. > The more herbicide-resistant GMOs we use, the more herbicides we'll use and the more resistance we'll see. No. The introduction of herbicide resistant GMOs has led to a reduction in the rate of herbicides applied for most crops, or approximately similar rates of less harmful herbicides applied in other crops.