Global acreage of genetically modified crops jumped 12 percent in 2007 -- "the second highest increase in global biotech crop area in the last five years," gushes a report from the pro-GMO International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA).
Farmers planted an additional 30 million acres of GM crops in 2007, an area nearly equal to the land mass of Iowa (a huge swath of which itself is planted in GM crops). Overall, GM crops cover 282.4 million acres, ISAAA claims -- up from zero as recently as 1994.
ISAAA hails the GM explosion as a boon to humanity, ignoring serious evidence that genetically altered food presents health risks. The group also doesn't mention that the GM acreage is essentially limited to four massive crops: corn, soy, cotton, and canola. That means that a sizabale swath of the globe's arable land is planted from a startlingly narrow genetic base. Nor does it mention that a single company, Monsanto, dominates this huge and growing market. (It holds the patents on 91 percent of global GM soy, 97 percent of corn, 63 percent of cotton, and 59 percent of canola).
Finally, the report ignores the cascade of Roundup (glyphosate), Monsanto's flagship herbicide, that has accompanied the rise of GM. As the Center for Food Safety writes in a report released this week (PDF), the great bulk of GM crops -- covering four out of five GM acres planted -- are engineered to withstand lashings of Roundup.
In the U.S. alone, glyphosate use jumped by a factor of 15 between 1994 and 2005, CFS claims. And this herbicide gusher has given rise to a host of "superweeds" -- weeds that tolerate heavy doses glyphosate. How do farmers deal with superweeds? By jacking up the dose of glyphosate.
The trend of increased rate of glyphosate use is clear. For soybeans, per-acre applications of Monsanto's herbicide jumped by a factor of 2.5 between 1994 and 2006. Corn farmers didn't really embrace GMOs until 2002; accordingly, between 2002 and 2005, glyphosate use on corn "jumped from 0.71 to 0.96 lbs./acre/year, a hefty 35% increase in just three years."
Farmers of Roundup Ready crops appear to have entered a pesticide treadmill. They have to raise application rates to keep up with resistance; and every time they do, they create hardier and hardier weeds. Monsanto, which expects to rake in $1.4 billion in profit from Roundup sales alone this year, is evidently laughing its way to the bank.
Moreover, the cascade of Roundup has not even slowed down use of other, more toxic herbicides. Between 2002 and 2005, CFS reports, even as corn farmers were jacking up Roundup use, they also increased use of atrazine 12 percent (atrazine is applied to clear fields of weeds before planting, so it does it doesn't affect the crops.) A similar trend holds for soy.
The CFS report contains other interesting analysis as well. For all the hype around GMOs, the group points out, "they continue to be the province of a handful of nations with highly-industrialized, export-oriented agricultural sectors." The report continues:
Over 90 percent of the area planted to GM crops is found in just 5 countries located in North & South America: the US, Canada, Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay. One country alone, the United States, produces over 50 percent of the world's GM crops; the U.S. and Argentina together grow over 70% of all GM crops.
Moreover, for all the hype about who GMOs are going to "feed the world" and "save Africa from starvation," and for all the billions Monsanto has raked in, the industry has only succeeded in rolling out two traits: herbicide tolerance and insect resistance.
Despite more than a decade of hype and failed promises, the biotechnology industry has not introduced a single GM crop with increased yield, enhanced nutrition, drought-tolerance or salt-tolerance. Disease-tolerant GM crops are practically non-existent. In fact, biotech companies have made a commercial success of GM crops with just two traits -- herbicide tolerance and insect resistance -- which offer no advantages to consumers or the environment.
Some will argue with that last point, no doubt. GM apologists will say that the industry's insect-resistance trait has lowered the use of pesticides. CFS concedes this point, reporting that Bt corn and cotton have reduced pesticide use by 16 million pounds in the U.S. since the technology rolled out. That reduction, however, "has been swamped by a much larger increase in herbicide use on herbicide-tolerant crops (+138 million lbs.)."
Moreover, we have no idea what it means to cover millions of acres in plants that contain their own insecticides.
Will Africa’s farmland become a ‘resource curse’?
Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots
Comments
View as Flat
TheJewAndTheCarrot Posted 8:16 am
14 Feb 2008
One of the contributors at The Jew & The Carrot blog posted a related (and disheartening) article about GE-modified sugar beets. I didn't realize until reading it how much sugar beets are a part of the American diet, and how vulnerable they are to the folks at Monsanto:
http://jcarrot.org/ge-sugar-coming-soon-to-candy-in-you/
Leah Koenig
Editor, The Jew & The Carrot blog
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 8:57 am
14 Feb 2008
"How do farmers deal with superweeds? By jacking up the dose of glyphosate."
I don't know much about this particular problem, so please enlighten me. When I select for plants resistant to antibiotics or herbicides in the lab, they are either resistant or not resistant. Jacking up the dose generally doesn't harm the plants that are already resistant. I admit this could be a laboratory artifact or not apparent for the plants I work with.
But furthermore, if farmers are growing a certain crop resistant to glyphosate and resistant weeds emerge, wouldn't the jacked up level of glyphosate kill the crop AND the weeds?
I'm a bit skeptical that farmers are spraying more glyphosate per acre of RoundUp-resistant corn to attack resistant weeds. Perhaps RoundUp sprayed per acre has increased for other reasons. Perhaps there were fields the farmers did not spray in the past and the increase you site is a reflection of more RoundUp-resistant corn being planted. The amount used per acre could actually go down, but not appear in the overall average if the amount of RoundUp-resistant corn has gone up.
Please direct me to some more-precise numbers regarding this matter or studies of how much RoundUp farmers are applying to RoundUp-resistant crops.
Tom also wrote...
"Moreover, we have no idea what it means to cover millions of acres in plants that contain their own insecticides."
Tom should mention that the deadly insecticides he is referring to are likely the same proteins that he might -- by using bacteria instead of engineering plants to express the proteins -- apply to his own organic crops. As I asked elsewhere, which is more frightening... millions of acreas of crops expressing Bt proteins in their leaves or roots and killing only the bugs that eat the leaves or roots... or millions of acres of crops sprayed with various stains of Bt bacteria and killing endangered butterfly and moth caterpillars that feed on nearby wild plants. The spraying of Bt bacteria in urban areas to kill gypsy moths inflicts enormous collateral damage on endangered non-target insects and, indirectly, on birds and reptiles dependent upon those insects.
Perhaps I'm a bit irritated by the Bt matter because I thought I was being environmentally responsible the first time I went to the garden center to purchase Bt to use in my own garden. I figured spraying a natural compound was fairly safe and it would biodegrade. Greenwashing! I learned later that I was spraying bacteria on my garden, bacteria related to the same species that causes anthrax! Bacteria that can kill not only the bug I wanted to get rid of, but other insects as well, insects not even interested in the plants I was trying to grow. Why would I want to do such a thing? And why would that ever be better than using a GM plant? I have to wonder how many other people think Bt is just a natural chemical, not actually bacteria. And how many people realize that just because Bt bacteria do not harm "beneficial" insects it does not mean they do not harm innocent bystanders feeding on a small weed growing in your garden?
I'm also concerned about the term "insecticide". It implies that there are deadly chemicals accumulating in the leaves and fruit of GM plants. It is generally a specific protein molecule that is killing the bugs trying to eat GM plants or interfering with the replication of viruses that infect GM plants. And evidence to date indicates that such proteins are digested into their component amino acids like most other proteins one might consume.
Permalink
rmcleod Posted 9:19 am
14 Feb 2008
--
entropyproduction.blogspot.com
Permalink
Anastasia Posted 9:55 am
14 Feb 2008
Also, if you actually read ISAAA's report, which was funded by the respected Rockefeller Foundation, 11 of the 12 million farmers using biotech crops in 2007 were small and resource poor farmers from developing countries. More acerage is planted in developed countries, but that doesn't detract from the benefits that biotech has brought to developing countries.
For more scientific discussion on GMOs, visit my blog: GeneticMaize.
Permalink
Jeremy Cherfas Posted 5:04 pm
14 Feb 2008
Permalink
JoshS Posted 12:20 am
15 Feb 2008
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:15 am
15 Feb 2008
I grow about 20 tomato plant in my garden each season. We control weeds by mulching and pulling the most obnoxious ones. One thing we leave behind is the milkweed because it is a native plant, important for Monarchs, and we collect the milkweed seed and toss on our nearby prairie remnant.
Every few years, there is an assault on the tomato plants by hornworms. We try to remove as many as possible, but there are other gardening responsibilites and we are not dependent on the tomato plants for survival. We accept lower yields from the damaged plants. But suppose I was dependent on those plants -- and all of the other cultivated plants in my garden and rest of my yard -- for survival.
Here are two possible solutions. Perhaps there are others.
(1) Assuming it is legal, we could start growing tomato plants that produce Bt in their leaves and kill the caterpillars eating the leaves. No other beneficial or benign or innocent insects would be harmed. There is a reservoir of wild plants around my garden where hornworms will not be exposed to Bt, which will prevent a resistant population from emerging.
(2) I could spray the tomato patch, including the milkweed growing there, with the appropriate Bt bacteria. As long as there is a threat from hornworms, I would apply the Bt bacteria regularly, as directed by the manufacturer, especially after rain. A number of Monarch caterpillars would also die, but I guess that's a side efffect of growing tomato plants in harmony with nature.
Which is the more environmetally friendly approach to growing food?
Which method could be scaled up, allowing agriculture and wildlife to peacefully co-exist on the same patch of Earth?
This is an example, in my opinion, of combining GMOs and organic agriculture. The Bt tomato improves upon current organic methods. There is no need to use a RoundUp-resistant tomato as well. One can continue mulching, pulling, or tilling the soil to control weeds. It would be great to eliminate the perceived need for RoundUp by finding ways to engage in no-till agriculture and reduce erosion of soil without resorting to chemicals.
Again, my interest in GMOs is focused on eliminating all chemicals, including the ones hazardous but considered acceptable for organic farming, from agriculture.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:27 am
15 Feb 2008
New poisons and GMO poison resistant and poison emitting crops are created in cycles timed for bottomline profit. like new anti-biotics or flu vaccines. The organisms they are targeted to discourage keep on evolving in every reproductive cycle. Micro-organisms, insects, plants, viruses.
The human immune system gets stressed because the efforts to temper the effects of natural evolution on short term corporate profits actually increases the mutation of disease organisms.
So does the monocrop "immune" system. Agribizz chemical industry becomes the immune system of monocrop culture. 100s of square miles of GMO monocrop soybeans in brazil get a fungus, it kills them all.
Different varieties of plants, minus all the chemicals, nurture natural parasite resistance in the organic garden. Rolled out with robots (powered by renewable electricy) on an industrial scale, the natural resistance can be part of the whole food chain again, while still maintaing, or even increasing, productivity.
Crops that are broken up by other crops that insects or fungus find distasteful, for instance. Organic gardener's techniques on an industrial ag scale is possible.
It surely would reduce GHG from ag and restore carbon sink storage of the soil ecosystem.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
PermieWriter Posted 2:47 am
15 Feb 2008
The Irish learned the dangers of a monoculture in a very dramatic way. They imported one variety of potato from the hundreds cultivated in the Americas. Then the tomato blight (the closest known relative to the pathogen that causes Sudden Oak Death) wiped out that crop and they were left to starve.
The South Americans had potato blight as well, but since they planted many varieties, if one crop perished from the blight, another would survive. That is the model that our agriculture needs to follow if we are to survive. I think that all reasonable folks can now admit that we're going to be in for some harsh weather. This is the time to diversify our agriculture. We need to find those heirloom breeds that do well when temperatures go from 70 to 30 degrees overnight. There are thousands of such breeds that are perishing of neglect. Now is the moment when we need to rescue them - so they can rescue us in turn.
We have nothing to gain from allowing Monsanto, et al from continuing their business plan of food crop monopolization, and everything to lose. If we plant a different food crop in every niche, in every vacant lot, front yard, back yard, patio and park, we'll be cushioned against the impact of peak GMOs and peak oil.
We're all going to have to get our hands dirty sooner or later - we might as well start now.
Eat what you grow, grow what you eat
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:52 am
15 Feb 2008
You wrote...
"Different varieties of plants, minus all the chemicals, nurture natural parasite resistance in the organic garden. Rolled out with robots (powered by renewable electricy) on an industrial scale, the natural resistance can be part of the whole food chain again, while still maintaing, or even increasing, productivity."
Excellent idea.
So can you explain why organic farmers have not eliminated their diesel-powered tractors, tillers, and following chemicals from their farms?
There shouldn't really be a market for... copper ammonium carbonate, copper sulphate, copper oxychloride, rotenone, sulphur, potassium salts of fatty acids, nicotine sulfate, veratrine, azadirachtin, salannin, potassium permanganate, or pyrethrin. Right?
Why are they still using such environmentally harmful -- due to mining, growing and extractiion, or application -- materials? No one else has provided a satisfactory response... actually, no one has provided a response. I'm sure you will be able to do so.
Don't folks ever wonder where something like rotenone comes from or how the plant it is extracted from is grown?
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:12 am
15 Feb 2008
Hmmm. Comes from China...
"This product is a new type of botanic insecticide sourcing from African Mountain Green Soybeans. It is not only a bio-insecticide with high effect, broad spectrum and low toxicity, but also holds the features as: fargoing pests-controlling, long validity, strong stomach-poison and contact-killing activity and also the activity of apastia and growth development-suppressing to pests. No matter what pests on vegetables, fruit trees, paddies, tea trees, tobaccos, cottons or grasslands, it has outstanding controlling efficacy that is why it can effectively control more than one hundred pests on farms, forests, grasslands, sanitations and also livestocks with its unique function mechanisms."
Wow! Nasty stuff. Apparently linked to Parkinson's disease. Anyway... I hope they at least employ environmentally friendly practices for growing "African Mountain Green Soybeans" in China. Hey... China has a good environmental record. They would never clear tropical rain forests just to grow a crop that could provide a product for export. I wonder why the manufacturer didn't brag about this on their website. At least it's natural!
Sorry dude. Reinforces the notion that GMOs are a better solution.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:19 am
15 Feb 2008
I think if university extension ag systems started working with engineering schools on this, and testing it in the field on organic farms. maybe with research and development this would take hold.
Pinpoint irrigation and organic fertilizer, weed mulching, harvesting all done by robot. On organic chemical free soil, replenished with biodigestor soil amendment.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
estark Posted 4:09 am
15 Feb 2008
While we were there, some teachers and school children, sickened from exposure to chemicals applied next door to the school by Syngenta, were sent to the hospital. You can imagine what it did to the innocent birds. What do they expect on such small islands where there are no barriers? Reportedly, fifty percent of the papaya trees on the island are now contaminated.
There may be no solid proof that GMO will destroy the planet, but there is no proof that it won't. There is a reason nature doesn't do GE. Think about it.
http://www.higean.org/
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:50 am
15 Feb 2008
Again, for the bazillionth time, the use of chemicals is an independent problem. Not all GMOs increase the use of chemicals. A lot of GMOs reduce the use of chemicals. Organic farmers also use very toxic chemicals.
Nature and GE...
"There is a reason nature doesn't do GE. Think about it."
Actually, there is growing evidence for horizontal gene transfer between species in nature, independent of human efforts, and this might have an important role in evolution. Transferring genes from prokaryotes to eukaryotes or between eukaryotic species can no longer be referred to as "not natural". Molecular biologist, like traditional plant breeders, are guiding and accelerating a natural process
Permalink
fiutzi Posted 5:03 am
15 Feb 2008
Evidence is growing, though, for polygenic glyphosate resistance in at least two weed species -- tall waterhemp in the US (1) and rigid ryegrass in Australia (2). Assumptions about single-gene control and additivity are steadily being overturned in plant genetics, so it wouldn't be surprising if we discover more such situations.
But separate from literal physiological resistance, it's pretty clear that weed communities are "evolving" greater "resistance" to glyphosate when a low rate of that herbicide is the primary weed control tactic (3). The weed species that are naturally less vulnerable are the ones that survive, reproduce, and increase in relative abundance.
What I hear from farmers and from my agronomy colleagues supports reports that glyphosate rates are increasing in the US. The management-induced ecological shift toward tougher weeds is definitely the biggest reason for that.
(1) http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ps.1074
(2) http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00122-005-1947-2
(3) http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ps.1539
Permalink
usandthem Posted 12:57 pm
17 Feb 2008
Why not ask why!?
Permalink
mtvyfan Posted 1:39 am
18 Feb 2008
Read Jeffrey Smith's books "Seeds of Deception" and "Genetic Roulette" and then tell me that GMOs are safe!
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:49 am
18 Feb 2008
A lot of genetic engineering expertise will be needed to stop and then repair the damage done by the GMO juggernaut.
He already opposes glow in the dark cats, like the GMO kittys from korea.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
atreyger Posted 2:45 am
18 Feb 2008
Wiscidea's arguments are fairly legitimate, although it appears that his position is threatened and he is becoming entrenched in one track of thought. Diversity in crop production is crucial; however, at the same time it is very important to remember that every single food crop that we have is a product of genetic engineering, by long-term selection of traits that humans fancy. A chihuahua is analogous to the carrot, in that it does not immediately remind us of its ancestor the wolf, any more than the root of a carrot plant reminds us of the root of a queen anne's lace plant.
I guess I could wax poetic for another hour in order to procrastinate, but my point is relatively simple: there is some room for GE plants within a sound ecologically based agricultural system, especially in a world with 7 billion people, where close to 90% of the population live in cities. However, from a holistic perspective, rather than a business model, most of the current GE plants (Bt cotton notwithstanding) do not belong.
Glyphosate is not a chemical with many negative side effects, so GE 'roundup-ready' corn is not the end of the world. However, from a farm economics and an energy perspective, this strategy is weak, and should be replaced.
Also, and this is mostly a post script, more long-term consistent testing should be conducted on GE crops with respect to human and animal consumption.
Peace out,
Artem
Permalink
mtvyfan Posted 3:26 am
18 Feb 2008
Children are suffering from allergies that were not present when I was a child, what has changed in my diet compared to theirs? They still eat fruits and vegetables, but with the pesticides INSIDE the food rather than ON it. Is that healthier?
GMOs received the most press they ever got when monarch butterflies started dying off due to Bt Corn. If there was no Bt corn would that have happened? Pesticides have been around for a long time and the butterflies have been still thriving. Now don't take that as a promotion for pesticides as I said before I eat organic food and frankly that is the only way to go.
GMOs are contributing if not causing "superweeds." These things do not happen in organic, sustainable agriculture. What will the future hold once all weeds are these new "superweeds"? I am so frightened about what will happen to organic agriculture once these things start to happen and they will.
It was posted before that GMOs are helping the third world countries and that is simply NOT TRUE! Monsanto and Syngenta have pulled out of the "Feed the World" ad campaign they had because the third world wised up and rejected their GMOs. If you have doubts about what I'm saying. Look up Vandana Shiva and see what she has to say about GMOs, or see her story profiled in the GMO Triology DVD series.
I am not advocating no technology. It just seems that the focus of the FDA is not to help the citizens, hence my use of their acronym, it's to line the pockets of the multi-national companies who lobby on the Biotech industries behalf and to get pro-biotech people to get employed in the FDA or other regulatory agencies! I'm not making this up. It has been documented. The few independent studies that have been done say GMOs are dangerous to the food system. See the GMO potato study done by Arpad Puztai who was an advocate of GE before he performed his study on the Lecithin spliced potato.
I think that the American public needs to wake up and demand the FDA do the job that they were hired to do. Protect the American citizens from dangerous foods and drugs. What research has been done on GMOs say that the FDA is not protecting us.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 8:51 am
18 Feb 2008
Please allow me to restate my position. I do not work for Monsanto. I have reasons to dislike some of what Monsanto has done. I'm interested in GM plants that further reduce the desire to apply chemicals -- or bacteria -- to our sources of food. We should kill only the pests actually consuming cultivated plants, not those who are living nearby. I'm intersted in ensuring this technology reaches all farmers and does not create additional expenses. The problems associated with GM plants appear to have more to do with who owns the technology than the plants themselves.
Furthermore, there is a tendency in developing nations to hack down forests and destroy wildlife habitat not just because of the recent biofuel craze but because people like to eat. There is the sweet potato or yam example -- I don't recall exactly which plant -- I've mentioned before.
Thus, I'm interested in preserving biodiversity and conservation of what little is left of habitat for other animals. I'm also interested in restoring habitat for other animals. I believe GM plants can have a role in this.
I was not hired by Monsanto to infiltrate environmental websites. They would not be interested in me. I do not goosestep with industry. I do not goosestep with environmentalists. I look at each problem individually. I'm not interested in GM plants that replace one toxic chemical with an equally or more toxic chemical. I'm not interested in GM animals. I cannot justify genetically engineering animals. It is a simple moral decision for me -- it is not appropriate or necessary to genetically modifiy sentient beings and the pain inflicted by failed attempts far exceeds potential benefits.
Now, that said, if there is a pro-GM plant organization out there, I would be happy if I was paid to study the issues and write about them, but I doubt they would want someone who might actually reject certain GM plants. This is just a hobby of mine. (If anyone out there does want to pay me to do this, please send an email! Anyone from Monsanto lurking about?)
Regading the books you mention, I've tried reading anti-GMO literature, but the BS piles up quite quickly and efforts to follow up on their accusations tend to lead in circles. It would be very nice if an anti-GMO person could compose some clear statements regarding each perceived hazard, fully documented, and not just anecdotal accounts and bullet lists of places to find additional fuzzy data.
Since you were kind enough to suggest two books, I would like to suggest two for you -- or other visitors to this website -- to read:
Mendel in the Kitchen: A Scientist's View of Genetically Modified Foods, by Nina Fedoroff and Nancy Marie Brown
Genetically Modified Planet: Environmental Impacts of Genetically Engineered Plants, by C. Neal Stewart
The first is far less technical -- and less expensive -- and might be a good place to start. Then tell me GMOs are not safe or useful for protecting and restoring Earth's ecosystems. It would be really great if one more of the official contributors to the Grist website would read and review one or the other of these books.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 9:16 am
18 Feb 2008
As I might have implied, but not clearly stated, I too am more of a conservationist than an environmentalist. My interest in GMOs is motivate not my financial gain but by a desire to preserve biodiversity. I'm fortunate that I can earn a living while doing something that helps protect the Earth's ecosystems.
You pointed out that you are concerned about chemicals harming you and the environment. I too am concerned about this. As I mentioned before, I want to eliminate more that the conventional synthetic chemicals used for agriculture. I want to eliminate... here I go again... those used by organic farmers...
... copper ammonium carbonate, copper sulphate, copper oxychloride, rotenone, sulphur, potassium salts of fatty acids, nicotine sulfate, veratrine, azadirachtin, salannin, potassium permanganate, and pyrethrin...
Some of these are mined from the Earth, resulting in harm to the environment. Some are extracted from plants grown in China. Are THOSE organic farms? Some are VERY toxic and harm not only target insects, but vertebrates present. Rotenone might break down quickly on land, but lasts months in the water.
Regarding Bt, organic farmers spray Bt bacteria on fields and say it does not harm the environment. Sure... it doesn't harm predatory insects. But what if a Monarch caterpillar is feeding on some milweed growing among the treated plants? Along with the target pest, the Monarch caterpillar will also die. What about all the other moth and butterfly caterpillars living on plants around and among organically grown plants? It would be far better to have the Bt in the cultivated plant. Then, only the insects eating the plant will be eliminated. Bt pollen harms Monarchs if you force-feed them large amounts; it does not harm them in the field.
Regarding the Arpad Puztai case, I'm still waiting for a clear report regarding what he did, his view on the matter, and the evidence for a cover-up. I tried reading some of the material another Grist visitor directed me to, but found inconsistencies on both sides of the argument. Sorry. Can't believe Arpad Putztai or the corporation when neither presents a consistent story.
Permalink
genghiskuhn Posted 10:59 am
19 Feb 2008
heirloom crops as a local and viable alternative to GMOs?
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 11:14 am
19 Feb 2008
Victual Reality
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 10:52 pm
19 Feb 2008
http://allafrica.com/stories/200802050154.html
I have to learn more about this...
How are the farmers treated?
How much do they get paid?
Why are they growing INSECTICIDES for Americans and Europeans INSTEAD OF FOOD for their neighbors when we can engineer plants to resist insects?
How much land is devoted to growing the flowers pyrethrin is extracted from?
Are organic farmers exporting environmental problems to Africa? Better to poison them than us?
Are the plantations devoted to growing flowers pyrethrin is extracted from managed responsibly and are organic practices employed?
How much tropical forest has been cleared for growing insecticides world-wide? ANy endangered species displaced?
How can we claim our food is grown locally and sustainably if we rely on insecticides imported from Africa?
SO MANY QUESTIONS! If only a responsible organic farmer could lay my fears to rest by telling us where the "natural" chemicals used for organic agriculture come and how the sources are managed in an environmentally-friendly and sustainable manner.
Tom... do you expect organic food prices to rise due to political unrest in Kenya and aother developing nations we rely on for "natural" pesticides? Can't we grow this stuff locally?
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 2:07 am
20 Feb 2008
Victual Reality
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:18 am
20 Feb 2008
Let's have a revolution!
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
ademchuk Posted 3:37 pm
22 Feb 2008
First and foremost, this article references the "Institute for Responsible Technology" website. This is definitely not "serious evidence". Jeffrey M. Smith, the website founder, has no credibility and clearly has no educational background in the field. To be blunt, the website is a monstrous genetic joke and is only designed to fear monger and sell Smith's books.
GM technology is not the issue. Rather, one could argue about its many applications. With respect to pest resistance, GMOs have provided vast ecological benefits as mentioned briefly in the article. In the first nine years of use, GMO technology reduced pesticide spraying by 172 million kilograms and reduced the environmental footprint associated with pesticide use by 14%. The use of GMOs has also reduced the release of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture by 10 billion kilograms, which is equivalent to removing five million cars from the roads (Brookes and Barfoot, 2005).
I will concede that the use of some herbicides has increased, perhaps rendering this particular application less beneficial to the environment than pest resistance. However, treating Roundup resistant weeds with higher doses is completely ineffective. The fifteen-fold increase in Roundup use over 11 years is likely the result of a huge increase in GM crop use (many of which are Roundup resistant). As stated by the article, GM acreage increased 12% in only one year - how much did it increase over the eleven years necessary for Roundup use to increase by fifteen times? In addition, the article only mentions that atrazine use has also increased - what about all of the other herbicides on the market?
Finally, the chance of serious health risks appearing is very unlikely. The existing FDA regulations on transgenic food require that manufacturers assess risks associated with potential allergens by comparing the structure of the new protein component to known allergens. It is more dangerous, in theory, to introduce a completely new food to the market that contains more than one or two "new" proteins. For example, the kiwi was introduced to the United States approximately 20 years ago and has since become the cause of a number of allergies!
The issue with GMOs does not necessarily lie with the technology but, rather, with inadequate public education on the topic.
Aubrey Demchuk is a fourth year student in the Honors Molecular Genetics program at the University of Alberta.
417 words.
For more information see:
Brookes, G. and Barfoot, P. 2005. GM Crops: The Global Economic and Environmental Impact - The First Nine Years 1996 - 2004. AgBioForum 8: 187-196.
Permalink