Scientists say GE crops encourage stronger weeds

[SoylentGreen]

Scientists say GE crops encourage stronger weeds - Business - NZ Herald News

Genetically engineered crops do little to improve yields and instead promote the proliferation of herbicide-resistant weeds that actually curb production, according to a study by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Corn and soybeans modified to resist insects and the herbicide glyphosate haven't been proven to boost yields, the Cambridge, Massachusetts-based group says in a 44-page report. The modified plants have increased the number of glyphosate-resistant weeds that compete for soil nutrients and moisture, reducing production, the group says. "The two major types of traits now present in transgenic crops - insect resistance and herbicide tolerance - are often classic contributors to operational yield," said Doug Gurian- Sherman, a senior scientist in the group and the author of the report. "Neither trait would be expected to enhance potential or intrinsic yield, and indeed, there is virtually no evidence that they have done so."

Monsanto, the world's biggest seed producer, did not return calls seeking comment. Sharon Bomer Lauritsen, an executive vice-president of food and agriculture at the Biotechnology Industry Organisation in Washington, said the report by the Union of Concerned Scientists was absurd. "Biotech crops help to provide for more sustainable agricultural production," Bomer Lauritsen said. "The benefits include a reduction in the environmental impacts of agriculture, increased production on the same amount of acreage, improved food quality and increased farmer incomes. It's absurd to deny biotechnology's contribution."

Shares of Monsanto, based in St Louis, fell US$1.31, or 1.6 per cent, to US$81.76. Before that dip they had dropped 31 per cent in the past 12 months.

It is not scientifically absurd to deny biotechnology's contribution. It's financially absurd.

"Overall, corn and soybean yields have risen substantially over the last 15 years, but largely not as a result of the GE traits. Most of the gains are due to traditional breeding or improvement of other agricultural practices. "The European Commission, the European Union's regulatory arm, has argued bans are unjustified because scientists have determined the products are safe for consumption and the environment.

I would still encourage the countries of the world to ban american imports of GE seeds. This is a case of profiteering by trying to deny the fact that the business is actually offering an inferior product.

[Dan_77]

Quote by: SoylentGreen I would still encourage the countries of the world to ban american imports of GE seeds. This is a case of profiteering by trying to deny the fact that the business is actually offering an inferior product.

No, it's a case of Ludditeism.

Calls to ban GE/GM foods are based on pure, unadulterated ignorance.

And by the way, the UCS is little more than a left-wing smear group. There are zero qualifications to be listed as a "scientist" on their roster. If they're a resource, then WorldNetDaily is a resource. ABC News investigated the UCS last year and what they found was that they're about as scientific as the celebrity news page of USA Today.

[grandpa]

Quote by: tivodan1116 No, it's a case of Ludditeism. Calls to ban GE/GM foods are based on pure, unadulterated ignorance.

Provide an example. Also, Luddites actually had a point and weren't entirely wrong about everything.

Grandpa h.

[Disinformant]

Quote by: SoylentGreen I would still encourage the countries of the world to ban american imports of GE seeds. This is a case of profiteering by trying to deny the fact that the business is actually offering an inferior product.

Here here!!!
I think all countries of the world should ban genetic crops. As a former farmer, let me give you some info:
they are harder to grow, much harder! The weather conditions can't be as extreme. Being able to defend against hard weather is integral to a farm
They taste worse, that's just true. Sometimes they are sweeter, but they always lose a lot of real flavor.
They require more pesticides, which can kill animals and people slowly, as well as damage the environment, tamper with drinking water, increase costs, etc.
Suicide genes: some crops can't even produce offspring, forcing you to repurchase seeds year in and year out: this makes farming more expensive.

Watch out for the WTO and Codex Alimentarius:
http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/

90% of food on this planet didn't exist 100 years ago: this is not a good thing. There is a reason Globalists are building massive seed banks in the arctic without GMO foods in them.

GMO foods also have been shown to cause cancer, they are more carcinogenic, and all in all the companies behind making them are so sinister, supporting them is like supporting NaziFarms.

[Cruella]

GMO foods also have been shown to cause cancer, they are more carcinogenic, and all in all the companies behind making them are so sinister, supporting them is like supporting NaziFarms.

Studies, please.

Oh, and GODWIN.

[Disinformant]

There are literally HUNDREDS of scientific studies on the issue, I will quote one about Bovine Growth Hormone. The chemical rBGH is inside our milk, cheese, ice-cream, etc.

GMO Genetic Engineering: LYMPHATIC CANCER

More:
GMO Corn Causes Liver, Kidney Problems in Rats: Study ( Environmental group Greenpeace launched...)
Grow GMO Free - Details
Health Freedom Threats: Codex, FDA, Vaccinations, GMOs :: HealthFreedomUSA.org

Do your research, best to know what you're eating.

[grandpa]

A good place to start:
milk benefits - Recherche Google

Come to your own conclusions, I say.

Grandpa h.

[Cruella]

I do my own research, luckily, I live in a country where GMO foods have to be clearly labelled as such.

[Hmm]

Quote by: CruellaDeChaCha I do my own research, luckily, I live in a country where GMO foods have to be clearly labelled as such.

Just a question:

Is meat labelled as such, based upon its feed?

[Cruella]

Actually, yes. If an animal is reared organically then the label will say so. It will also say if the animal has a non-gmo diet. However, if the label doesn't state where the animals feed came from, it get's a bit more tricky particularly if your meat source is foreign.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Disinformant I think all countries of the world should ban genetic crops.

As long as you're at it, why not ban the high-yield farming methods of the green revolution. Number one, it's dependence on chemical fertilizers is polluting rivers and water tables, and the runoff into the seas is killing off coral reefs and creating massive 'Dead Zones' in coastal oceans.

U.N. report warns of nitrogen runoff killing fisheries - msnbc, 2004

Combine this with the dependence on massive irrigation, we're dramatically depleting water tables in areas that don't have enough naturally occurring water to sustain such high levels of agriculture.

NPR Report Discusses How India’s Farming System is Heading for Ecological and Economic Collapse - Apr. 2009

It seems like any time you mess with mother nature, the law of unintended consequences lurks just around the corner. Perhaps now we can resurrect Paul Ehrlich's reputation.

.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Sonart . As long as you're at it, why not ban the high-yield farming methods of the green revolution. Number one, it's dependence on chemical fertilizers is polluting rivers and water tables, and the runoff into the seas is killing off coral reefs and creating massive 'Dead Zones' in coastal oceans..

It simply isn't possible to not seek ways to improve crop yield. The problem with the chemical usage is that it is being pushed by the chemical companies and backed by government intervention.

There is a green revolution going on and it is an attempt to use more of what nature can supply in the way of growing crops or feeding animals, and chemicals that are organic, meaning short life span before the composition of the chemical breaks down.

The fertilizer problem can only be tackled by imposing money fines on farmers who pollute local rivers and a campaign to change there fixed mindset on using chemical fertilizer.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: SoylentGreen It simply isn't possible to not seek ways to improve crop yield. The problem with the chemical usage is that it is being pushed by the chemical companies and backed by government intervention.

The point being that there's a down side to just about every new technology aimed at getting mother nature to produce more food than she's willing to provide the soils and water to produce.

And yes, I'm aware of the various techniques of organic farming you're suggesting, but as of right now, no, they are not sufficient to produce the food the world currently needs.

.

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

(WoW surprising the predators evolve to ensure they can compete with the prey, must have taken a while to suss that, perhaps someone created the idea.... mmmm nope))

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Sonart . The point being that there's a down side to just about every new technology aimed at getting mother nature to produce more food than she's willing to provide the soils and water to produce. And yes, I'm aware of the various techniques of organic farming you're suggesting, but as of right now, no, they are not sufficient to produce the food the world currently needs. .

I have to disagree but mostly it comes from personal experience.

There is an incredible amount of waste in the food industry. There is more than enough food grown to feed everyone but their is more profit to be made from not doing so.

[barts]

Wild organisms will always eventually overcome organisms genetically modified by corporations. The reason is that the former adapt by natural selection and the latter, by design, do not. For example, Roundup resistance weeds have begun to appear.

The human and corporate notion that natural selection can be thwarted is mere hubris.

However, if a corporation can maintain the con long enough profits are to be made, despite the subsequent damage to food production.

[grandpa]

Quote by: barts Wild organisms will always eventually overcome organisms genetically modified by corporations. The reason is that the former adapt by natural selection and the latter, by design, do not.

The latter is not organic, but definitely living. I'm sure some kind of adaptation can occur. Failing that, GM scientists can always attempt to redesign the failed crops. I'm not really saying they should, just that they most likely will.

Grandpa h.