GM Crops: Should We Be Scared?

[Melendwyr]

I've heard that assertion many times, but I have yet to see hard data on it. Got a good resource?

I don't think it really constitues "hard data", but: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0009/feature4/

The following link is clearly not objective, but it contains links to more scholarly articles: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_Sixth_Great_Extinction

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6502368/

I could try finding scientific data on the current extinction rate and what scientists believe the normal background extinction rate is, if you'd like.

 

[Soapy Sam]

delphi-ote
The critical word is "middle".

The last glacial maximum was around 20,000 years ago, since when a big, but far from certain number of mammals, insects, plants etc. have become extinct.

Humans started to make their presence felt as large mammal hunters about that time or a couple of thousand years after.
So, if we take that as the start of the present "mass extinction event" and now as the end, the middle was about ten thousand years ago.
If we call now the middle, the extinction has twenty thousand years to run and clearly we are a prime cause.
In short, it's a political statement which means what the user wants it to mean. We still have only a vague idea how many species exist- of any sort. We have only a vague idea how many went extinct per century from -say- 130,000 years ago until 20,000 years ago. So we have only a vague idea whether we are in a situation of increased , decreased or normal extinction rates, or even if those terms are meaningful for a given period.

That said, it's clear humans are causing the demise of many species through habitat destruction, fishing etc. Others expand into the vacated territory and will speciate accordingly. I'm betting there will be a lot more crow and rat species ten thousand years from now.

My personal suspicion is that any time is extinction time, because change is always happening somewhere. So maybe it's true- we are in the middle of an extinction event. A very long one.

 

[Melendwyr]

Our effect on the rainforests alone are causing the rate of species extinction to go way up. Whether you see that as an example of a larger problem is more subjective.

 

[bruto]

I agree that much of the scare about GM crops is overblown, and strikes me as similar to the scare about irradiation. On the other hand, there certainly are some serious issues here, especially with regard to the patenting of seeds, and the consequences of unwanted cross fertilization, which don't seem to have been answered as yet.

One, of course, is how inbred pesticides will affect non pest insects over the long run, a concern that I have not seen really well answered. It's not an idle concern either for beekeepers or for persons whose crops depend on insects for pollination.

Whether or not you agree with those who prefer old-fashioned crops, organic growing, etc., there are those who do, and who find it economically rewarding, and cross pollination is a problem that needs addressing. Here in Vermont it's been a sticky issue that the legislature has not been able to resolve very well. Who is liable when GM crops cause unwanted alteration in a neighbor's fields?

Then, of course, comes the issue of patenting. Whatever you think about it, it's certain to change the way farmers grow crops in the future if seed patents prove enforceable, and perhaps other aspects of the way we live, depending on how those patents are enforced, because seeds will get away, pollen will drift, hybrids, volunteer plants and pirated plants will grow. How will this be policed? How far does a hybrid carry its patent? Who is liable for volunteer plants?

I think we at least need to be careful.

 

[delphi_ote]

Our effect on the rainforests alone are causing the rate of species extinction to go way up. Whether you see that as an example of a larger problem is more subjective.

But at what rate are new species developing to take their place, and how abnormal is this extinction rate? How do we even go about measuring extinction rate? Can we really compare our count of species going extinct over the past 100 years or so with the rate of extinction we find over millions of years in the fossil record? It even seems like some life is actually adapting to our new behaviors (not that this would necessarily be a good thing...) If some species crap out and others survive because of us, couldn't we just consider that evolution?

I'm very curious about this subject. I don't think there's any question that biodiversity is going to be a very important subject in the upcoming years. Thanks for the links and the thoughts. I'll be doing some reading.

 

[delphi_ote]

What does bacteria evolving to digest nylon have to do with my point?

It seemed like a good example of our introducing something new to the environment and life adapting and handling it quite well. Some crazy bacteria decided something toxic should be food. It suprises me that sometimes the slightest pollutant can bring down a very complicated ecosystem, but sometimes life handles our filth without batting an eye.

 

[hammegk]

Do you have a cite for that?

Maybe Rolfe will answer this scientifically, but economically, if you are in the business of raising livestock for sale, preventing death & disease is high on your list of must-dos.

 

[luchog]

Modern hybrids were developed to combat disease, be more pest resistant, provide higher yields, be drought tolerant, etc. depending on the target environment.

Of course, much of the problem with diseases and pests is the result of modern "monoculture" factory-farming practices, which is greatly reduced with sustainable farming techniques (things like crop rotation, allowing fields to fallow, etc.).

Hunger, even in the Third World, is rarely, if ever, ever a resource issue. There is more than enough arable land to feed our current population using sustainable farming. In fact, IIRC from previous research, existing arable land is capable of supporting a considerably higher population. The problem is predominantly political. Countries that have serious hunger problems also have governments that repress their population, interfere deletoriously with the ability of their citizens to farm effectively, and confiscate large amounts of various resources to enrich themselves.

Most modern famines are artificially created by government actions. Even when there is a natural problem of some sort (eg. drought); problems that should be relatively minor and survivable are greatly excerbated by government actions, far beyond what their natural result should be.

Food availability is not an issue in a country that subsidizes farmers to keep prices artificially high.

My biggest issues with GMO crops are the cost, the inevitibility of (potentially harmful) unintended consequences, and the continued promotion of the same monoculture that caused much of the problem that GMO crops ostensibly solve.

 

[ysabella]

Distribution is also a problem, like in countries that lack roads. If a crop can grow with less fertilizer and/or less pesticide, then that's less stuff that has to get to the field somehow.
I read some interviews with Norman Borlaug and in this one he pointed out that RoundupReady crops could help in Central Africa:

Roundup Ready crops could be used in zero-tillage cultivation in African countries. In zero tillage, you leave the straw, the rice, the wheat if it's at high elevation, or most of the corn stock, remove only what's needed for animal feed, and plant directly [without plowing], because this will cut down erosion. Central African farmers don't have any animal power, because sleeping sickness kills all the animals--cattle, the horses, the burros and the mules. So draft animals don't exist, and farming is all by hand and the hand tools are hoes and machetes. Such hand tools are not very effective against the aggressive tropical grasses that typically invade farm fields. Some of those grasses have sharp spines on them, and they're not very edible. They invade the cornfields, and it gets so bad that farmers must abandon the fields for a while, move on, and clear some more forest. That's the way it's been going on for centuries, slash-and-burn farming. But with this kind of weed killer, Roundup, you can clear the fields of these invasive grasses and plant directly if you have the herbicide-tolerance gene in the crop plants.

 

[bruto]

Distribution is also a problem, like in countries that lack roads. If a crop can grow with less fertilizer and/or less pesticide, then that's less stuff that has to get to the field somehow.
I read some interviews with Norman Borlaug and in this one he pointed out that RoundupReady crops could help in Central Africa:

Roundup Ready crops could be used in zero-tillage cultivation in African countries. In zero tillage, you leave the straw, the rice, the wheat if it's at high elevation, or most of the corn stock, remove only what's needed for animal feed, and plant directly [without plowing], because this will cut down erosion. Central African farmers don't have any animal power, because sleeping sickness kills all the animals--cattle, the horses, the burros and the mules. So draft animals don't exist, and farming is all by hand and the hand tools are hoes and machetes. Such hand tools are not very effective against the aggressive tropical grasses that typically invade farm fields. Some of those grasses have sharp spines on them, and they're not very edible. They invade the cornfields, and it gets so bad that farmers must abandon the fields for a while, move on, and clear some more forest. That's the way it's been going on for centuries, slash-and-burn farming. But with this kind of weed killer, Roundup, you can clear the fields of these invasive grasses and plant directly if you have the herbicide-tolerance gene in the crop plants.

That's a fine idea on the surface, but I think it rather disingenuously ignores the rather obvious other aspect of these crops, which is that before planting such crops one must make a legal agreement never to propagate them in any way, thus ensuring perpetual dependency on the manufacturers of the seeds. This represents a significant change in the way that farmers have traditionally propagated crops, planned ahead for shortages, and budgeted their living. Ordinary hybridized crops have always been saveable, but patented ones are not. Manufacturers are stringently enforcing these agreements, and there is still a good deal of legal ambiguity and controversy over whether even involuntary recipients of the GM technology are infringing patents by possession of plants or hybrids of plants that have landed on their property, and there remains a considerable issue of who is liable if such involuntary propagation harms a farmer's own crops.

Just looking at the snippet of article above, herbicidal corn seems an oddly oblique way of addressing what really sounds more like a problem of sleeping sickness in livestock and poor tool technology.

edit: I just realized that the corn spoken above is not herbicidal but herbicide resistant, which doesn't actually change my argument, but should be corrected. Actually, Roundup-ready corn appears to foster a double dependency, since the farmer must commit not only buy the seed every year at whatever the going price might be, but also the specific herbicide for which it is engineered.

 

[RichardR]

There is more than enough arable land to feed our current population using sustainable farming. In fact, IIRC from previous research, existing arable land is capable of supporting a considerably higher population.

Do you have a cite for that?

 

[Rolfe]

Do you have a cite for that?

Yes, I do, but I see the relevant journal issue isn't in my office, I think I took it home. In fact I was quoting what someone else quoted, so I hope it was properly referenced!

Maybe Rolfe will answer this scientifically, but economically, if you are in the business of raising livestock for sale, preventing death & disease is high on your list of must-dos.

Yes, indeed. So think about it.

If your only aim is to produce good livestock, economically, then you make use of all the tools at your disposal. Wormers, vaccines, insect repellants, and of course therapeutic medicines where necessary and appropriate. These things are all well enough surrounded by legislation regarding when they may be used and in what circumstances and for how long produce (milk, meat or whatever) must be withheld from sale so that there should be no serious concern about conventionally-produced meat and animal products, certainly in this country. And in this way death and disease are prevented as far as is possible.

However, if you are ideologically committed to "organic" farming, then that committment can and indeed must override concerns about death and disease. If your organic status depends on not using wormers, then tough, the "organic" calves get to keep their worm burden. There are sometimes ways round this, whereby animals treated with "forbidden" medicines my regain their organic status after a wait of two or three times the scientifically-determined withdrawal period for that medicine (and I wonder how the "organic" consumers would react to knowing that), but understandably the organic farmers are very reluctant to take this step.

So, I know which group of farmers has combating death and disease higher up the priority list, and it ain't the organic ones.

Non-therapeutic use of antibiotics as growth promoters is much less widespread than it used to be, as you don't have to go the whole "organic" hog to see that this isn't necessarily a very good idea. However, the Soil Association rules go very very much further than that. In fact, some of it reads like the homoeopaths' promotion society.

Rolfe.

 

[luchog]

Do you have a cite for that?

Not a single source, no; since that conclusion is the result of several years sporadic research from a number of differernt sources. I haven't been able to organize the research into a single, easily referenced page. Not real high on my daily goal list.

 

[RichardR]

Not a single source, no; since that conclusion is the result of several years sporadic research from a number of differernt sources. I haven't been able to organize the research into a single, easily referenced page. Not real high on my daily goal list.

Then, depending on your definition of “sustainable” farming, I dispute the claim. Specifically I dispute the claim (if this is what you were saying) that there is enough arable land to feed our current world population using organic farming. Apologies if you were not saying this.

 

[luchog]

Then, depending on your definition of “sustainable” farming, I dispute the claim. Specifically I dispute the claim (if this is what you were saying) that there is enough arable land to feed our current world population using organic farming. Apologies if you were not saying this.

No, I never used the word "organic", I used "sustainable". There is a significant difference. Here is a good source for info on the principles and techniques.

 

[RichardR]

No, I never used the word "organic", I used "sustainable". There is a significant difference. Here is a good source for info on the principles and techniques.

An interesting article - thanks.

 

[clarsct]

GM crops:
The legal issues were something I hadn't considered, but there is a point, there. As for the science of it, well, we've been 'engineering' crops for years. Every time you eat those really HUGE strawberries, realize that they are genetic mutants we have selected FOR. Sure, polyploidy strawberries occured naturally, too, but not in such numbers. Genetic modification is just a more direct and controlled way to do so.

Organic crops:
Bull$h!t. That's my opinion. I grew up in a farm community, ok? Most farmers can't afford to lose a lot of their livestock to disease and such. Most of them also don't medicate unless it is NEEDED. Medication is expensive, ok? Vets are, too, no offense to Rolfe or BSM. We call those folks and get those meds when we HAVE to. We vaccinate our animals so we won't HAVE to do so more often. I don't know how the 'farm factories' do things, but on the 'Independent American Farmer' level, this is how things work.

Humans as a speciation event:
Of course we are. No other species has had the advantage of modifying our environment in so many ways, nor so drastically. But to assume that everything we do is 'artificial' and everything else is 'natural' isn't sound reasoning. The glaciers that came down in the Ice Age were a natural event that caused massive extinctions. So was the meteor they say killed off the dinosaurs. Mass species died out. There have been species that died out and we never even knew about them. I haven't heard anyone berate the glaciers yet for the indiscriminate destruction they wreaked upon this world. We are natural beings, and all that we do is natural, as well. How is a dam built by beavers for the purposes of beavers different from dams built by humans for the purposes of humans, on a moral level? Yes, we should be aware of what we are tinkering with, but that counts for many thing, not just ecology. Electricity, Fire, Chemicals, Nuclear Power, and Livestock can all be dangerous if you don't understand what you're doing. Agreed. But to somehow say that man is evil because we aren't 'natural' is some cockeyed thinking, to my mind.

 

[Euromutt]

And how will unregulated computing poison my food or patent my genes?

You said that GM crops were a bad idea because they were "corporate controlled and largely unregulated." Just like the manufacture of your computer. Those were the only two criteria you set, so don't try to make out like I missed something because you posted something which was easily shown to be asinine.

 

[Mashuna]

Just reading through a post on GM foods, I didn't expect to have my views on organic animal farming changed so much! I started (or, at the time, it would have been my parents) to buy free-range and organic chickens on the back of Edwina Currie and the salmonella scares, along with the pictures of the battery farmed hens.

I can't speak generally, but my own conception has always been that free-range was good and that organic was somehow 'better'. I honestly hadn't given any thought to, or realised that organic farming precluded the use of antibiotics.

Mind you, I've tended not to buy other organic meats (beef, lamb etc), purely because where I live in Wales all the meat from the local butchers is so nice. Now I can feel good about them not being organic too!

So, thanks to Rolfe for her educational rantings!

 

[Belz...]

http://www.whybiotech.com/index.asp?id=3947

It says something when you're slower to adopt new technology than the Amish.

Ouch.