Genetically modified crops largely a failure, says consumer group

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Jorghnassen:
Have I been demonising anything? Anyway, I see no point in arguing about the potential of a wholesale conversion to organic farming because such a process would be gradual and obviously, the impact of it would be assessed and the methods of production adjusted over time (whether that means doing "conventional" farming again or merely developping different "organic" techniques, as organic farming isn't an unevolving process).

You engaged me in debate as to the pitfalls of proliferating organic farming to begin with. Would you not agree that if the increasing popularity of organic food is based upon pseudoscientific claims and scare tactics, and that the science section of a sceptics forum is just the place to point this out? And in perpetuating some of the lies peddled by the organic lobby you've engaged in nothing short of demonisation of conventional agriculture.

Well, I'll say it again. If your mentality is only towards production in volume and shelf life, then by all means pasteurize. If you want volume and shelf life in food production, stick to conventional farming. But cheese from unpasteurized milk is tastier and just as safe, and since there is a market for it, then there is no point in opposing its production.

Emphasis mine on what I believe to be a key statement. Is the palatability of unpastuerized cheese a subjective judgement on your part, an observation based on anecdotal evidence, or is there objective evidence to support your assertion? Are there studies that support the claim that unpasteurized cheese is as safe as the pasteurized stuff?

See my response to Eos of the Eons.

Rightio.

Go watch a documentary called Bacon. What is more ethical: castration at birth and life in an enclosed space so small the animal can't move or not being given large amounts of antibiotics (as far as I've seen, vaccines are allowed in organic farming, though possibly with some regulations/restrictions)?

Castration is a fact of all livestock farming. You cannot safely and humanely raise male livestock, "organically" or otherwise, without it. Cattle and sheep raised by conventional methods are not penned in the way you describe, but nevertheless they do require vaccination and antibiotic treatments from time to time.

Industrial farming is all about maximizing the amount of food produced, and minimizing the cost, which means a large amount of animals in a small amount of space. Well-being of the animals isn't considered (prevention of sickness and disease exist only for the maximizing production POV).

Nonsense, optimal animal welfare is central to meat production. Not only are you an ignoramus when it comes to meat science, but in your last sentence you've compounded that by contradicting yourself.

Well, it's not the process per se if you ask me, but more about the small scale production with emphasis on quality rather than volume. I assume this should be achievable with a similarly minded conventional farm (hence my useage of the word industrial in many occasions, I am willing to bet small farm, conventional or organic, makes tastier produce than industrial farm, conventional or organic, because in the latter case the production is optimized for volume).

I couldn't give a fig about what you're willing to place money on. What I would like to know is wheter there is any objective evidence to support your assertions? Or is this just another argument from ignorance and bias?

It's not going to happen. The entire mentality and labour intensiveness of organic farming prevents it from having as large scale pig farms as industrial ones, so it's a problem that cannot arise.

The organic lobby begs to differ.

Have I been ragging on GM crops at any point?

You most certainly have. You drew an equivalence between the claims of the organic and GM lobbies. Crops utilising modern molecular techniques (GM is really a misnomer) have only been commercially grown for less than a decade, but have already delivered tangible results. Otherwise farmers wouldn't be growing them. OTOH what my link demonstrates is the dishonesty of the organic lobby. Maybe you ought to read it.

 

[pgwenthold]

Emphasis mine on what I believe to be a key statement. Is the palatability of unpastuerized cheese a subjective judgement on your part, an observation based on anecdotal evidence, or is there objective evidence to support your assertion? Are there studies that support the claim that unpasteurized cheese is as safe as the pasteurized stuff.

I'm guessing it depends. In the short term, I would guess it is just as safe. It is not just as safe in the long term. If it were, we wouldn't need pasteurization.

Now, if you are generally using cheese within a very short time after it is made, then you won't need pasteurization, but how many people have access to that?

And the comment about the taste is pure subjectivity, and undefendable. Also, I would even question whether it is true. Double blind testing? I doubt it.

Castration is a fact of all livestock farming. You cannot safely and humanely raise male livestock, "organically" or otherwise, without it. Cattle and sheep raised by conventional methods are not penned in the way you describe, but nevertheless they do require vaccination and antibiotic treatments from time to time. BTW I learned all this by completing a masters degree on the subject, not from watching TV.

My wife used to be fundamentally opposed to eating veal, until she went to vet school and actually learned what veal farming is actually like. Now she doesn't mind eating veal, and is definately not opposed to it in principle.

 

[Rolfe]

My wife used to be fundamentally opposed to eating veal, until she went to vet school and actually learned what veal farming is actually like. Now she doesn't mind eating veal, and is definately not opposed to it in principle.

Depends where the veal is produced. Veal raised in the UK has to obey certain welfare requirements that (in my opinion, certainly) mean that few reasonable carnivores should have any objection to it.

However, this husbandry system gives the meat a slightly different colour (and perhaps texture), which isn't favoured by the consumer in continental Europe. The regulations there are different, and "veal crates" are allowed. This system gives the very pale meat beloved by the discerning continental consumer, but it is pretty nasty if you happen to be a calf.

There may be countries other than the UK where decent husbandry regulations are in place, but I don't have every detail, and I prefer not to eat veal on the continent at all.

Rolfe.

 

[Rob Lister]

pgwenthold wrote:

I am willing to bet small farm, conventional or organic, makes tastier produce than industrial farm, conventional or organic, because in the latter case the production is optimized for volume).

While I can't cite a study, I would take that bet and give you two-to-one odds in any double-blind study you'd care to set up. I'm not just saying there'd be no difference, I'm saying that the high-production farm would outperform (taste-wise) the organic or low production farm far more often than not (which is why I gave you 2:1 odds). Part of 'high production' is being able to sell your product and a pour-tasting product doesn't oft get the consumer to continously consume (compare purdue young chicks to freerange). Sure, there would be exceptions. Some cow-farms in Japan actually massage their cows daily and that might make a difference...my own crop of tomatos are tastier than the store brand (without a doubt in my wee mind) but I only produce a peck or two and they end up costing me (in the end) four or five times what the Farm Fresh standard costs; I doubt a farmer-for-profit could do that.

Edit to add: while i'm at it, if we restrict our test to only store-bought brands from major markets - standard v. organic, I'll give you 4:1 odds standard beats organic. While I'm not a professional cook, cooking is somewhat of a passion so I'm fairly confident 4:1 is still well in my favor.

 

[Jorghnassen]

You engaged me in debate as to the pitfalls of proliferating organic farming to begin with. Would you not agree that if the increasing popularity of organic food is based upon pseudoscientific claims and scare tactics, and that the science section of a sceptics forum is just the place to point this out? And in perpetuating some of the lies peddled by the organic lobby you've engaged in nothing short of demonisation of conventional agriculture.

What do we call this again, false dilemma or something similar? I'm saying organic farming cannot compete with conventional farming, and that its presence is benign. That is not the same as saying conventional farming is evil and should be stopped, though I do have some quarrels with some more intensive industrial farming practices. If I demonised conventional farming I'd be a freaking hypocrite for buying almost all of my food from it. I rarely buy organic products, and when I do buy some it's because I like a particular product that happens to be labelled organic because I don't care whether it is "organic" or not). Like if I want some brown aplle juice (I think americans call it cider) at work, the only kind they sell at the cafeteria happens to be organic...

Emphasis mine on what I believe to be a key statement. Is the palatability of unpastuerized cheese a subjective judgement on your part, an observation based on anecdotal evidence, or is there objective evidence to support your assertion? Are there studies that support the claim that unpasteurized cheese is as safe as the pasteurized stuff?

You should read up on that. Pasteurization affects the taste (that is, pasteurized food tastes different than unpasteurized), that is quite objectively assessed. For the subjective question of taste (which tastes better?), you will find that experts (and amateurs) agree which cheeses in general are superior (or you can try it yourself, go buy a regular camembert and a Charles VII camembert made from raw milk, taste the difference). On the matter of safety you can discover the historical factors that led the US to ban most raw milk cheeses (1940's, mass production, war effort, interest in shelf life, ban later got permanent). Incidentally you will find that somehow both organic farmers (though raw milk cheese does not require organic farming, it appears organic farmers are quite fond of it, go figure) and junkscience.com agree on the matter of raw milk cheese (in the sense that it shouldn't be banned), which I think is quite rare.

Nonsense, optimal animal welfare is central to meat production. Not only are you an ignoramus when it comes to meat science, but in your last sentence you've compounded that by contradicting yourself.

I am guessing that organic and conventional farmers have different definitions of the welfare of animal units.

I couldn't give a fig about what you're willing to place money on. What I would like to know is wheter there is any objective evidence to support your assertions? Or is this just another argument from ignorance and bias?

Ad hoc generalization and definition actually. Artisanal production vs mass production, different logisitics, different objectives, different markets, that's all I'm talking about. For example, the tomato you picked fresh from the local farm will taste different than the tomato you bought at the grocery store that was imported from some far away state and was made to have a long shelf life and to rippen in transit. The best tasting tomato varieties (say) aren't necessarily the bigger ones or the ones with long shelf life, but if you want to export, you need something that's going to survive transit.

You most certainly have. You drew an equivalence between the claims of the organic and GM lobbies. Crops utilising modern molecular techniques (GM is really a misnomer) have only been commercially grown for less than a decade, but have already delivered tangible results. Otherwise farmers wouldn't be growing them. OTOH what my link demonstrates is the dishonesty of the organic lobby. Maybe you ought to read it.

All I said, or all I meant at least, was that you shouldn't believe everything the organic lobby or the GM (sorry to use it but it's short) lobby (or any other lobby for that matter) tells you.

 

[Jorghnassen]

pgwenthold wrote:
Edit to add: while i'm at it, if we restrict our test to only store-bought brands from major markets - standard v. organic, I'll give you 4:1 odds standard beats organic. While I'm not a professional cook, cooking is somewhat of a passion so I'm fairly confident 4:1 is still well in my favor.

Oh I am quite sure there is little, if any, difference between mass-produced food, organic vs conventional or otherwise. President's Choice apple juice, whether it's their organic or not organic kind, is cheap colored and sugared water (well, I haven't tried their organic one but I wouldn't bother). What I was really talking about, was artisanal production (conventional or organic, though it seems like there's a higher proportion of organic farms at the artisinal scale than at the industrial scale, which isn't surprising) vs industrial production, but then I guess I'm sort of comparing apples and oranges.

 

[pgwenthold]

Depends where the veal is produced. Veal raised in the UK has to obey certain welfare requirements that (in my opinion, certainly) mean that few reasonable carnivores should have any objection to it.

I am talking about the US.

 

[Rolfe]

I am talking about the US.

I'm not familiar with the veal-raising standards in the US. Do you know what the legislation is? I'd certainly have no reservations about eating veal raised and slaughtered within the UK.

Rolfe.

 

[pgwenthold]

I'm not familiar with the veal-raising standards in the US. Do you know what the legislation is? I'd certainly have no reservations about eating veal raised and slaughtered within the UK.

I don't know US standards, but my wife does, and she doesn't have any objections to eating US veal. Recall how this discussion started, I noted that she was opposed to veal until learning about the farming standards in vet school.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Jorghnassen:
What do we call this again, false dilemma or something similar? I'm saying organic farming cannot compete with conventional farming, and that its presence is benign.

Neither can homeopathy compete with conventional medicine. Would you describe it as a benign influence, or any other instance where pseudoscience prevails?

BTW our next government might just include the Green Party, who certainly do believe organic farming is preferable to the conventional kind, and would be more than willing to spend other people's money on it.

You should read up on that.

No, you should cite the references you read up on.

Ad hoc generalization and definition actually. Artisanal production vs mass production, different logisitics, different objectives, different markets, that's all I'm talking about. For example, the tomato you picked fresh from the local farm will taste different than the tomato you bought at the grocery store that was imported from some far away state and was made to have a long shelf life and to rippen in transit. The best tasting tomato varieties (say) aren't necessarily the bigger ones or the ones with long shelf life, but if you want to export, you need something that's going to survive transit.

So a tomato produced by conventional means down the road should taste better than an organic tomato that spent a week in shipping and on the road?

All I said, or all I meant at least, was that you shouldn't believe everything the organic lobby or the GM (sorry to use it but it's short) lobby (or any other lobby for that matter) tells you.

But wouldn't you agree that on present evidence GM has a lot more credibility than organic?

 

[IIRichard]

Who cares what a bunch of flying yogas think?

Well, if the flying Yogas have weapons and they think I'm a menace to humanity in general and Yogas in particular, I for one would like to be forwarned.

IIR

 

[Jorghnassen]

Neither can homeopathy compete with conventional medicine. Would you describe it as a benign influence, or any other instance where pseudoscience prevails?

In the case of alternatives medicine, there is a danger in the case of life threatening illnesses. If homeopathy limited itself to cold relieving medicine, it wouldn't be much of a problem. In the case of organic food, I don't really see how it can be life threatening, and neither is it a complete scam like astrology where you can spend money on a few meaningless predictions. If you buy organic food, you get food which isn't particularly nocive, just perhaps inefficiently produced. But feeding oneself isn't all about efficiency (else we'd all be eating mostly tofu). So as long as its scale is negligeable compared to conventional farming, I cannot see it as an important problem.

BTW our next government might just include the Green Party, who certainly do believe organic farming is preferable to the conventional kind, and would be more than willing to spend other people's money on it.

Well, that's a political problem isn't it? If you don't want them to win you have to make an argument that's palatable to the electorate (it doesn't have to be right or true, that's how politics work).

No, you should cite the references you read up on.

I've been trying to find good ones, but ever since the debate in this country has been over it's been hard to find the non-commercial links (I use to find really good scientific ones, but google is a harsh mistress, and I may never find them again, just like that one comprehensive analysis of gun policies in the US and Canada).

So a tomato produced by conventional means down the road should taste better than an organic tomato that spent a week in shipping and on the road?

Probably, but I did recognize I made a hasty generalization (there can be plenty of small farms targetting low end markets, going for cheap stuff rather than pricey quality stuff). Now if you want to supply tomatoes to Subway restaurants, you care about shelf life, shipping and high volume. If you want to supply 4 stars restaurants, you go for the more flavourful varieties, local production, higher production cost, but you don't care so much about shelf life and volume. I think organic farming, because of its higher production cost, has a tendency to target those high end markets, the fancy little butcher shops, bakeries and restaurants, so it's not the farming technique that gives better taste, it's the choice of who they sell it to.

But wouldn't you agree that on present evidence GM has a lot more credibility than organic?

In certain claims, yes. But, beyond science, when one talks about lobby there are political and economical factors involved. When you have mega-pig farms sprouting everywhere in the country-side, clearing woods to make room for the waste, you ask yourself why oh why did the local pig-farmers decide that a part of the foreign markets was worth more than the local environment. Can't those foreign markets produce their own pork? There's a produce first, worry about the consequences later mentality. When Monsanto makes crops that are resistant to herbicide, it's because they want to make profits from the crops and the herbicide. Of course, they'll say it's to alleviate world hunger, but that's just the sales pitch. Same with pharmaceutical companies. They want to sell too, there's sound science in there for sure, but there's greed and political scheming. Are the high prices for medication in the US really just for research? You don't need to think too much to ask yourself how are they paying for all that advertising they do everywhere.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

We have mega pig farms around here, and they aren't ruining the environment. They do stink though. The farmers that spread manure on their crops also stink up the countryside. The beef farms smell it up too. Oh, and those chicken farms REEK (I lived in a town where the chicken farm was on the outer edges, and when we were downwind....ewwwww).

I just don't see how they are deciding

that a part of the foreign markets was worth more than the local environment

Land is cleared for many reasons, but it doesn't destroy it. Look how our cities gobble land. Thing is, there is still a lot of land left and our environment is better cared for now by farmers than they have ever been. There are laws.

Of course one needs profit in order to feed people. It's a cycle. You have to make enough food to feed everyone and make more and pay the people doing all that. If it's not profitable then the farmers are all going to throw their arms up and say "scr3w you".

How to make a crop profitable? Save it from parasites (the plant and animal parasites). We can do this round up ready thing with wheat because it is safe to do so. You don't see people making round up ready apples, etc. You get a good crop of wheat and get money to make more. With all the suffering around my province with BSE and droughts I can see why round up ready wheat is appreciated.

We need something to keep those freakin grasshoppers off of our crops though. That would be the best invention ever!

It does take a lot of work and money to make returns in farming. We've had farms go belly up, a lot lately, and not just the poor lil' ol' farms. There are horror stories abounding about hundreds of animals dying in feedlots that are taken over. It's sickening and saddening. We need all the GM help we can get, and not put down farmers that utilize the help. Then they won't lose their farms and we won't see this horrendous result.

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=U&start=10&q=http://animalwelfareofficials.newstrove.com/&e=9847

Conventional Farmers are getting a bad rap, and this is coming from the "woos" in order to sell "organic". It's "thanks a lot for nothing". Having to weed through all the lies from those who want to push "organic" is maddening. Who is making up conspiracies to sell an idea? Who is lying about GM foods? Who is profiting from this? Well, it's rather sad that people need to lie to sell organic to the public. It's sad they have to scare people with stories of "frankenfoods" to get customers.

Once you do look at the claims that are used to sell organic, then you see who is trying to make whom look bad. Conventional farmers do not want to poison people and wreck the environment in order to profit. There are laws and guidelines to follow. GM is not just "for profit". It's to help floundering farmers who have been hit hard the last few years by drought and things like BSE. Without the conventional farmer that are so unappreciated, we'd all soon learn why they ought to be appreciated. I resent the picture "organics" paint of the people who do use science to help feed our faces.

 

[Jorghnassen]

I just don't see how they are deciding

How is an expansion into foreign markets not a decision?

Land is cleared for many reasons, but it doesn't destroy it. Look how our cities gobble land. Thing is, there is still a lot of land left and our environment is better cared for now by farmers than they have ever been. There are laws.

Land is cleared but it doesn't destroy it? What exactly do you mean by that? When land is cleared and ecosystem is destroyed. Whether the consequences of these changes are beneficial or not depends on the point of view.

Anyway, how's your French? Go read chapter 5 of this government report:

http://www.bape.gouv.qc.ca/sections/rapports/publications/bape142-2.pdf

Something about increased pollution, lack of respect for the laws...

More of the same here: (in particular, section 2.1.3).
http://uqcn.qc.ca/agriculture/protection_eau.pdf

 

[pgwenthold]

We have mega pig farms around here, and they aren't ruining the environment. They do stink though.

Speaking of large hog farms, I will say that that the pork industry has probably benefitted the most from the move to large farms in the last 20 - 25 years. In the old days, you could find good quality pork from small producers, but it wasn't common. Most small producers didn't have good stuff, and so most of the meat on the market wasn't good.

As the operations have gotten larger, they been built on genes from the top small producers, and as a result, now all of the pork is coming out from the good farms' stock. There's been a lot of work on rate of development, too, but in the end, and as a result of large farms, we have healthier and IMO better tasting pork.

I haven't noticed it as much with beef, but I think that started at a higher level in the first place, and the meat hasn't evolved as much as pork has.

 

[steenkh]

Thing is, there is still a lot of land left and our environment is better cared for now by farmers than they have ever been. There are laws.

The farmers do not seem to care for the land of their own free will. In Denmark there are lots of problems because farmers overdose their fertilisers, and the consequence have been devastating to the lakes and shallow waters. Lots of laws have been made to curb it, but the laws have been inefficient (because of "farmer-friendly" politicians) and farmers have usually found ways around the laws.

Some laws have been easier to implement than others. For example, the laws that required the farmers to build solid , roofed containers for their pig fertilisers. But then the farmers have invested big in eastern Europe where there are no such laws, and where they could keep the fertilisers in open lakes, to the complete ruin of the local environment.

There are no doubt conscientious farmers, but it is not a law of nature that farmers are better ar caring for their environment.

 

[Drooper]

The farmers do not seem to care for the land of their own free will. In Denmark there are lots of problems because farmers overdose their fertilisers, and the consequence have been devastating to the lakes and shallow waters. Lots of laws have been made to curb it, but the laws have been inefficient (because of "farmer-friendly" politicians) and farmers have usually found ways around the laws.

Some laws have been easier to implement than others. For example, the laws that required the farmers to build solid , roofed containers for their pig fertilisers. But then the farmers have invested big in eastern Europe where there are no such laws, and where they could keep the fertilisers in open lakes, to the complete ruin of the local environment.

There are no doubt conscientious farmers, but it is not a law of nature that farmers are better ar caring for their environment.

Danish farmers, loke those in much of the EU behve in response to the massive distorting policies of the Common Agricultural Policy.

Owners of an asset always have a much greater interest in its preservation than aybody else.

 

[steenkh]

Owners of an asset always have a much greater interest in its preservation than aybody else.

But they may not care about assets that they do not own themselves.

Besides, there are forest owners who would not think twice about clearing the lot at one go, if they get the right price.

You can also find examples of real estate owners who earn money from their property but still do not perform basic maintenance - for the simple reason that for some time, they can earn even more.

It is basic human nature to be short-sighted, some of the time.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Jorghnassen:
In the case of alternatives medicine, there is a danger in the case of life threatening illnesses. If homeopathy limited itself to cold relieving medicine, it wouldn't be much of a problem. In the case of organic food, I don't really see how it can be life threatening, and neither is it a complete scam like astrology where you can spend money on a few meaningless predictions. If you buy organic food, you get food which isn't particularly nocive, just perhaps inefficiently produced. But feeding oneself isn't all about efficiency (else we'd all be eating mostly tofu). So as long as its scale is negligeable compared to conventional farming, I cannot see it as an important problem.

Are you acquainted with the concept of the slippery slope?

Well, that's a political problem isn't it?

But you'd agree that it's rather relevant to the future of organic farming?

I've been trying to find good ones, but ever since the debate in this country has been over it's been hard to find the non-commercial links (I use to find really good scientific ones, but google is a harsh mistress, and I may never find them again, just like that one comprehensive analysis of gun policies in the US and Canada).

Ever heard of pubmed?

Probably, but I did recognize I made a hasty generalization (there can be plenty of small farms targetting low end markets, going for cheap stuff rather than pricey quality stuff). Now if you want to supply tomatoes to Subway restaurants, you care about shelf life, shipping and high volume. If you want to supply 4 stars restaurants, you go for the more flavourful varieties, local production, higher production cost, but you don't care so much about shelf life and volume. I think organic farming, because of its higher production cost, has a tendency to target those high end markets, the fancy little butcher shops, bakeries and restaurants, so it's not the farming technique that gives better taste, it's the choice of who they sell it to.

Non sequiturs. Since when did higher production cost translate into increased palatability, for instance?

In certain claims, yes. But, beyond science, when one talks about lobby there are political and economical factors involved.

Sure, but their claims can be subjected to objective analysis, and judgements can be made about the merits of their cases.

When you have mega-pig farms sprouting everywhere in the country-side, clearing woods to make room for the waste, you ask yourself why oh why did the local pig-farmers decide that a part of the foreign markets was worth more than the local environment.

The evidence for this is?

When Monsanto makes crops that are resistant to herbicide, it's because they want to make profits from the crops and the herbicide. Of course, they'll say it's to alleviate world hunger, but that's just the sales pitch.

That companies exist to make profits is hardly remarkable, although there is a tendency on the part of some to paint this as a rather sinister thing. Nor do I think that any representative of Monsanto has ever claimed any technology of theirs will alleviate world hunger. Oh, and do you think that profit ever enters the mind of organic farmers?

Are the high prices for medication in the US really just for research?

No, there's a whole regulatory process that has to be adhered to as well, and that doesn't come cheap.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

How is an expansion into foreign markets not a decision?




Land is cleared but it doesn't destroy it? What exactly do you mean by that? When land is cleared and ecosystem is destroyed. Whether the consequences of these changes are beneficial or not depends on the point of view.

Anyway, how's your French? Go read chapter 5 of this government report:

http://www.bape.gouv.qc.ca/sections/rapports/publications/bape142-2.pdf

Something about increased pollution, lack of respect for the laws...

More of the same here: (in particular, section 2.1.3).
http://uqcn.qc.ca/agriculture/protection_eau.pdf

Eh, you misquoted me and left out my points. They are not deciding to willfully destroy land. There are laws, and in Canada there are consequences.

You put down farmers for "clearing land" and "destroying it" (how odd they can grow crops and animals on this "destroyed land" effectively...so effectively they "beat out" the "small farms"). Seems to me they take care of their land and feed people with the results.

You don't complain about cities destroying land for some reason. Seems to me this land is rather useless for feeding the masses.

The "organic" farming claims come up short. They don't treat the land better, or their animals. Instead they use untested and unregulated pesticides and animal treatments. They go on claims that are clearly rooted in "woodom" that are also untested and unregulated. All this to conclude they are better...even though their claims are unfounded.