Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Agent Orange Corn
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 1 of 47 (666261)
06-25-2012 9:42 AM


In 1996, the first Roundup Ready crops (soybeans) were released to market in the U.S. Roundup Ready crops virtually eliminated the need to till fields which reduced erosion and the runoff of pesticides and fertilizers. It also reduced the usage of fossil fuels needed for plowing prior to planting. No-till agriculture was quickly embraced as an environmentally friendly, cost effective technique.
However, in the 20 or so years since the introduction of Roundup Ready crops, the weeds have developed a genetic modification program of their own. At least 23 weeds have developed resistance to glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup), 30 to 2,4-D (the most widely used herbicide in the world), 69 to Atrazine, and 125 to Chlorsulfuron. In total, there are some 388 known herbicide resistant biotypes. source
Now, Dow Chemical is seeking approval of a new genetically modified corn under the brand name Enlist which is immune to the herbicide 2,4-D. The promise of this new GMO is that farmers will be able to treat fields with mixtures of herbicides (in this case, specifically glyphosate and 2,4-D mixtures) and thus have a broader range of weed kill. Critics are referring to this new GM crop as Agent Orange corn because 2,4-D was one of the ingredients used in Agent Orange.
***A short primer on Agent Orange for those who may be unfamiliar: Agent Orange was part of a series of herbicide / defoliants used during the Vietnam War; the so called Rainbow Herbicides (there was Agent Blue, Purple, Pink, White, Green and Orange). Orange was the most widely used and was a 50:50 mixture of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T, both of which are relatively safe herbicides with only moderate toxicity. However, it was discovered that Agent Orange produced before 1970 was contaminated with an extremely toxic dioxin 2,3,7,8-TCDD due to the manufacturing process. It was TCDD that was primarily responsible for the problems and subsequent reputation of Agent Orange and tighter manufacturing controls significantly reduced contamination. But contamination could not be completely eliminated and so the use of 2,4,5-T was completely terminated in 1985. It is therefore, somewhat misleading to refer to the new GM corn as Agent Orange corn as it has only one of the ingredients used in Agent Orange and is not contaminated with the dioxin TCDD. A fairly typical scare tactic.
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.
Not sure what forum this belongs in ... miscellany perhaps?

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-25-2012 11:57 AM herebedragons has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 12 of 47 (666318)
06-25-2012 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by New Cat's Eye
06-25-2012 11:57 AM


What's so dangerous about pesticide use?
I am not opposed to pesticide use, nor do I think it is particularly dangerous or harmful when used properly. In fact I just finished spraying 2,4-D (aka Agent Orange ) on some poison ivy and some other weeds in my yard that had gotten out of hand. I probably would have dealt with them differently had there not been poison ivy present, but still, I use pesticides when needed.
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?
We're not going to improve our lives without inviting disaster.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-25-2012 11:57 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-25-2012 10:20 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 13 of 47 (666319)
06-25-2012 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by ringo
06-25-2012 1:59 PM


We'll have to learn to eat the weeds.
At least one of these so-called "super weeds" is supposedly edible - Amaranthus palmeri or Palmer's pigweed. And it grows up to three meters tall, so there would be plenty to munch on.
Doesn't look too appetizing, but I guess no worse than brussel sprouts, asparagus, okra or kelp.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Coragyps, posted 06-26-2012 1:49 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 14 of 47 (666320)
06-25-2012 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by New Cat's Eye
06-25-2012 2:19 PM


Sure, so is there really a threat of 'no food' from artificially evolved weeds?
I doubt that the problem will get to the point where there is 'no food'. But I fear it will make it harder and harder for the poorest people to be able to 'afford' food.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-25-2012 2:19 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-25-2012 10:21 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 17 of 47 (666324)
06-25-2012 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by New Cat's Eye
06-25-2012 8:15 PM


Have you heard about the problems that farmers have in dealing with Monsanto aggressively pursuing them with legal action?
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. Can genetic material drift or otherwise be transferred to non-target organisms?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-25-2012 8:15 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-26-2012 12:43 PM herebedragons has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 20 of 47 (666417)
06-26-2012 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by New Cat's Eye
06-26-2012 12:43 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.
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.
No, that's a problem with greedy corporations.
Corporations such as Monsanto make billions in profit. What do you think they really care about public health and safety or profit? 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. 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.
In Message 14 you said that GM-ing foods could hurt poor people. Why do you think that? The more food the merrier, no?
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 don’t know a whole lot about the economics of third-world food acquisition, so this is only my opinion or at least my fear of what can be a result. 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
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.
Can genetic material drift or otherwise be transferred to non-target organisms?
Sure. And the GM's can evolve farther too.
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 know, but I don’t think we can call inviting disaster scientific progress. Progress needs to be tempered with responsibility.
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.
HBD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-26-2012 12:43 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 06-26-2012 10:58 PM herebedragons has replied
 Message 27 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-27-2012 9:35 AM herebedragons has not replied
 Message 31 by Lithodid-Man, posted 06-27-2012 11:06 AM herebedragons has replied
 Message 32 by Taq, posted 06-27-2012 11:14 AM herebedragons has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 23 of 47 (666427)
06-27-2012 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by crashfrog
06-26-2012 10:58 PM


And not just our crops, but our livestock as well! House pets, even! Even our own bodies are undergoing this process of dangerous, unpredictable genetic self-manipulation!
You don't really see random mutations that have occurred over millions of years and have been subject to natural selection as the same thing as human manipulation of genomes do you? Just look at our track record for interfering with natural processes ... not too good, wouldn't you agree?
But our views on how to conserve and protect the natural environment can't be based on ideas that genomes should never change
That is certainly not my view! Maybe the view of some radical GMO opponents, but not mine. In fact, with regard to these Roundup resistant weeds, I questioned whether we should be getting into an arms race with nature. This concern is based on the awareness that genomes DO change. And maybe nature is better at it than we are???
If they change via human manipulation or random chance, I don't see the difference, and GMO opponents have done nothing to establish that there is one.
At this point I have not reached the conclusion that GMOs are dangerous or that we shouldn't be pursuing this line of research. I am merely questioning it, looking for discussion so I can draw a conclusion. If you know of evidence that specific GMOs have been fully and thoroughly tested and proved to be safe for human and animal consumption, then please present it. What is it that has you convinced that GMOs are safe? It is not just that genomes change all the time, willy-nilly, in ways we can't predict - therefore GMOs are safe ... is it? That's just as poor reasoning as thinking genomes should never change - therefore GMOs are bad.
In fact, the burden of proof should be on the genetic engineers to prove their products are safe, not on the opponents to prove there is a problem. Should we assume they are safe just because Monsanto says they are? Because the FDA approved them? What is the evidence that they are safe?
HBD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 06-26-2012 10:58 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by crashfrog, posted 06-27-2012 12:39 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 25 of 47 (666429)
06-27-2012 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Lithodid-Man
06-27-2012 6:16 AM


Re: Roundup resistant weeds
Thanks Lithodid-Man
I too smell a conspiracy theory here. Like I found a whole slew of websites related to "Monsanto evil". I didn't waste any time looking at those. Any controversial subject such as this will draw its wackos to the debate, who as you said have no background in any scientific discipline.
Monsanto is going to make consumption of organic food illegal in the near future. He has tied this to NWO population control, etc.
Oh yea, and Bill Gates even owns a large amount of stock in Monsanto! Maybe he'll be the leader of the NWO??
These are the types of statements I give little credence. What got me interested in this subject in the first place was someone stating that farmers want to start spraying Agent Orange on their fields. I knew right off this was not a true statement, but an exaggeration of the real situation.
Today the entire issue is off of the table for family discussions, at least when I am around.
Well, I hope you'll follow this discussion and have some input. Hopefully I have a little more scientific knowledge than Jeffery Smith and Marie-Monique Robin . And maybe like you, as I investigate this I will find no valid scientific claims against GMOs. And that's why I wanted this in a science forum, I want more than opinions; I want to discuss the science (or the lack thereof) behind the claims .
HBD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Lithodid-Man, posted 06-27-2012 6:16 AM Lithodid-Man has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 26 of 47 (666431)
06-27-2012 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Jon
06-27-2012 8:31 AM


Re: The Alternatives
I can only say that I am more comfortable eating food that has been artificially genetically modified than food that has spent its entire growing season being showered in poisonous chemicals whose only intended purpose is to kill stuff.
That's the whole point though. They are genetically modifying these crops SO they can shower them with pesticides.
The average American probably eats most of their corn in the form of Captain Crunch, where there's little difference between the corn that goes into making it being artificially modified and the processed, preservative-laden, highly 'chemicalized' final product it becomes.
That is an excellent point! Why use organically grown crops only to process them to death and load them up with preservatives?
But I'd still rather have shelves full of Captain Crunch than fields full of poison.
Maybe we should all go back to growing our own food for our own families in our own backyards ... Naw.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Jon, posted 06-27-2012 8:31 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Jon, posted 06-27-2012 10:21 AM herebedragons has not replied
 Message 30 by fearandloathing, posted 06-27-2012 10:58 AM herebedragons has not replied
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 06-27-2012 12:54 PM herebedragons has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 45 of 47 (666887)
06-30-2012 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Lithodid-Man
06-27-2012 11:06 AM


The claim by UCS is quite deceptive, imo. A transgenic crop is only supposed to do what it is supposed to do. If it has a gene for herbicide resistance, then it will be (or should be) herbicide resistant.
Good point. I tried to find something that referenced Monsanto's actual claims when they first released RR crops, but very little luck. Best I could find is this pic...
I am not sure when this ad is from, but it depicts an idyllic image of what farming would be like using ther RR system. While there is no explicit claims of increased yields, the implication is there and it is easy to see why farmers may be a bit disenchanted by the failure of these idyllic conditions to materialize. However, certainly a disjunction between Monsanto scientists and Monsanto marketeers . But I agree with your assessment that GM crops can only be expected to do what they have been engineered to do.
The fact is that none of the approved GM crops in the US are designed to increase yield,
The new line of RR soybeans, Roundup Ready 2 Yield are on the market and definitely claim to increase yield - time will tell.
People like Jefferey Smith make the claim that the FDA greenlights these foods without any testing (or on the word of the biotech companies) but seems to ignore the ~10 year lag between the development of the crop and when it actually appears in the market.
The 10 year lag is not necessarily indicative of thorough investigation but rather the speed of government .
But I have done quite a bit of research on the current GM crops and I am convinced they are safe at least in their current forms. I guess my main concern is and has been, have we opened up a can of worms here, a big fat GM can of worms!
HBD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Lithodid-Man, posted 06-27-2012 11:06 AM Lithodid-Man has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 46 of 47 (666892)
06-30-2012 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by crashfrog
06-27-2012 12:54 PM


Re: The Alternatives
GMO technologies are meant to reduce pesticide use. Even the pesticide resistance traits are meant for that, because they allow you you knock out all weeds during their vulnerable emergence period in one fell swoop, instead of having to keep applying throughout the season because you can only use a little bit at a time without burning down your crop.
Not exactly. Total pesticide use has indeed gone done in the last 15 years. BUT, the use of glyphosate has gone up dramatically. Before RR crops, farmers had to till weeds under and spray with a pre-emergent herbicide. They could then, in a couple weeks, spray post-emergent herbicides to kill grasses and the like before planting their crops. But after crops were in, the crops were NOT sprayed with herbicide, it would have killed them. That is where many people have the problem, pesticides being spayed directly on food crops.
HBD writes:
They are genetically modifying these crops SO they can shower them with pesticides.
I only phrased it that way because
Jon writes:
I can only say that I am more comfortable eating food that has been artificially genetically modified than food that has spent its entire growing season being showered in poisonous chemicals whose only intended purpose is to kill stuff.
He was thinking it was either GMO OR spraying with herbicide. Its not OR its BOTH.
But as far as using the term "shower", I would say it is appropriate. I live in a rural community and I see farmers applying herbicides all the time. You can smell it as you are driving by the field. Here is what it looks like
Yup, that's a shower
However, that "shower" does have benefits. As you pointed out, total pesticide use has gone down, but more importantly, more harmful or persistent herbicides have been replaced with glyphosate, which is just about the safest, most environmentally friendly herbicide on the market. The other major advantage is that farmers no longer till the soil which limits erosion and runoff. In my research of this subject I have become convinced that glyphosate is safe and that we have little cause for concern in including it in our food supply. (I would rather not have it in my food at all, but the advantages of the RR system are just too significant)
Now the problem, the increases in difficult to kill weeds (weeds resistant to glyphosate) are threatening to offset those advantages. Herbicide use is actually on the increase again, especially glyphosate. Farmers are having to use multiple applications of Roundup (sometimes three applications throughout the growing season), along with mixtures of other, less benign herbicides. Many farmers are having to go back to tilling their fields to control the weeds and/or hand pulling the weeds. Now the bio-engineering companies are adding crops that are resistant to multiple herbicides and we may soon begin consuming not only glyphosate but also 2,4-D and whatever herbicide is next on the list.
HBD writes:
Maybe we should all go back to growing our own food for our own families in our own backyards ... Naw.
How do you expect it to work where either of us is able to grow 6-9 months' worth of food over the summer and spring in a 20 by 20 plot?
I did not mean that seriously! I guess I should have used a smiley - (I wish there was a sarcastic smiley :> ) I have neither the resources or desire to raise my own food. It would take away from my time to do important stuff ... like posting on this forum. I will leave farming to the professionals.
Right now, the GMO technology everybody is concerned about is the 15-year-old YieldGuard trait, which expresses a protein from Bacillus thuringiensis that is toxic to caterpillars and beetle larvae. It's meant to be expressed mostly in root tissue, because feeding by soil-dwelling larvae is a major problem in pest control - how do you spray the roots of a plant?
I haven't researched this issue very much yet, but if I understand the situation correctly it is kind of interesting. It seems that bio-engineers cannot yet control exactly where the Bt genes insert into the host organism. Where the genes are spliced into the genome is what determines where the insecticidal products are expressed within the plant. It may be in the roots, or it may be over the entire plant or any other place. So, once they get a insertion that produces a favorable product, they must maintain that stock though tissue culture. So they have several varieties of Bt corn that express the Bt gene in different parts of the plant.
HBD

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

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 47 of 47 (666893)
07-01-2012 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Taq
06-27-2012 11:14 AM


In the third world, they can continue to grow the same crop strains that they have always grown using the same techniques they have always used.
You can't really tell that to the people in Ethiopia or the Sudan or Djibouti (what a great name for a country ) can you? Many of the people in these third world countries are dependent on developing nations for food. And their populations are growing at a much faster rate than developing nations. As the technology of food production becomes more and more costly, so does the cost to third world peoples. Do you think that 30 or 40 year old technology will feed the people of those nations? Hardly.
But I could be entirely wrong. I already admitted to not knowing a whole lot about the economics of third world food acquisition. I am just trying to flesh out my thoughts surrounding the statement I made. And it is really more in the area of politics and ethics anyway, not so much this thread; What obligation do we have to feed people of other countries? Should we base our technological decisions on the needs of people that cannot afford to buy the products?
Anyway, my original point was only that this was a concern of mine as one of the unintended consequences of GE that I felt makes it a worthwhile subject to investigate the subject.
HBD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Taq, posted 06-27-2012 11:14 AM Taq has 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