In addition, Mr. Hakim notes thatAn analysis by The Times using United Nations data showed that the United States and Canada have gained no discernible advantage in yields — food per acre — when measured against Western Europe, a region with comparably modernized agricultural producers like France and Germany. Also, a recent National Academy of Sciences report found that "there was little evidence" that the introduction of genetically modified crops in the United States had led to yield gains beyond those seen in conventional crops. At the same time, herbicide use has increased in the United States, even as major crops like corn, soybeans and cotton have been converted to modified varieties. And the United States has fallen behind Europe's biggest producer, France, in reducing the overall use of pesticides, which includes both herbicides and insecticides.
Monsanto said in a statement,the use of toxins that kill insects and fungi has fallen by a third, but the spraying of herbicides, which are used in much higher volumes, has risen by 21 percent. By contrast, in France, use of insecticides and fungicides has fallen by a far greater percentage — 65 percent — and herbicide use has decreased as well, by 36 percent.
Or they may have increased or maintained their herbicide usage. One of the striking features in the supporting information, which is all graphical, is the graph of "Sugar beet crop yield." Sugar beet yield increased markedly more in Western Europe, where GMO's are not used, than in the United States. Perhaps more strikingly, the graph shows not the slightest hint of an increase in yield in the United States after GMO's were introduced. I am by no means an expert, and i do not mind if they want to genetically modify a tomato so that it will grow in a desert. But I have always been suspicious of GMO's such as Roundup Ready corn, largely because of the problem of resistant pests evolving, and indeed Mr. Hakim notes,While overall herbicide use may be increasing in some areas where farmers are following best practices to manage emerging weed issues, farmers in other areas with different circumstances may have decreased or maintained their herbicide usage [my italics].
Despite the gratuitous reference to Agent Orange, Mr. Hakim's article is mostly dispassionate and very thorough, and I suggest you read it for yourself, and also look closely at the supporting information.Growing resistance to Roundup is reviving old, and contentious, chemicals. One is 2,4-D, an ingredient in Agent Orange, [whose] potential risks have long divided scientists and have alarmed advocacy groups.
41 Comments
PaulBC · 31 October 2016
I believe GMO crops could potentially lead to improvements in food production, and would like to see it happen. But in this case the incentives are obviously wrong. What we've seen so far is mostly a scheme to lock farmers into corporate licensing agreements and dependence on particular herbicides. It has nothing to do with improving the quality of cultivars in a way that makes sense to the consumer or addresses the basic problem of feeding people.
Daniel Dittmar · 31 October 2016
There's an elaborate reply to the article at http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2016/10/the-tiresome-discussion-of-initial-gmo-expectations/
Michael Fugate · 31 October 2016
DS · 31 October 2016
eric · 31 October 2016
Michael Fugate · 31 October 2016
Many of the ag-scientists are bought and pay for by Monsanto and Dow, such as David Shaw at MSU who is quoted in the piece on the Weed Society web page (which claims to be a non-profit).
http://wssa.net/2016/07/scientists-say-herbicide-resistance-predates-genetically-engineered-crops-by-40-years/
and reported in the NYTimes
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/06/us/document-shaw.html
DavidK · 31 October 2016
Companies that support this issue are reaping the benefits like a stick of Doublemint gum, double your flavor, double you pleasure, i.e., they sell and monopolize on the GMO seeds they make as well as make a bundle on the herbicides/pesticides they likewise market. And should a farmer accidently find the GMO crops in their fields because of cross fertilization with another's field, these companies will sue and force the farmer to buy/use only the new GMO seed. Fewer and fewer fields contain non-GMO crops. Should a blight like the potato blight strike, there go the crops. I think it was the dvd Food.Inc that discussed this.
clinker · 31 October 2016
I recommend reading todayâs post on Steven Novella's Neurologica Blog on the same NYT article. He is less generous to the NYT than Matt Young.
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-times-gets-it-wrong-on-gmos/
KlausH · 31 October 2016
Sugar beets? Seriously? It is a crop that is negligible in the U.S. . It would have made just as much sense to compare sugar cane yields in the U.S. to sugar cane in Western Europe.
Just Bob · 31 October 2016
Matt Young · 31 October 2016
ashleyhr · 31 October 2016
Another, different, perspective:
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-times-gets-it-wrong-on-gmos/
ashleyhr · 31 October 2016
PS Just seen that someone else beat me to it (sorry for duplication).
ashleyhr · 31 October 2016
PS I also commented briefly under that Neurological Blog entry.
PaulBC · 1 November 2016
EmilSkeptic · 1 November 2016
Dr. Young seems to take his information from a newspaper article written by a journalist without any relevant scientific background instead of an informed look at the scientific literature and states that he has "no doubts" about the material he just read. I am fairy certain that if someone had done this, but with intelligent design creationism instead of anti-GMO activists, Dr. Young would rightly point out the problems with this approach.
Dr. Young seems primarily concerned with pest resistance, but this has nothing to do with GM technology as such and it is not specific to GM applications. Resistances occurs in conventional agriculture as well, but you do not see Dr. Young opposing that. In conventional agriculture, farmers just switch herbicide when resistance develops and no one bats an eye.
The key message here is that glyphosate (where the patent expired in early 2000s) has enabled farmers to use a much less dangerous herbicide instead of the more dangerous herbicides that were used before. It is therefore surprising that Dr. Young seems concerned about 2,4-D in future GM applications, when this and more dangerous herbicides are regularly used in conventional agriculture.
Why merely focus on Europe? Why not globally like actual researchers have done? The Klümper and Qaim meta-analysis shows "GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%." Why cherry-pick individual European countries instead of looking at a larger dataset?
References and further reading:
Klümper, W., and Qaim, M. (2014). A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops. PLoS ONE, 9(11), e111629. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0111629
Lemaux, P. G. (2008). Genetically Engineered Plants and Foods: A Scientistâs Analysis of the Issues (Part I). Annual Review of Plant Biology, 59, 771-812.
Lemaux, P. G. (2009). Genetically Engineered Plants and Foods: A Scientist's Analysis of the Issues (Part II). Annual Review of Plant Biology, 60(1), 511-559.
National Research Council. (2010). Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects. National Academy Press.
Palaeonictis · 2 November 2016
Peter Moritz · 2 November 2016
Matt,
GMOâs such as Roundup Ready corn, largely because of the problem of resistant pests evolving, and indeed Mr. Hakim notes,"
get your terminology straight. Round up as a herbicide cannot produce resistant pests.
To note there as of now is no evidence available other than some very biased and unreliable studies that roundup is cancer inducing. Not even an LD 50 for roundup has yet been determined:
" The acute oral LD50 in the rat is 5,600 mg/kg. Other oral LD50 values for glyphosate are 1,538 to greater than 10,000 mg/kg for mice, rabbits mg/kg, and goats" http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu
"Carcinogenic Effects
Rats and dogs and mice fed glyphosate over a wide range of doses showed no cancer related effects directly due to the compound (4). EPA has stated that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that glyphosate is not carcinogenic in humans (8)."
/profiles/extoxnet/dienochlor-glyphosate/glyphosate-ext.html
Matt Young · 2 November 2016
Just for the record, Merriam-Webster defines a pest as "a plant or animal detrimental to humans or human concerns (as agriculture or livestock production)."
MaskedQuoll · 2 November 2016
Joel Eissenberg · 3 November 2016
Another critique here:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/11/how-mislead-statistics-gmo-crops-edition#disqus_thread
eric · 3 November 2016
ashleyhr · 3 November 2016
I wanted to comment briefly on this but can see NO comment box:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2016/11/creationist-cla.html#more
A while ago I referred to YEC responses to Yutyrannus huali at the British Centre for Science Education community forum (unfortunately the site is currently down so I cannot be more specific than this link:
http://www.forums.bcseweb.org.uk/)
As for Homo naledi, with AiG at least they say 'not' Homo, 'not' human, 'must' be ape, ignoring that if Australopithecine then it was not 'ape' but hominin.
ashleyhr · 3 November 2016
I wanted to comment briefly on this but can see NO comment box:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2016/11/creationist-cla.html#more
A while ago I referred to YEC responses to Yutyrannus huali at the British Centre for Science Education community forum (unfortunately the site is currently down so I cannot be more specific than this link:
http://www.forums.bcseweb.org.uk/)
As for Homo naledi, with AiG at least they say 'not' Homo, 'not' human, 'must' be ape, ignoring that if Australopithecine then it was not 'ape' but hominin.
If you are going to remove the above comment again, please can it be placed under the article (by Jonathan Kane) that I was attempting to comment on? Thank you.
ashleyhr · 3 November 2016
Sorry - just now I could not see my comment and thought it had been removed.
TomS · 3 November 2016
Matt Young · 3 November 2016
Matt Young · 3 November 2016
Geol777 · 3 November 2016
I will strongly second Clinker's recommendation to read Dr. Steven Novella's blog posts concerning GMOs (he has written extensively on the subject). The bottom line that I get from reading his blog (and other similar credible science blogs eg Kevin Folta) is that the anti-GMOers are essentially an anti-science cult using all the same brain-dead techniques that creationists indulge in, including disdain of peer-review in scientific literature (because it's all controlled by Monsanto of course). The anti-GMO fantasy is almost entirely based on propaganda, lies and misinformation; unfortunately too much of the public buys the lie at face value.
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/anti-gmo-propaganda/#more-7634
eric · 4 November 2016
alicejohn · 4 November 2016
I am a backyard beekeeper in Maryland. A few years ago, several members of the local club got into a discussion about Monsanto. Needless to say, Monsanto was taking a beating. However, one member of the club was also a part time farmer with another full time job. He said that he would not be able to profitably farm if it were not for Monsanto GMO seeds. The fact he does not have to cultivate and spray pesticides is the difference between profit and loss. His only complaint was the very high cost of the seed. He had to eventually stop posting because people's comments on his actual experiences were not very civil. Sound familiar?
One other thought. My grandfather was a farmer on one of the creeks of a tributary of the Chesapeake Bay in the 1970's. After severe rain storms, the creek would be as muddy as any mud hole you have ever seen from sediment run off. The sediment came from loose soil caused by cultivation. Obviously, chemicals in the soil went into the water too. Since GMO crops do not require cultivation and pesticides are not applied, sediment and chemical runoff have been significantly reduced.
Michael Fugate · 4 November 2016
Anecdotes are not much evidence. And there are other ways than no till + herbicide to prevent erosion. Contour plowing + buffer zones - wind breaks for one. Also promoting undisturbed areas around fields enhance insect diversity which is important in biological control and pollination. Glyphosphate is relatively safe for humans, but not so to many plants and bacteria (milkweed and monarchs, may be one effect). These studies often externalize costs to realize benefits.
GM technology alone is not the issue - it is the corporate model that goes along with an expensive technology that is the issue.
DS · 4 November 2016
ashleyhr · 4 November 2016
The comment facility under the Kane post has vanished again. I would be grateful if someone could either resolve the bug or post my comment sho0wn here under that blog or inform Mr Kane of my comment here.
Viz (now edited):
A while ago I referred to YEC responses to Yutyrannus huali at the British Centre for Science Education community forum: http://www.forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2955&hilit=yutyrannus (in fact AiG have seemingly agreed that this species was a dinosaur)
As for Homo naledi, with AiG at least they say ânotâ Homo, ânotâ human, âmustâ be ape, ignoring that if Australopithecine then it was not âapeâ but hominin.
ashleyhr · 4 November 2016
Typos corrected.
The comment facility under the Kane post has vanished again. I would be grateful if someone could either resolve the bug or post my comment shown here under that blog or inform Mr Kane of my comment here.
Viz (now edited): A while ago I referred to YEC responses to Yutyrannus huali at the British Centre for Science Education community forum: http://www.forums.bcseweb.org.uk/vi[â¦]t=yutyrannus (in fact AiG have seemingly agreed that this species was a dinosaur) As for Homo naledi, with AiG at least they say ânotâ Homo, ânotâ human, âmustâ be ape, ignoring that if Australopithecine then it was not âapeâ but hominin.
ashleyhr · 4 November 2016
NB BCSE link does work OK in the first version immediately above.
ashleyhr · 4 November 2016
Typos corrected AND BCSE link restored ...
The comment facility under the Kane post has vanished again. I would be grateful if someone could either resolve the bug or post my comment sho0wn here under that blog or inform Mr Kane of my comment here.
Viz (now edited): A while ago I referred to YEC responses to Yutyrannus huali at the British Centre for Science Education community forum: http://www.forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2955&hilit=yutyrannus (in fact AiG have seemingly agreed that this species was a dinosaur). As for Homo naledi, with AiG at least they say ânotâ Homo, ânotâ human, âmustâ be ape, ignoring that if Australopithecine then it was not âapeâ but hominin.
ashleyhr · 4 November 2016
Typos corrected AND BCSE link restored (second attempt) â¦
The comment facility under the Kane post has vanished again. I would be grateful if someone could either resolve the bug or post my comment shown here under that blog or inform Mr Kane of my comment here.
Viz (now edited): A while ago I referred to YEC responses to Yutyrannus huali at the British Centre for Science Education community forum: http://www.forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2955&hilit=yutyrannus (in fact AiG have seemingly agreed that this species was a dinosaur). As for Homo naledi, with AiG at least they say ânotâ Homo, ânotâ human, âmustâ be ape, ignoring that if Australopithecine then it was not âapeâ but hominin.
Matt Young · 4 November 2016
As ashleyhr has abundantly noted, there is something wrong with the "Leave a comment" box in the theropod entry, immediately following this one. The dashboard shows comments to be turned on, but there is no comment box at the bottom of the entry. I have reported the problem to the webmaster, and that is about all I can do from here.
Malcolm · 4 November 2016
ashleyhr · 5 November 2016
"As ashleyhr has abundantly noted, there is something wrong with the âLeave a commentâ box in the theropod entry, immediately following this one. The dashboard shows comments to be turned on, but there is no comment box at the bottom of the entry. I have reported the problem to the webmaster, and that is about all I can do from here."
Thanks. Since I last looked at the Kane post, eight new comments have been added underneath (including Matt helpfully flagging what I said in this thread). Yet - once again - right now I (in the UK not the US) can see NO comment box under the article. Not that I wished to add any further comment - I note the response by Mr Kane to my words with interest (and agreement).