Anastasia’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Thanks for the review of research on GHG from no-till. It's really nice to see a blogger do their homework, although you did miss studies that show an improvement between till and no till, possibly because more research has been done since 2006...

  A few months ago, I asked some of the researchers on the Ltar project (Long-Term Agroecological Research in Iowa: Certified Organic Comparison) how conventional no-till stacked up to organic no-till and organic til. Basically, their results are as expected. From most to least carbon sequestration: organic no-till, organic till, conventional no-till, conventional till. I'll have to double check with them to make sure I didn't miss something, but their claim was backed up by a quick literature search.

  Now, I am wondering - why not reward farmers who choose no-till conventional over till conventional if there is a carbon sequestration benefit? The amount of carbon credits earned should equal the amount of carbon sequestered. It seems that Rodale and the Organic Inst. are saying "my way or nothing" instead of encouraging a strategy that will encourage as much conservation tillage as possible across the country. If payments were scaled properly, the most payment would go to those who adopt the most soil conserving methods, which as research has shown, is organic no-till.

  On Will Big Ag plow under Waxman-Markey? posted 4 months, 4 weeks ago 8 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Obviously this isn't going to get anywhere, so I'll just leave a few closing thoughts addressing core problems that seem to be the basis for most people's mistrust of GMOs. If anyone would like to discuss any aspects of biotechnology in greater detail, feel free to visit Genetic Maize or Biofortified, neither of which have any connections with agribusiness (I specify this since it seems to be of such great concern).

  Corporations can be really really horrible global citizens, especially when government regulation is lax. There are hundreds if not thousands of examples of problems, from chemicals and medicines claimed to be safe to cigarettes. Maybe capitalism isn't a good system at all. I don't know. I do know that capitalism with all of its baggage has nothing to do with the science behind genetic engineering.

  With all of the problems with capitalism, one might say we need far more public agricultural research, but that costs a lot of money. One way to raise money for development is with patents. Of course, the patenting of genes for any purpose is undoubtedly a major ethical and practical problem. If individuals and companies weren't able to protect their work, there would be little impetus to develop anything new - but we know there are a lot of problems with patenting life. One solution is to go totally open source like CAMBIA. Another solution is to have a conditional patent that protects the intellectual property but allows people below a certain financial threshold to use the plants without penalty. I don't think any solution is going to be perfect, but this is all a legal problem, which has nothing to do with the science of genetic engineering.

  If you want to consider the science of genetic engineering - there has been a wealth of independent research - but it sounds like most people can't be bothered to read it. Instead, most want to continue claiming that there isn't any independent research and focusing on a few long debunked or misunderstood studies. However, if you decide you have a moment, check out this list of independent safety assessments (and feel free to ask questions at GMO pundit too, since he compiled the list). Of course it isn't an exhaustive list, but you will get the idea.

  As for what Bt and RR have done for you - think about what they were designed to do. Bt replaces an insecticide. This has allowed yields to go up (because less of the crop is eaten by insects) while taking toxic insecticides out of the environment (including all the insecticides that we KNOW kill bees). RR allows the farmer to replace toxic herbicides like atrazine with the relatively benign herbicide glyphosate. This isn't perfect! It would certainly be better if farmers used methods that didn't require any herbicides or insecticides, but that's not going to happen. If it did, food prices would skyrocket due to yield loss with weed competition and insect damage.Think about how expensive organic is compared to conventional. The price difference is partially due to marketing, but a good portion is because growing food organically is expensive.

  There might be ways to make it less expensive though, by combining sustainable methods with science to develop a new type of farming. I challenge you to read Tomorrow's Table, a book by a genetic engineer and an organic farmer who show ways that organic farming methods might be complemented with crops containing certain genetic improvements. They make a strong argument for organic as well as for genetic engineering, explaining everything in laymans terms while providing peer-reviewed references for anyone who wants to read the research for themselves. There is a Google Book preview here.

  It is a shame that Bt and RR are the only GM crops that we've seen, but the blame for that can be placed on activists that prevent research into much else. Luckily some researchers are pushing on and have created some incredibly helpful GM crops. The first that comes to mind is virus resistant papaya, which is discussed in Tomorrow's Table. I won't provide any links because you'd probably think they were tainted just from me providing them. I challenge you to look it up (preferably from a variety of sources) and think about it for yourself.

  Finally, I just wanted to reiterate what has been said before. If you have to resort to insults, then you might want to do a bit more research on your own claims. Also, before you make any claims, it helps to be able to back it up with more than gut feelings and rumors. These issues are complicated (ethical, social, environmental, legal, and on and on) and require a lot of untangling even before getting down to the "fucking molecule talk". Agriculture is complex. If we're going to bother talking about it, let's do it justice by doing our homework.

  On Would you like some GMOs in your coffee? posted 5 months ago 93 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Unless there is more research out there that I haven't seen (in which case please tell me about it), caddisflies are not affected by Bt pollen or any other part of a Bt plant. I'll repeat what I posted in an earlier comment so it is easier to find:

  The 2007 caddisfly-Bt study by Rosi-Marshall that you mentioned has been debunked by several experts in the field. The researchers unfortunately made inappropriate conclusions from their work, and other scientists have called them on it. I wrote about it in Even scientists make mistakes or you can view the challenges to the paper directly at PNAS: Beachy and Parrott. One paper is never enough to make a definitive statement. It is only with an accumulation of papers that the reality of a situation shows through.

  Pesticides sprays on crops and within the hives themselves are contributing to stress which makes the bees susceptible to diseases and parasites. This has nothing to do with Bt crops.

  On Would you like some GMOs in your coffee? posted 5 months ago 93 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Yardner, you'd better turn off that computer now, because science hasn't shown that computers are 100% safe for human health. Actually, plenty of studies have shown that they cause a variety of problems from eye damage to wrist damage to bad posture...

  If you want to be 100% sure about everything you come into contact with, you couldn't do/eat/touch anything. Water, required for life, can kill you if you drink too much. "Naturally bred" plants can accumulate natural toxins that cause anything from skin irritation to death.

  Research can tell us only limited things, it's true. Yes, there is a possibility that something was missed. Each individual paper can only tell us about the particular situation that was tested. It is only when many papers on a subject are accumulated that we can see the full picture. Regarding genetic engineering, the weight of all the papers is on the side of safety. No, every study that could potentially be done with genetic engineering or genetically engineered crops has been conducted. That's why science is always changing, always adapting to the new data. At some point, though, we can find some thing to be reasonably safe, and that's what has happened with genetic engineering.

  If we waited until we knew 100% we would have nothing.

  On Would you like some GMOs in your coffee? posted 5 months ago 93 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  I have to ask - what exactly is the risk? Really, if there is some documented human harm from RR sugar beets compared to non-RR sugar beets or sugar cane, I want to know.

  On Would you like some GMOs in your coffee? posted 5 months ago 93 Responses