Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Agent Orange Corn
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 47 (666270)
06-25-2012 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by herebedragons
06-25-2012 9:42 AM


The question(s) is/are: How far should we go with genetically modified foods? Are we improving our lives or inviting disaster? Can we balance environmental benefits such as no-till farming with the dangers of pesticide use?
I am not so much interested in political or social opinions, but how we could approach this problem from a scientific or practical perspective.
Full speed ahead; let's see how much we can squeeze out of this puppy!
We're not going to improve our lives without inviting disaster.
What's so dangerous about pesticide use?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by herebedragons, posted 06-25-2012 9:42 AM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Coragyps, posted 06-25-2012 12:25 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 12 by herebedragons, posted 06-25-2012 10:00 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 47 (666273)
06-25-2012 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Coragyps
06-25-2012 12:25 PM


The biggest danger is the one HBD mentions - encouraging the evolution of bugs that you can't kill with anything short of two bricks.
Aren't we talking about weeds though? Weed killers are still pesticides.
I'm not worried about eating "frankenfoods" nearly as much as having no food.
Is there really a threat of 'no food' from artificially evolved weeds? Seems to me the biggest ramification would be having to bust the tiller back out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Coragyps, posted 06-25-2012 12:25 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Coragyps, posted 06-25-2012 12:44 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 7 by ringo, posted 06-25-2012 1:59 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 47 (666284)
06-25-2012 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Coragyps
06-25-2012 12:44 PM


I edited post #4 to include weeds - it's just whether the pest is in Plantae or Animalia, anyway.
Sure, so is there really a threat of 'no food' from artificially evolved weeds?
And yes, we can go back to hoeing cotton and smashing boll weevils, and perhaps help unemployment in places by doing so. But you should see some of the cotton fields and their associated dust storms out here in the High Plains of Texas. No-till cotton farming actually captures Wal-Mart sacks instead of letting them blow to Georgia - and holds most of the dirt that used to accompany the sacks.
I don't doubt that there will be some negative consequences. Look, I could argue this one either way, so I'll stake a specific position.
From the OP:
quote:
That said, our dependence on chemicals is changing our world at an unprecedented rate. To have over 20 plants evolve the resistance to such a potent herbicide as glyphosate in 20 years is remarkable and a rather frightening forecast for the future. The potential for further evolution or genetic escapes is a major cause of concern. So is feeding an ever expanding human population in a world where resources are becoming more and more scarce.
The question(s) is/are: How far should we go with genetically modified foods? Are we improving our lives or inviting disaster? Can we balance environmental benefits such as no-till farming with the dangers of pesticide use?
I am not so much interested in political or social opinions, but how we could approach this problem from a scientific or practical perspective.
In my opinion, the scientific or practical perspective on genetically modifying foods for herbicide resistance in an effort towards better weed killing is "full speed ahead".
Having extra dirt in Texas doesn't seem to be an argument against that

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Coragyps, posted 06-25-2012 12:44 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Coragyps, posted 06-25-2012 5:19 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 14 by herebedragons, posted 06-25-2012 10:18 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 47 (666287)
06-25-2012 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by ringo
06-25-2012 1:59 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:
Is there really a threat of 'no food' from artificially evolved weeds?
We'll have to learn to eat the weeds.
I remember the first time I had a spring mix salad at a fancy restaurant, I saw some of these guys in there:
I was all: "WTF, aren't these dandelions!?"
And the waiter was like: "Yes, yes they are ".
I thought it was funny that they were feeding me the weeds that we tried to keep killed in our backyard.
Anyways, yeah, we could eat the weeds. But too, we could just go back to tilling if the GM-ing against herbicides doesn't work out. I don't really see this as a reason to stifle scientific progress.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by ringo, posted 06-25-2012 1:59 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 47 (666312)
06-25-2012 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Coragyps
06-25-2012 5:19 PM


I just share the OP's concern that when we breed herbicide/insecticide "immune" pests, we will be in some degree of trouble - like we are with multiple-drug-resistant tuberculosis.
I share them too, but in this case improving lives is inviting disaster.
I guess I don't mind sharing some of our dirt, but dealing with all of it that fails to escape and blows into the house every spring is a pain in the butt.
Have you heard about the problems that farmers have in dealing with Monsanto aggressively pursuing them with legal action?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Coragyps, posted 06-25-2012 5:19 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by herebedragons, posted 06-25-2012 10:24 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 47 (666322)
06-25-2012 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by herebedragons
06-25-2012 10:00 PM


My concern is similar to the ones raised by MRSA and other antibiotic resistant bacteria. Sure weeds are not generally pathogenic to humans, but do we really want to get into an arms race against nature?
In this case, i.e. GM-modifying crops against weeds, I say "Yes". Weeds ain't gonna do that. Other places warrant more caution.
Granted, any progress comes with some risk. But we need to ask, how much risk should we be willing to take. And should we "invite" disaster?
In this case, I don't see "weeds" proposing enough threat to warrant stifling scientific progress.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by herebedragons, posted 06-25-2012 10:00 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 47 (666323)
06-25-2012 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by herebedragons
06-25-2012 10:18 PM


I doubt that the problem will get to the point where there is 'no food'.
Me too.
But I fear it will make it harder and harder for the poorest people to be able to 'afford' food.
Why them? They can grow weeds too!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by herebedragons, posted 06-25-2012 10:18 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 47 (666357)
06-26-2012 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by herebedragons
06-25-2012 10:24 PM


Yea, when pollen from GM crops drift into another farmer's field and provides resistance or other genetic benefit to those crops, Monsanto sues.
That's another problem with GMOs.
No, that's a problem with greedy corporations.
Can genetic material drift or otherwise be transferred to non-target organisms?
Sure. And the GM's can evolve farther too. It don't see that as that big of a deal.
In Message 14 you said that GM-ing foods could hurt poor people. Why do you think that? The more food the merrier, no?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by herebedragons, posted 06-25-2012 10:24 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by herebedragons, posted 06-26-2012 10:06 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 47 (666432)
06-27-2012 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by herebedragons
06-26-2012 10:06 PM


Ok, first of all I am not completely against GMOs. But I do fear the full speed ahead attitude. I fear we don’t know enough about the consequences.
Fear leads to anger...
But seriously, fear of the unknown isn't a good reason to stifle scientific progress, imo. Still tho, I don't expect you to just jump on board and if you need to be convinced into accepting it then that's fine.
Honestly, I hadn’t done a whole lot of research on this issue except what I put in my OP. I got interested in the subject when a vendor of mine, who owns a nursery was telling me that they were going to start spraying Agent Orange on the fields around her greenhouses because the Roundup wasn’t working anymore. That sounded ridiculous to me so I looked into it.
And you found out that it was hyperbole.
Corporations such as Monsanto make billions in profit. What do you think they really care about public health and safety or profit?
Well, we are capitalists. Monsanto does have a vested interest in the public health in so far as they need consumers to maintain their profits.
Of course, they will care about public health and safety as far as they need to in order to get their products through FDA approval.
That's right. But that can be a decent way of doing things. Monsanto is a business and they are interested in making money. They employ the scientists and they all do what they can to make the most progress. They'll have some interest in protecting the public health, but we'll leave most of that job up to the FDA. We're just going to have to trust and/or ensure that the FDA is doing their job.
I’m not a big one for conspiracy theories and the like, but I know the reality; money rules, and if they can make billions now and my children’s health suffers 25 years from now they will take the billions.
I'm not so sure.... who's going to be buying their products in 45-55 years then?
Money. By poor people I am thinking of mostly third-world people. The continual engineering and re-engineering of food crops will drive the price up and up, out of reach of the world’s poorest.
I figure the increased production would lead to excesses that can be shared with the poor.
But the promise of increased yields does not appear to be materializing. This 2009 report claims:
quote:
For years the biotechnology industry has trumpeted that it will feed the world, promising that its genetically engineered crops will produce higher yields. Despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase U.S. crop yields.
So, failure to increase yield + increasing prices = the poorest can’t afford
Okay, that makes sense. But I don't believe in the failure to increase yield. It seems inevitable to me that yields are going to be increasing over the years. I haven't dug into your link, but I wonder how they were measuring yield and whether it was normalized or something.
But that is all the political / social aspect of the issue. I kind of wanted more of the science side of the debate. If this stuff is safe, and we can engineer the solution to the next problem, then yea, go for it.
Yeah, same here. And I too share your concerns that there could be problems. But from a scientific perspective, I'm still going with full speed ahead. We shouldn't let fear hold us back.
It’s a bigger issue than just weed / crop interaction. If there’s one thing we have learned about our environment since Silent Spring it is how interactive and connected our world is. Will GMOs upset this balance?
I don't see it as that "balanced". Its always in flux. And many species are always struggling to just get by. But yes, there is that interrelatedness to worry about.
I don’t know, but I don’t think we can call inviting disaster scientific progress.
I do. When we were trying to land on the moon, dontcha think there were guys complaining that we might bring back some alien virus that wipes out the planet, or something? That we were "inviting disaster". I wouldn't consider that a good reason to stop the space program.
Progress needs to be tempered with responsibility.
I agree. I just don't think we need to have the scientists at Monsanto who are genetically engineering crops to also do the work to show that they aren't going to hurt anything in the future. I think we have a fine system in place with the FDA that does a good enough job of tempering.
Now, you mentioned Silent Spring, and that can be a concern. But that was the system not working because of corruption.
So, I have done / am doing some more research on the biochemical aspect of this issue but I just don’t have enough time to finish it up tonight. I will post more about that in a day or two.
Right on, let me know what you find out. Maybe GMO's *are* a bad idea.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by herebedragons, posted 06-26-2012 10:06 PM herebedragons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by caffeine, posted 06-27-2012 10:16 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 47 (666465)
06-27-2012 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by crashfrog
06-27-2012 12:54 PM


Re: The Alternatives
They are genetically modifying these crops SO they can shower them with pesticides.
No, look, that's exactly the reverse.
So you're saying that the Enlist Corn is intended to never be sprayed with pesticide? That is exactly the reverse. The genetic modification provides a resistance to 2,4-D so that you can use the pesticide without hurting the corn.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 06-27-2012 12:54 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by fearandloathing, posted 06-27-2012 2:47 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 47 (666470)
06-27-2012 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by fearandloathing
06-27-2012 2:47 PM


Re: The Alternatives
Oh, I know what the idea it. And actually, they still use the glyphosphate along with the 2,4-D. Crash was saying that they're not going to use any pesticides at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by fearandloathing, posted 06-27-2012 2:47 PM fearandloathing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by crashfrog, posted 06-27-2012 2:58 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 41 by fearandloathing, posted 06-27-2012 3:23 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 40 of 47 (666472)
06-27-2012 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by crashfrog
06-27-2012 2:58 PM


Re: The Alternatives
Well no, you see, here is what you said:
They are genetically modifying these crops SO they can shower them with pesticides.
No, look, that's exactly the reverse.
The opposite of showing them with pesticides is not showering them with pesticides at all.
Since it took you more than 20 minutes to correct me, that proves that I am right and you are lying now to save face over saying such an incredible stupid thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by crashfrog, posted 06-27-2012 2:58 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by crashfrog, posted 06-27-2012 3:27 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 42 of 47 (666474)
06-27-2012 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by fearandloathing
06-27-2012 3:23 PM


Re: The Alternatives
Herbicides are a subset of pesticides. Its the case were the pest is a plant. Pesticides are not limited to killing insects, its a very broad term for anything that goes after any kind of pest. Even disinfectants and sanitizers are considered pesticides.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by fearandloathing, posted 06-27-2012 3:23 PM fearandloathing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by fearandloathing, posted 06-27-2012 3:30 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024