Quote:
Originally Posted by
AmpersandQuote:
Originally Posted by Hortstu
The current purpose of GMOs is to sell more round up and other herbicides and pesticides.
Quote:
No, it's not. When grown as recommended by agricultural authorities round-up resistant and BT corn was supposed to massively reduce the need for chemical pesticide and herbicide inputs, NOT increase yields directly. This means proper crop rotation between plant families and planting portions of fields with non-GM varieties of the same plant (ie: half BT Corn and half regular corn).
Oops. sorry I wasn't going by the information put out by their propaganda wing. I was referring what was actually going on in the industry and herbicide sales have gone up exponentially since the release of the first GMO crops.
Quote:
Contrary to often-repeated claims that today’s genetically-engineered crops have, and are reducing pesticide use, the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds in herbicide-resistant weed management systems has brought about substantial increases in the number and volume of herbicides applied. If new genetically engineered forms of corn and soybeans tolerant of 2,4-D are approved, the volume of 2,4-D sprayed could drive herbicide usage upward by another approximate 50%. The magnitude of increases in herbicide use on herbicide-resistant hectares has dwarfed the reduction in insecticide use on
Bt crops over the past 16 years, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/24
You're relying on the govt... the biotech's public relations group. The same people that have appointed massive numbers of biotech people to high level positions in which they're going to have a serious conflict of interest!
http://http://rense.com/general33/fd.htm
I'd list them all here but that would make this post way to long, and it probably already is but most importantly Former Monsanto Vice President Michael R. Taylor is the current Deputy Commissioner for Foods at the United States FDA.
Quote:
Farmers ignored these recommendations and planted massive monocultures of same strain of the same crop year after year (there was too much profit to change it up), with the same weed and pest management programs. That led to accelerated adaptation/evolution of pests and weeds to resist the toxins.
Farmers continued to plant the same way they always planted monoculture and no one convinced them to do otherwise, and if it was so important then it shouldn't have been a "recommendation" it should have been a requirement.
Quote:
This NOW means there needs to be heavier use of herbicides and pesticides in all systems, not just GM fields.
That's not entirely true. There's much more organic produce being grown today than before GMOs were released.
Quote:
While I believe more research needs to be done into the potential health risks of GM crops, I refuse to completely close that toolbox.
I never suggested we "close the toolbox." Nor did I notice anyone else suggest that. I don't want to outlaw research, I want more done! I don't want to stop progress, I want to know what I'm feeding my kid! The current biotech companies have made their motives clear by taking farms from small farmers by lawsuiting them to death and then making them available to the larger farmers that grow their crops.
Quote:
In properly managed systems GM plants should have been productive with much fewer inputs.
However that hasn't been the case in the real world.
Quote:
However, the quest for profits on the part of industrial scale farmers
Yes blame the farmers. Who is making the bulk of the profit off of GMOs? Which farmers are committing suicide by the thousands by drinking round up in the fields because they're losing their farms to even bigger farmers? Conventional or GMO farmers?
Quote:
essentially doomed what should have been a useful part of a multi-leveled approach (no-till, cover cropping, crop rotation, using targeted pesticides instead of broad spectrum, etc) to increasing crop yields and decreasing inputs.
Large scale farmers rarely used sustainable practices before they grew GMOs inspite of the fact that it would have been better for everyone if they did it then! Why would they start making the process more expensive and labor intensive just because they got a seed that promised them more money with less work?
Quote:
I'm not attacking you personally, I've just read a great deal of misinformed opinions from many people and it upsets me that conclusions are drawn without understanding the facts and reasons for GM plants being introduced.
...and I'm not attacking you personally. I'm just pointing out that the propaganda doesn't always match the reality, and if you're saying I don't understand the facts then I would consider that an insult.
Quote:
I have education in agriculture and and degree in horticulture, so I try to inform other people of what the story behind GM plants is.
I have a minor in agroecology and a major in horticulture from one of the first land grant universities. I actually did some work towards my graduate degree but realized too late the direction of the industry and where the money was coming from and how it impacted the work and views of the majority of my professors. The others were very careful not to upset the apple cart by saying anything anti GMO...
but I don't like to throw this information around to make myself sound credible. I just use facts for that.
The story you're telling is nothing more than that, a fairy tale that's become a nightmare.