Talk:Genetically modified food/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Trade disputes

I absolutely agree with Graft on his opinion. Whoever created this article should have placed this article somewhere else. The main focus of this article is the reason for GMF. It seriously needs a revamp. ImpalerBugz 08:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

This article has way to much about trade disputes and not nearly enough about the history and development of GMOs. For example, not -one- single mention of which crops have been modified, how, or why, and by whom. I think we should just cut out the whole bit about trade disputes, or else drastically reduce it. It should definitely -not- be the main thrust of the article. Graft 02:41 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

let me put a point there. I wished this article to existe precisely among other things to try to explain the trading issues of gm food,, and what they implied. Then Little Fat Budda tried to redirect it to another article and did not want to give this article a chance. Hence, I, wrote this, and as often, did not finish it. I wanted to update it some time ago, and somehow forgot. If you think the content is not under the right title, please explain why and propose another title. But please, do not remove the content. It took me several hours and I think it is important.

Now, look again carefully about the title. This is not talking of gmo, this is about gm food. I think I tried to indicate where the difference was. There is "already" an article about gmo, which maybe should be updated with all your comments. But here, what is important is not what is produced, it is what is proposed to the final consumer. Hence, it is certainly interesting to indicate which crops are the most transformed, and in which food they are likely to be found, but it is not the place to indicate what a gmo is, who transformed them, how. This belong to the GMO article.

And yes, I agree the article is a work in progress. I suggested to several people to try to give another perspective. I do not see why I should provide all the perspectives myself if no other editor wants to work on it. These trading issues are very important for us europeans, and I think it is for american as well. User:anthere

Hi anthere,

I think the article Genetically modified food should provide substantial information on -genetically modified food-, not on trade disputes surrounding GM food. I agree the trading issues might be very important for you europeans, and maybe even for us americans, but they are not, by far, the only important factor surrounding GM food. As such I think the level of detail in which the trade dispute is covered in is excessive - I'm going to add in some other details I think are relevant, but I think I would prefer if you would cut the EU/US dispute down to several paragraphs... considering there are significant issues in India, Africa, and other parts of the world, if we have so much detail in this article it will become excessive. Graft 02:15 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I agree other issues must be raised here, and I don't think I will remove what you put in the article, though I believe some of it rather belong to the GMO article.

However, I strongly disagree with you when you say this article should not provide information on trade disputes. Your opinion is very personal opinion. And this is not the opinion hold by many european at all. I agree there are other disputes in other parts of the world, but I don't see them here right now, and fail to see why I would cut down this article content just for the reason they exist and might be there one day. Right now, they are not. If they are one day, it will be time perhaps to divide this article into pieces. I also suggested above that part of the article could be moved to another article, but then please provide a title. I can't think of any since I believe this information belongs here.

I am a very strong proponent of in-depth articles. I think this is the type of information that requires much reading to be finally grasped. In particular, I think it is an important content for american people to help them understand why Europe and USA are disagreeing on the GMO topic. I believe that with additional work, this is an important ressource for better understanding, and this is the goal of an encyclopedia. If you think it is poorly phrased, please help to explain it better for me.

Last point, since this topic is not an historical topic, the end of it is clearly a work in progress. I don't think it is necessary a huge pb. Similarly, the Irak war articles were very messy during the war. Now that the topic is settled, the articles are more structured.

Anthere

I would have to agree. The trade aspect is a major source of frustration for U.S. farmers who see export markets close to them whether the individual farmer should choose to grow GMO grain or not. A discussion of GM food would be incomplete without it. Kat 21:14 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Well, I wanted essentially to put trade and biosafety issue in this article, since I thought the other aspects could be covered in the genetically modified organism. But looks like my stuff is somewhere else now, and that this article is slowly becoming redundant with the GMO one :-( Feel free to move back some carefully shortened points from the trade war article then. Ant

---

I don't understand this sentence: The Agriculture Department estimated that 38 percent of the 79 million acres of corn planted in 2003 will be genetically engineered varieties (80% of surface) for soybeans on 73.2 million acres). Is part of it missing? Koyaanis Qatsi 19:36 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I didn't write it but it sounds like it's wrong. 38% of corn acreage sounds right for corn, mostly Bt varieties with some RR and Liberty varieties in there. The soybean figure seems low. I would guess that over 90% of the acreage will be RR beans this year. Kat 21:14 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Oh, so the author means -- 38% of corn planted in 2003 will be GMO; and 80% of soybeans planted in 2003 will be GMO? I didn't get that at all.  :-/ Koyaanis Qatsi 21:19 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Sorry. Yes; that is what I meant I think. about 80% of soybean surfaces and 38 % of corn surfaces. I mixed up my sentence apparently. I tried to find back my sources for figures. Could not find it (you know KQ that my bookmark folder...well...) User:anthere

Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding ... So you haven't recovered your bookmarks? That's one thing I've taken to backing up on a separate physical drive, I've had to reformat my C: drive so often. Koyaanis Qatsi 22:11 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Anthere, KQ, I looked up the stats, and for 2002 the actual was 34% for corn and 75% for beans, http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/field/pcp-bba/acrg0602.txt - the 2003 data will not be out for another month yet, and I couldn't find any estimates.

Well. My figures were not so bad then :-) I think 2002 figures will do for now.

By the way, there is a quiet revolution underway in the production of vegetables and fruit. There are now Roundup Ready strawberries, lettuce, asparagas... at least in the lab... with more coming. How this has stayed out of the public conversation has baffled me. Once they are released to growers, the Roundup strawberries are sure to take over the industry, since weed control is the major obstacle in commercial cultivation of strawberries. Kat 14:15 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

crumbs. Well, there was a public chitchat in France about a good month ago. A web site was open for any public comment for a week. It was not advertised by media until less than 24 hours before the end of the public session. When the media suddenly woke up and rang the bell, the server was quite strained for the rest of the day. The web site became somehow unavailable. But, public feedback opportunity was officially respected :-) User:anthere

Well...you know, when I came back sunday from my week end, and downloaded my little pict card, tried to open Photoshop, and was nicely told my computer that I had not enough virtual memory to do so...I realised I had exactly 3.5 mb free left. Ooooops. I momentarily fixed the pb (I wanted to watch my picts !) by transferring old pict on a zip. That's just a patch :-( No choice now, I really have to give a tech the whole stuff, have it open to put a 60 mb inside. Well, I spent 2 hours cleaning the place instead of tracking my poor folder. Besides, some of my links are at work. So...well..

Look...

media:LarveCoccinelle(s).jpg

These are ladybird larva and adults. Ok, that is not art. That is tech

This one is more artistic. Do you like it ? media:Crataegus_oxyacantha_L(s).jpg

ant

That middle one's awesome. I never would have imagined they looked like that. Koyaanis Qatsi 22:33 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

It was "running" real fast :-) I took about 20 picts of it, till it got tired and agreed to take some rest :-)

High resolution versions of the deleted images above — media:Coccinelle1.jpg and media:Crataegus_oxyacantha_L.jpg -- Paddu 20:26, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

I've removed this sentence from the beginning of the article:

They are mainly to increase the mass of food to feed more people.

This needs to be backed up by facts, at least - I somehow doubt that the main purpose of the money spent on GM food research is "to feed more people". There are many other aims, e.g. increase shelf life / improve taste (FlavrSavr), enriching food with vitamines (Golden rice), reduction of pesticide use etc. Also the statement seems to be contradicted by the fact that developed countries form the most important marketplaces for GM food. Regards, High on a tree 03:33, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you mentioned Golden rice. Golden rice is a ge strain of rice that has been enriched with Vitamin A. Why? Well, let's think about Vitamin A. From wiki's own article Vitamin_a deficiencies lead to blindness. Not a huge problem here in the developed world, but right there in Wiki's article on Golden_rice it says that 1-2 million deaths and 500,000 cases of irreversible blindness are documented annually in Africa and Southeast Asia due to Vitamin A Deficiency (VAD). Hmm, there's food for thought (excuse the pun). So, I guess it's fair to say that at least Golden rice was created with developing countries in mind. - Meowcarrot 21:55 JST 25.July.2005

The previous statement, in addition to many other instances, should be proof that GM foods are also beneficial to the health of animals, especially people. The whole article as a whole only shines light mainly on a particular side of the story and fails to mention the beneficial effects on GM foods. If one would read this article from the begaining (speaking mainly on the introduction and complimentary pictures) one would hold a pre disposition on the dangers of GM foods and virtually none on the positive effects. Furthermore the fact that genetically modified foods already have a strong hold on the open market allows a massive amount of food to be grown on a limited amount of land. According to a scientific journal (link given below) if, for example, India would outlaw the use of genetically modified foods it would have to dedicate an additional 12.3% of their land to make up for the loss of crop yield. This means that if we were to outlaw GM foods globally we would eventually have to cut down every forest, flatten every mountain just to feed our rapidly growing population. If this point was spelled out instead of the the potential dangers of the product (which could be fixed if more funding/support was given) I believe that many people would have a different standpoint on this issue. When speaking of this issue focus should be given on the long term benefits instead of the dangers of this relatively new technology. (http://www.science.psu.edu/journal/Spring2007/GMOFeature.html

Rewrite of transgenic plants

Addressing some of the concerns raised on this talk page, I am proposing a rewite of the transgenic plant article see :Talk:Transgenic plants so that it better covers the science of developing transgenic plants and the saftey issues surrounding their release (I've done so in summary on Plant improvement). This page on food issues will then logically follow from transgenic plants. Any input would be appreciated, leave it on the transgenic plant page. --nixie 05:01, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Do you know how many bowls of rice is needed to get the amount of Vitamin A necessary to prevent blindness?

labelling GM Foods and Free trade laws

"Some nations have very strong disagreement over genetically modified organisms. For example, the European Union and Japan are willing to maintain labelling and traceability standards for GM food products, while the United States claims it violates free trade agreements."

How does this violate free trade? Are people not supposed to know what they buy? - Not if the label distinguishes products on the basis of immaterial criteria - which the US (and WTO) say is the case for production methods which produce substantially equivalent products (eg GM, according to them). Compulsory labelling for eg labour standards raises the same trade issues - consumers are to be prevented from distinguishing products on grounds that don't suit the US. Knowledge is power, etc - and taking the latter away from big US producer interests is verboten. Rd232 09:21, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure if that's the official reason the U.S. doesn't require labeling. As I've read it, the reason the FDA doesn't require labeling is because they don't view GM foods as being significantly different from non-GM foods. It's not like labeling is banned in any way, companies are free to label their food as GM/non-GM, as long as the label is accurate. I'm going to research this a little bit and probably remove this claim. Rhobite 20:55, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

If you are unhappy with the amount of information being provided by a company ask them for more. If you are unhappy with their response (or lack thereof) support a more compliant supplier or do without.

Different enough to be patented as an invention but not different enough to be labelled. A contradiction there I think.

Perhaps companies should be allowed to choose what they label and what they put on labels. Cosumers, on the other hand, can always exercise their right to choose if they want to buy the product or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.39.201.242 (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

(tech) backgrounds, please

As has been said before, there is rather much stress on political issues, which, I think, is a good thing, but before that, there should be a (considerable) bit more technical background and a more extensive dealing with the potential pros and cons. This is a controversial issue and most people who look this up will primarily want more extensive answers to the questions of what benefits GM may have for food production and what the potential problems are.

This touches on a wider question. Is wikipedia just an encyclopedia or should it go beyond that and give people the means to make up their own minds? A major difference between wikipedia and paper encyclopedias is that wikipedia can be updated daily (or even by the minute), so it has a much stronger potential to give a technical or scientific background behind current political issues, which is a prerequisite for a proper functioning of democracy. So, while I think that describing the political development is a good thing, I find the (not too) technical backgrounds much more important. I just made a tiny start myself, saying in a few words what BT is. I looked that up, but I still don't know what the difference between bt10 and bt11 is (which is what I wanted to look up). Just to give an example of what people might look up this subject for.

DirkvdM 09:53, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

Hi DirkvdM, I agree completely that the technical aspects should be addressed. So far the technical and political aspects are covered in different articles (see transgenic plants for the technical- it's a rewrite that I am still woring on). This food article is what is often described on Wikipedia as a point of view (POV) fork, and so far hasn't really been integrated to any extent, hopefully thats something that'll change soon. Feel free to make any modifications that you see fit, or if you prefer leave links and detail here and I'll have a go at it. --nixie 10:16, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

According to other articles I have read, the reason they feel no need to label the GE foods is because the process would scare away consumers and have people doing research. Kind of like what we are doing...

POV US section

From the Genetically modified food in the United States section: In the US GM food is widespread and accepted by the consumers. Some militant environmentalists are trying to instill fear, however.

This is POV and should be changed with neutral, pertinent and accurate information. Thanks. --Liberlogos 00:22, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I rewrote that ridiculousness. Needs more specifics, though. Rhobite 20:28, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Benefits and controversies

This section is hopelessly unencyclopedic. I paste it here in the hope that the points can be developed more usefully. For now the article is IMO better off without this list:

Potential benefits

• Crops
  • Enhanced taste and quality
  • Reduced maturation time
  • Increased nutrients, yields, and stress tolerance
  • Increased resistance to disease, pests, and herbicides
  • New products and growing techniques

• Animals
  • Increased resistance, productivity, hardiness, and feed efficiency
  • Better yields of meat, eggs, and milk
  • Improved animal health and diagnostic methods

• Environment
  • "Friendly" bioherbicides and bioinsecticides
  • Conservation of soil, water, and energy
  • Bioprocessing for forestry products
  • Better natural waste management
  • More efficient processing

• Society
  • Increased food security for growing populations

Controversies

• Safety
  • Potential human health impact: allergens, transfer of antibiotic resistance markers, unknown effects, potential carcinogenic effects due to gene disruption and use of ingrown carcinogenic pesticides and/or herbicides
    
  • Potential environmental impact: unintended transfer of transgenes through cross-pollination, unknown effects on other organisms (e.g., soil microbes), and loss of flora and fauna biodiversity. The largest farm-scale trial comparing biodiversity impact on GM crops with equivalent conventional crops found a significant negative impact on wildlife from GM [1].

• Access and Intellectual Property
  • Domination of world food production by a few companies
  • Increasing dependence on Industrialized nations by developing countries

Developing Coutries can make their own GM crops. Kenya is doing this right now - virus resistant GM sweet potatoes [[2]] Ttguy 03:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Biopiracy—foreign exploitation of natural resources
  • Loss of crop diversity. Patenting of GM crops, along with legal structures (such as national seed lists) prevents farmers from growing the majority of crop varieties and creates monopolies in the seed market. Most GM crops are simply the most commonly grown, inbred crop variety with an extra gene added.212.116.142.29 20:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Even if it is true that "Most GM crops are simply the most commonly grown, inbred crop variety with an extra gene added" how does a patent on such a crop prevent a farmer from growing the parent variety - the one without the transgene? Ttguy 03:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, for one, because of cross-breeding between GM and non-GM varieties, no? --Tsavage 20:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

If you are a farmer and plant a non-GM crop besides a GM variety then the edge of this crop may produce seed that contain a small fraction of GM seeds yes. However, this farmer has not violated any patents and he is not prevented from haversting an entire crop of his non-GM variety. He does not have to pay royalties. So... No "cross-breeding" does not prevent a farmer using a non-patented variety. Ttguy 11:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It costs approximately £2.5 million pounds to get a new crop onto the British national seed list. The seed lists get regularly updated, and varieties get dropped. The biotech companies have considerable political influence. There is a very real risk that in future the only legal crop varieties will be GM.Pignut 15:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

This is rubish. A GM crop can be sold to farmers on the condition that it not be saved for replanting. However, the crop that this GM crop is based on will not have been sold to the farmers under such conditions. Therefore they can legally save this seed for as long as they like. What the seed merchants do is irrelevant if you can save your own seed. But since seed merchants are out to make money and supply a demand - if there is a demand for GM free seed they will supply it.

No it's not rubbish, you have missed the point: it is no good being able to save seed, if government regulations will not allow you to sell a crop grown from that seed, because the saved seed is not approved by the national seed list.Pignut 09:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)pignut

The food and agriculture industry is not a free market, and is not likely to be any time in the near future. Farming is heavily regulated and heavily subsidised. It is producer led not consumer led. If agriculture was a free market we would not be having this debate. You can't sell something that customers don't want in a free market. The seed market is heavily consolidated in the hands of pro-GM companies.Pignut 16:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Pignut

If by some massive conspriacy the evil GM companies prevent one seed merchant from suppling non GM seeds then Joe Blow down the road will see an oportunity and start selling them.

"Joe Blow" is unlikely to have sufficient money to run the necessary trials, and meet all of the bureaucratic requirements. For example, if he is a small farmer, he will find it hard to prevent his plants from crossing with plants of other varieties on neighbouring farms (not necessarily GM), in order to meet the standards required for them to be sold. Batches of seed are checked for weeds, grit, and seeds that do not breed true, if this exceeds a certain percentage, the seeds are rejected. "Joe Blow" will undoubtably find himself breaking some regulation or other. These rules do not seem to apply to the big boys. A few years back an article in the British Farmers Weekly reported on a threat by seed companies to reduce the purity of the seed (i.e. allow more noxious weed seeds into the seed they sold) if farmers saved seed. In other words, a threat: "stop saving seed or we will introduce serious weeds onto your land" (the seed companies had discovered that some farmers were buying small quantities of seed from each new variety and then saving seed subsequently). The seed companies were basically claiming to have influence and to be able to break or rewrite the rules with impunity.
The cost of getting a new variety on the list is irrelevant to this discussion. What is relevant is whether GM companies could conspire to have varieties taken off the list. Do you have any evidence that a GM company can influence the dropping a variety from the National Seed list?Ttguy 03:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

The global seed and grain industry is heavily controlled by a small number of companies who also have strong vested interests in GM seed. These companies have already shown their ability to influence government decisions regarding national seed lists: http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/1998/981120.htm Older varieties get dropped from the list every year, and the process of this is not transparent.

• Ethics
  • Violation of natural organisms' intrinsic values

A crop plant is not a natural organism. Ttguy 03:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Tampering with nature by mixing genes among species

All plant breeding is "tampering with nature" Ttguy 03:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC).

• • Objections to consuming animal genes in plants and vice versa
  • Stress for animal

• Labeling
  • Not mandatory in some countries (e.g., United States)
  • Mixing GM crops with non-GM confounds labeling attempts

• Society
  • New advances may be skewed to interests of rich countries
  • Hubris. Politicians and corporations believe their own propaganda. GM crops fail to live up to expectations, but vested interests are too busy talking about what GM crops might achieve in future, to notice. e.g. periodic hype about nitrogen fixing cereals. Problems caused by GM technology come to be seen as problems to be solved by GM technology. Compare situation with green revolution crop breeding: Huge promises about increased crop yields, and pest and disease resistant crops, but years later, losses to pests and disease have increased due to inbreeding.

This last statment is rubbish. With the exception of Corn (and maybe few other crops) just about every major crop on the planet is already completely inbred. Ttguy 03:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The most commonly grown varieties of all crops (including corn)are indeed inbred. (N.B. The word "corn" is ambiguous. In America corn means maize, in England it means wheat, in Scotland it means oats.)

Experiments in the far east have shown that growing rice the traditional way, planting saved seed consisting of many different varieties reduces disease problems. Uniform monocultures of a single variety suffer a lot more from fungal etc. diseases.

I have saved seed from many crops for a number of years. Initially I tried to keep varieties distinct and breeding true, but this proved to be a hopeless task, as different crop varieties cross pollinated. I find that the genetically heterogeneous saved seeds yield better than bought seed in almost all cases. In particular, their disease resistance seems to be better.Pignut 16:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Mixtures of different varieties is not the same as inbreeding. The suggestion that inbreeding causes yeild loss in the major crops is rubish because they are all inbred Ttguy 03:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC).

Yield increases due to unsustainable fertiliser use, not breeding.

It is well known the introduction of the semi-dwarf cereal varieites had a huge impact on crop yields durring the green revolution. To suggest that the green revolution had nothing to do with plant breeding is silly Ttguy 03:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC).

I have grown semi dwarf and tall cereals organically, and the yields of the dwarf varieties were very poor. Taller varieties did much better. Partly this may be due to the ability of tall cereals to suppress weeds. Dwarf cereals also suffer from fungal diseases because the grain is more likely to get splashed by mud.Pignut 15:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Countless yeild studies over the years confirm the yeild advantage of the introduction of semi-dwarf cereals. I believe these studies to have a bit more credability than a single farmers experience. Semi-dwarf crops have less lodging and put less energy into vegitative parts and more into seed.Ttguy 03:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

They grow well when accompanied by herbicides and fungicides and grow less well without. Generally conventional farmers have switched from dwarf to semi-dwarf cereals because of fungus problems.Pignut 09:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)pignut

Monocultures and new crop varieties lacking trace elements cause malnutrition, but ironically these man made problems are used to justify taking plant breeding to new extremes. "Gosh it's cold" said the emperor. "Good thing I had these new clothes, or I would have hypothermia. I'll have to order some more"212.116.142.29 20:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC) ==It is believed that many plants evolved to have abnormal amounts of certain amino acis and nutrients in order to reduce predation. Why should we let the plants win? 70.29.157.109 15:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

I think that the section dealing with the controversy surrounding GM foods needs to be addressed. In both the Arpad Puztai and Monsanto examples, there is no mention of the overwhelming amount of research subsuquently done which disproves the published findings. It was later determined that the majority of the damage done to rats and other test organisms was due to the animals eating such high amounts of a single food. Rats wouldnt normally eat only potatoes for months at a time, and the same effect can be observed when animals are fed non-GM foods at such high doses as well.

I think it is neccessary to go into detail about the experiments in question:

Arpad Pusztai's experiment included two controls, one consisted of rats fed on unmodified desiree red potatoes and one fed on unmodified desiree red potatoes mixed with snowdrop lectin. Neither control group of rats suffered all of the ill effects observed in the group fed on GM desiree red potatoes. This means that the potatoes became toxic as a result of the genetic modification, not simply by the snowdrop lectin, and that the rats were not simply suffering from eating too much potato. The rats were adversely affected by both raw and cooked GM potatoes, and were on these diets for only 10 days.

The results of this experiment could only be disproved by repeating the experiment, and this is no longer possible. The biotech company responsible for the GM potatoes (probably a front for a larger corporation) destroyed the potatoes, and all details of their genetic modification to stop the experiment from ever being repeated!

There has been a huge amount of deliberate misinformation about Arpad Pusztai and his experiments:

Initially the Rowett institute (Dr.Pusztai's employer) was very excited about the experiments, and gave Dr. Pusztai the go-ahead to publicise the results. This led to the interview with the documentary series World in Action. When news of the program reached the media and politicians, The Rowett institute received several phone calls from 10 Downing Street. Dr. Pusztai was invited to debate the issue with a spokesman from Monsanto on breakfast TV, but before going on air, he was informed by the Rowett institute that he was no longer allowed to reveal any details of the experiment. This left the Monsanto spokesman free to talk a lot of nonsense about the highly toxic jack bean lectin (not involved in any of the experiments), to which Dr. Pusztai could only reply "no comment".

Bizarrely, the Rowett institute initially denied that they were doing any experiments with GM food, but quickly changed their story.

After redirecting Dr. Pusztai's phoneline so no one could speak to him, and placing a legal gag on him, the Rowett institute "quoted" Dr. Pusztai saying that it was all a big mistake, the experiment had not been performed, a student had apparently accidentally published control data, and that Dr. Pusztai was very sorry and had agreed to retire.

The next lie was that Dr. Pustai had deliberately created a toxic potato in an attempt to discredit GM foods (a variation on the Jack bean lectin red herring). Jack Cunningham, the UK agriculture minister repeated this one in the house of commons, saying that the Pusztai experiments were like making a cyanide cocktail and concluding that you shouldn't mix your drinks. In reality, Dr. Pusztai had not done the genetic engineering, merely tested a product due to go on the market. Earlier research by Dr. Pusztai (the world expert on plant lectins) had shown that snowdrop lectin was toxic to insects but harmless to mammals.

The Rowett Institute then published the experimental data online, but deliberately omitted much of it so as to render the results statistically insignificant.

The lie about the rats suffering from a poor diet has already been discussed

I could go on much further. It goes without saying that many of these lies are contradictory. for more info on this see: http://plab.ku.dk/tcbh/Pusztaitcbh.htm

In a previous experiment Dr. Pusztai had fed leaves from the GM potatoes to insects. The leaves varied considerably in lectin content, but there was no correlation between lectin content and insect toxicity. In other words, some leaves contained hardly any lectin, but were highly toxic, and others contained lots of lectin but were not toxic. This seemed to suggest that the genetic modification had had unexpected side effects. Alternatively it could mean that the potatoes had been secretly genetically modified with something other than the snowdrop lectin gene (a gene for another insecticidal chemical). As I explained earlier, the details of the genetic modification were a secret, and have now been destroyed along with the potatoes, so we will probably never know.

My source here is Dr. Pusztai himself.

The implications of this story go way beyond genetic engineering. Dr. Pusztai was not on any agenda against genetic engineering, his primary concern is that science should be free from interference by political and corporate interests. Science should be about answering questions, and if the answers are not what politicians and corporations want to hear, they should not shoot the messenger212.116.142.29 20:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

On the whole, this article seems to be extremely one sided. Obviously written by people who are ant-GMO, and with a poor understanding of the actual science involved in these crops, and the potential benefits of them.--Doucher 21:49, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Please feel free to add further appropriately-sourced information, and/or rewrite (especially Public reaction). I'm not sure about "disproved"; the Puztai paragraph comes from info in a recent newspaper article which doesn't say this, and the Monsanto research is quite recent.Rd232 2 July 2005 10:15 (UTC)

Since when are newspapers fair and balanced? --brian0918™ 9 July 2005 14:59 (UTC)

I agree with Doucher. I take particular issue with the third paragraph of this section, which states, "In March 2005 these concerns were strengthened when the largest farm-scale trial comparing the biodiversity impact of GM crops with equivalent conventional crops found a significant negative impact on wildlife from GM” This is blatantly inaccurate. In fact, in the article, which he sites (as his source)says, “The scientific results made it clear that it is not the GM crops that harm wildlife but the herbicide sprayed on them.” Moreover this article is a questionable source of information. The Guardian has already printed several corrections. I advise readers to at least read secondary source (i.e. the article in the Guardian) if not the primary source (i.e. the Royal Societies 2005 Report.) -newby 16:58, July 16, 2005

I see one correction from the Guardian, on a point of economics, not science. As for the damage coming from the herbicide, "not the GM crops" - this is just semantics, given that the crops are engineered solely to withstand the herbicide in question to enable it to be used. Anyway, if you have substantial corrections to make, with appropriate sources (eg Royal Society report), please do. Rd232 22:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

There is no attempt at NPOV in the Challenge of Penetrating Communications Barriers section at all. In fact this section contains no actual verifiable facts. There is not even a link to the supposed "Web Site of American professors". Not a single source cited Ttguy 10:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow, this is disheartening. It has been over three years since these NPOV comments, and still this entire article is rife with bias. I guess I'll try a little improvement, but if the whole article is still this bad, I bet the deck is stacked. Mtiffany (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

GM Foods

"GM food" redirected here, so I'm guessing this is the best place to ask.

I'm looking to buy some genetically modified food, but the article doesn't list any companies that sell it. Does anyone know of any companies that specialize in GM food? Almafeta 20:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)my name is uncle bob

Page move

Why was this article moved to "Politics of genetically modified food"? We now have no main article about GM food. I'm moving it back, this is the best we have. Rhobite 06:48, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

This article is highly politically motivated - that is possibly why it was moved. It should be moved back.

Suposed Fear over Indirect effects

This article used to state that people are frightened of eating animals that have eaten GM foods. But nothing was cited to back up this assertion and no futher explaination was given. I removed this assertion from the article. GM foods can contain novel proteins - a protein not normally found in the food in question. Proteins consumed by animals are digested by the gut of the animal and converted into animal proteins in the cells of the animal. Thus, the novel proteins found in the GM food are not found in the meat of an animal that consumes that GM food. So any fears of indirect effects on people consuming meat from animals consuming GM foods are baseless. Ttguy 13:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Why is a fear that me eating GM foods will alter my meat a less groundless fear than a fear that a cow eating GM foods will alter a cow's meat? If people believe one, it makes sense that they believe the other. I have no doubt that many people would prefer out of fear to not eat meat from a cow that had eaten GMO food. A groundless baseless sceintifically irrational fear is still a real fear. A good article would point out that fears with no grounding in scientific reality still need to be addressed when it comes to a subject like food that has powerful psychological, cultural, and emotional components Flying Jazz 07:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Since when is it incumbent on the consumer to prove that a new, bioengineered food is dangerous? It should obviously be the producer's responsibility to prove that it's safe. Why is this "a groundless baseless sceintifically irrational fear"? The food has been changed at a genetic level. How do we know it is safe? Some GMO foods are lethal to insects -- do you think this is safe to eat? What has happened to common sense? GMO is just a way for big companies to patent food and seeds so they can make more profit. Use your head.

Agree that the risks of eating meat/milk/eggs etc. from animals fed GM food are not great. However any boycott of GM products, (on environmental, ethical etc. grounds) is largely meaningless if animal products from animals fed on GM are not also boycotted. Approximately 50% of the worlds grain is fed to animals. If consumers simply refuse to eat the GM corn etc directly, the grain will become cheap animal feed.

Background

I removed following sentence because its unsubstantiated and POV ....the previous sentence, which is pure opinion masquerading as "neutral" science, impies that nothing but the new gene insertion changes when organisms are engineered. I agree "engineering" is not the best term - engineering typically implies stability and consistency. Many scientists feel that "genetic tinkering" would be a better description... Xmort 22:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Connection Profits&Gm food propaganda

This is my first contribution to the Wiki page and to a debate, be gentle on me if I do something considered wrong :-)

I have followed the debate going on and am missing any mention of what I consider the biggest point to GM food. If we consider who creates GM food, we find it is corporations. Corporations are out to make a profit, which is not bad in itself. It can become a profit when the corporation becomes big enough to influence public and government opinion and to produce biased science as already happened int the past with tobacco, and is most probably happening with pharma and agri business right now.

some thougths on this: There _are_ reports out there, which state that GM crops need _more_ pesticide than traditional crops, not less. This is, what I believe was the core to the above mentioned article of declining biodiversity.

"Roundup Ready" is a package of (at least) 2 products, not one, a crop and a pesticide. And both products are produced by the same corporation, now go and do your math if any rational - and especially any rational and immoral - entity would cut into its own profits.- MKuschpel

Roundup ready crops mean that a farmer might switch from one herbicide (possibly produced by a Monsanto competitor) to using Roundup. So it possible for the roundup ready crops to use less herbicide and for Monsanto to increase profits - at the expense of a competitor. The other thing to note that Roundup is one of the most benign herbicides around (The Environmental Defence fund gives glyphosate (Roundup) a "Less hazardous than most chemicals in 9 of 10 ranking systems." (See EDF Scorecard on Glyphosate). For example roundup ready canola is a compeitor to conventionally bred Atrazine tolerant Canola. Atrazine is a chemical being phased out in Europe on the basis it poses an unacceptable environmental risk. So moving to roundup ready canola at the expense of Atrazine tolerant Canola is a positive event for the environment. So it is a win for the environment and for Monsanto. Ttguy 00:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Ttguy: You make it seem so simple. Glyphosate has its own problems and limitations, and is often used with other herbicides, including atrazine. In any case, just one of many documented problem areas is glyphosate-resistant weeds, which essentially neutralize the advantage of glypohsate-resistant crops:

The first weed to become resistant to glyphosate was rigid ryegrass in Australia in 1996. In 2000, horseweed (also called marestail) was the first glyphosate-resistant weed to appear in soybean fields the United States. Initially found in Delaware, there now nine states with glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Delaware 2000, Tennessee 2001, Indiana 2002, Maryland 2002, New Jersey 2002, Ohio 2002, Arkansas 2003, Mississippi 2003, and North Carolina 2003). Six weeds have developed North Carolina 2003). Six weeds have developed.[3]

Putting RR in rotation with other crops using other herbicides is one of the recommended strategies to avoid creating resistant weeds, meaning, use of other herbicides is required in order to safely use RR over time. And that's just one small area of consideration. There are problems with Roundup and RR crops all over the place, technically and on the business front. Trying to sum things up by simply saying that glyphosate is "safer" (than Atarazine...) is so simplistic it is kind of ridiculous. --Tsavage 06:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Well it is pretty simple really. You can either use the dangerous Atrazine all the time or you can use the safer roundup most of the time and if you have glyphosate resistant weeds you can use anoter herbicide - perhaps Atrazine - some of the time. The second scenario is better for the environment no matter how you try an stack it. The fact that RR ready seeds make it possible to use a different herbicide than otherwise would be available actually reduces the possiblity of herbicide resistance because it gives the farmer another active ingredient to kill resistant weeds. Ttguy 11:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

"pretty simple really"? You make it sound like trivial arithmetic: "If this is bad and that is half as bad, then if you use less of this and more of that, well, add it up, things will be better?" Isn't that a major oversimplification, and downright misleading? What about complex environmental effects, the interactions between these various synthetics and the rest of...Nature? Are there upside or downsides to combining glyphosate and atrazine?

Can the unintended glyphosate resistance in weeds lead to resistance to other herbicides? --Tsavage

The use of any herbicide will eventually cause weeds to become resistant to it. This is the inevitable concequence of natural selection. This will happen if GM crops exist or not. So herbicide resistance is not an 'unintended' effect but an inevitable effect of herbicide usage. But to suggest that this inevitiablilty is a reason to not use the herbicide is an irrational argument. The argument is analogous to saying that you will not take an antibiotic that will cure your bacterial infection because, some time in the future, the species of bacteria that is currently killing you may/will become resistant to the antibiotic you are being offered.

I would also point out that the alternative to herbicide usage is cultivation - this is not only a major cause of greenhouse gas polution but also destroys soils.Ttguy 12:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

But further to the question does glyphosate resistance in weeds lead to resistance to other herbicides?.According to the glyphosate resistance frequently asked questions at Australias Weed Managment CRC "There is no evidence that resistance to other herbicides confers cross-resistance to glyphosate". But I guess the question you are asking is the reverse. This FAQ suggests two mechanisms exist for glyphosate resistance. One is caused by limited translocation of glyphosate within the plant. And another is caused by mutations within the EPSPS target site that allow a modest degree of resistance to glyphosate. Plants with this mechanism are typically less resistant to glyphosate than those that have reduced translocation. From this information we can summise that plants with the second mechanism will not have increased resistance to other herbicides because glyposate is unique in targeting the EPSPS protein in the plant. For the case where there is a reduced translocation in the plant we would need to know the mechanism for this reduced translocation before we could say if this sort of glyphosate resistance induces resistance to other herbicides. However, since other herbicides do appear to kill glyphosate resistant plants it is likely that reduced translocation mechanism resistance is glyphosate specific too. Ttguy 14:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Are your statements based on your personal findings, or on (largely agrichemical industry-driven/funded) general research? Why do you have faith in such short-term data? Because GM production doesn't even have a good 20 or 30 or 40 year history to examine (and synthetic pesticides hardly more), let alone the hundreds and thousands of years of apparently benign natural selection, and classical plant breeding, and other "traditional" agricultural practices. --Tsavage

Is this the same benign natural selection that has brought us malaria, HIV, polio, botulism etc?Ttguy 12:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Is this the same classical plant breeding that produced the potato variety Lenape that contained very high levels of toxic solanine? Is this the same classical plant breeding that produced a pest-resistant celery variety that caused rashes in agricultural workers as it contained seven-fold more of the carcinogen psoralen than the control celery? Is this the same classical plant breeding that produced a squash that caused food poisoning? All three of these conventionally bred crops had to be withdrawn (see AG Haselberger: Codex guidelines for GM food. Nature Biotechnology 21-7, 739-741, 2003).Ttguy 12:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You see conventionally bred is not a guarantee of safety. In fact due to the scrutiny GM crops are put under it would seem that it might be safer to go for a GM crop rather than a conventionally bred one - the score is 3 - nil against conventionally bred crops. At least when a GM plant is produced the GM breeder knows what he is puting into the new variety. With the case of the pest-resistant celery the breeder new he had pest resistance but he did not know that this was because his celery was overproducing a rash producing carcinogen. Again this example illustrates how GM is likely to be safer the conventional breeding. And we know that conventional breeding is pretty safe (but not 100% safe).

You've sidestepped the point here, that GE products are continuing to be developed and introduced, while anything near a reasonable observation period has not gone by. Nobody has empirical data on performance over even 10 years for many products... --Tsavage 23:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I have not sidesteped this issue. The issue is "are GM crops inherantly any more dangerous than conventionally bred crops?". And the answer is no they are not. I raised the point that conventionally bred crops can be dangerous. But YOU sidestep that issue. You talk about how much data we have on the safety of conventionally bred crops? We don't have much data at all on each individual new conventionally bred variety. We dont saftey check these conventional varieties and every now and again they cause a slight problem as evidenced above. On the other hand for GM crops we saftey test them. We have methods for predicting if specific GM crops are likely to be more dangerous than their conventionally bred counterparts. They are safter than conventionally bred crops because they have been tested and because we know what has gone into them. Who are you to decide what a reasonable observation period is? Of the thousands of conventionally bred crops that enter the market each year how many of these are "observed" for any length of time? What is to stop another posionous celery or potato incident for occuring? On what grounds do GM crops warant "observational periods" of greater than 10 years? Ttguy 14:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you as "reasonably sure" as you make yourself sound, or are you only basing your statements on "nothing bad has happened so far"? --Tsavage 16:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I am basing my statements on the knowlege of the science behind GM crops. I am basing my statements on my ability to read published peer reviewed research results for myself. Ttguy 12:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

"the dangerous Atrazine ... the safer roundup" A somewhat bizarre construction. Isn't this like saying, for example, "Would you rather be shot with a large calibre or a small calibre bullet?" Of course, the smaller bullet seems preferable, but would you call it the "safer" bullet? A "safe" bullet would be, like, a Nerf bullet? These are both poisons. You referenced one source that noted the "low" toxicity of glyphosates, and indeed, that is a commonly stated conclusion. However, it is not unanimous nor conclusive. For example, the glyphosate entry in the PAN Pesticides Database notes:

Toxicity to humans, including carcinogenicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, neurotoxicity, and acute toxicity."[4]--Tsavage 16:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

That's interesting because when I go to PAN Pesticides Database for glyphosate it says carcinogen - not likely and accute toxicity slight. See below for more details. What you read on the page you cite is a heading. You have to follow the link to see what data the database has on the Toxicity to humans, including carcinogenicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, neurotoxicity, and acute toxicity

Yes, I see. I struck that reference above. And so to the next point... --Tsavage 23:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

A USDA-prepared factsheet sounds positive, but then reveals that long-term effects haven't been studied:

Terrestrial Animals: Glyphosate is practically non-toxic to birds and mammals. It is practically non-toxic to bees. Glyphosate and its formulations have not been tested for chronic effects in terrestrial animals."[5]

Another, fully cited source adds more dimension to the rather flat picture you're presenting:

"Glyphosate can be acutely toxic to non-target plants, including aquatic plants and algae. The effects of this toxicity on natural plant succession alters the ecology of treated areas. In most cases, the plant species diversity will decrease, and along with it, the numbers of insects, mammals and birds utilizing these areas as habitat."

"Most toxicity tests cited by industry and the EPA investigate toxicity through oral exposure routes. The toxicity of glyphosate and the common surfactant POEA is much greater through inhalation routes of exposure [reference to Columbia's aerial spraying]. Experimentally induced inhalation of Roundup by rats produced 100% mortality in 24 hours. Humans ingesting as little as 100 ml of Roundup have died (suicide attempts using Roundup have a 10-20% success rate.)"[6]

The fact that you may be able to kill yourself by drinking roundup is hardly relevant to this debate. You can kill yourself with many commonly available things. But this does not mean they should be banned. eg what is the success rate from carbon monoxide poisioning from cars in gararges and hoses fed from the exhaust pipe into the car? Do we ban cars based on this rate of success?Ttguy 12:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Oral toxicity of glyphosate is an important consideration for the farmer when he is apply the herbicide. He will not want to drink it and should avoid spraying it on himself. But what is important to the environment is the effects of the chemical at the doses that appear in the environment under normal use. Also you can't just look at the toxicity of roundup in isolation like this. What I am saying is you have to compare roundup to other chemicals.

Well, you've made your discussion tactics clear, if they weren't as obvious before. You selectively isolate points, turn them into black-and-white propositions, and then attempt to counter them. But, as this round indicates, you can only do that to selected points. So, you counter the PAN citation, a simple factual error, with a paragraph, then ignore points on absence of USDA study on chronic effect on mammals, ignore the loss of biodeversity issue, and the lack of study on inhalation toxicity, and focus on the next clean point, oral ingestion (which is not disputed in the first place). I'm simply trying to see how you are arguing. There is no "solution" to this sort of thing, but might as well hash it out here than on the article page... ;) --Tsavage 23:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I have not addressed the biodiversity issue yet. I will do so now. Glyphosate is a herbicide. And all herbicides are designed to reduce biodiversity. They kill weeds and remove them from the environment reducing the biodiversity in the crop. All herbicides do this. Glyphosate is not unique in this. Farms are not regions of high biodiversity. What we want is highly productive farms so we don't have to build new farms on regions of high biodiversity. If we don't have more productive farms then as the population increases more and more regions of high biodiversity will need to be converted to farms. Therefore, if Round up and RR crops can increase production they have a positive impact on biodiversity. - the loss of weeds in the farm is more that compensated for by the preservation of regions of high biodiversty like forests.

Sorry I have not addressed the lack of studies on chronic effects on terestrial animals. I will address it now. - Your source on this is wrong. See EXOTOXNET on glyphosate. This source tells me that studies of glyphosate lasting up to 2 years, have been conducted with rats, dogs, mice, and rabbits, and with few exceptions no effects were observed. For example, in a chronic feeding study with rats, no toxic effects were observed in rats given doses as high as 400 mg/kg/day. Also, no toxic effects were observed in a chronic feeding study with dogs fed up to 500 mg/kg/day, the highest dose tested.

You are also wrong about their being no data for inhaltion toxiciy. The EXOTOXNET on glyphosate tells me that "the reported 4-hour rat inhalation LC50 values for the technical acid and salts were 5 to 12 mg/L, indicating moderate toxicity via this route. Some formulations may show high acute inhalation toxicity". So there is data on inhaltion toxicity. So, yes, be careful when spraying glyhosate that you don't breath it in. But this is hardly a reason to ban RR crops.

As to my only taking on selected points - I have been keeping score. Before your last posting you had raised 18 points. Of these, I addressed 14. I think this is a pretty good score. I appoligise for not addressing the other 4. But I have corrected this now. If there are any points you don't think I have adequately addressed let me know and I will give it a shot. On the other hand, of 10 points raised by TTguy 29 December, 5 have been completely ignored by Tsavage. On one Tsavage conceeds a mistake was made. One the argument is changed mid-stream. One it is claimed (s)he does not understand my point. And on two points attempts were made to address them.

Your "dangerous-safer" summary is an attempt to make a highly uncertain issue into a more black-and-white proposition, but clearly that doesn't seem to hold up to further reading.

Please note: I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, I'm just very skeptical of what you've said in the way you've said it. --Tsavage 17:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe it is you who is being oversimplistic and it is you that should do some further reading. Perhaps you could start by looking at the PAN Pesticides Database you quote here and actually compare the data on Atrazine to Glyphosate If you were to do this you would note a few interesting points.

                              PAN Pesticides Database Glyphosate vs Atrazine

                                             Glyphosate    Atrazine
PAN Bad Actor Chemical                         No            Yes
Acute Toxicity                                 slight       slight
Carcinogen                                    Not Likely    High
Cholinesterase Inhibitor                        No          No
Ground  Water Contaminant                       ?           High
Developmental or  Reproductive Toxin            ?            ?  
Endocrine Disruptor                             ?           Suspect

key ? = Indicates no available weight-of-the-evidence summary assessment.

There is a lot of evidence now coming to light about Roundup that Monsanto have tried to shout down. It is highly toxic to amphibians, almost certainly causing the spate of deformed frogs in recent years. Study by Rick Relyea from the University of Pittsburgh. It also kills a lot of household pets, so it is not harmless to mammals (N.B. Roundup is a mixture of chemicals including glyphosate.).Monsanto were also forced by courts to withdraw their claim that roundup is biodegradeable.

A group of scientists led by biochemist Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini from the University of Caen in France found that human placental cells are very sensitive to Roundup at concentrations lower than those currently used in agricultural application.

An epidemiological study of Ontario farming populations showed that exposure to glyphosate, the key ingredient in Roundup, nearly doubled the risk of late miscarriages. Seralini and his team decided to research the effects of the herbicide on human placenta cells. Their study confirmed the toxicity of glyphosate, as after eighteen hours of exposure at low concentrations, large proportions of human placenta began to die. Seralini suggests that this may explain the high levels of premature births and miscarriages observed among female farmers using glyphosate.

Seralini’s team further compared the toxic effects of the Roundup formula (the most common commercial formulation of glyphosate and chemical additives) to the isolated active ingredient, glyphosate. They found that the toxic effect increases in the presence of Roundup ‘adjuvants’ or additives. These additives thus have a facilitating role, rendering Roundup twice as toxic as its isolated active ingredient, glyphosate.125.248.222.226 02:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)pignut

It is a real world fact that farmers need to use herbicides - the alternative is soil destroying cultivation. So in the real world a farmer could use Atrazine or she could choose to change to a different herbicide. Now given the choice of chemicals shown in the table above which would you prefer to have seep into your ground water? You are over simplifying by implying there is an alternative to hebicicide use that does not have any negative concequences. But in the real world all choices have some concequence. You ask hypothetical questions about interactions between Atrazine and Glyphosate and suggest that because the answers are unknown we should not proceed. You are asking us to forgo the obvious benefits of ceasing the use of a known carcinogen and ground water contaminant because of a hypothetical danger. For an analogy how about - "I am not going to move out of the path of this truck because I might stub my toe on the footpath".

Anyway in Europe at least the herbicide you would use in rotation with Glyphosate would not be Atrazine because it is being banned.Ttguy 12:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

There's a pretty big assumption to expect to be taken at face value: It is a real world fact that farmers need to use herbicides I'd agree without verifiable support that it is a real world fact that farmers use herbicides, but need is a big word. What is that based on? Can you give an example of how elimination of synthetic herbicides would cause catastrophe on any meaningful scale (that is, peer-review research on short-, medium- or long-term effects of not using herbicides)? --Tsavage 23:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I hate to say it but this question is very naive. You are basically saying what is the evidence that farmers need to practice weed control. Weed control has been a fundamental part of traditional agricultural practices since the invention of agriculture. But lets assume that you are not calling into question the need for farmers to control weeds. Lets assume that you know that if you don't control weeds your crop will produce very poorly. YOu have had a vege garden at some time in your life - right? And you did weed it - right? Why did you weed it? Because if you did not you would get stuff-all in the way of vege yield. So the question comes down to what is the best way to control weeds. There are 3 ways. 1. Cultivation, 2. Hand weeding and 3. Hebicides. Handweeding only works on the small scale and we have a lot of people to feed in this world so we can count this one out as a viable future method. Now we have a long history of cultivation. And cultivation has a lot of negative effects. Soil compaction and soil erosion. Americas Dust Bowl of the 1930s is an example of what is bad about cultivation. The use of herbicides forms part of the "No-Till" or "Zero-Till" method of Agriculture. This method has many documented benefits when compared to soils prepared by cultivation. These benefits include increased accumulation of soil organic matter (Reicosky, Donald C. and Lindstrom, Michael J. 1993. Fall Tillage Methods: Effect on Short Term Carbon Dioxide Flux from Soil. In Agronomy Journal. 85:1237-1243. 1993 and Aguilera, Silvia Maria et.al. 1999. Dinamica del carbono en suelos con distintos sistemas de labranza. In Frontera Agrícola, Vol. 5, N° 1 y 2. Ed Universidad de la Frontera : Temuco, Chile. Pp.33-38.). Improved soil phosphorus content and improved plant availabily of phosphorous ( Moraes Sá de, Joao Carlos. 1997. Reciclagem de nutrientes. In Proceedings of the fifth AAPRESID annual No Till Conference. AAPRESID : Rosario, pp. 99-131.). Enhanced mycorrhyzal fungal development (Wright, Sarah 1998. Increase in aggregate stability and glomalin form arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on no till farming systems. In Proceedings of the sixth AAPRESID annual No Till Conference. AAPRESID : Rosario. pp. 195-202). More efficient use of water ( Dardanelli, J.1998. Eficiencia del uso del agua según sistemas de labranza. In Siembra Directa, J.L.Panigatti et. al. Eds. Hemisferio Sur : Buenos Aires. pp.107-115.). Reduced soil errosion (Papendick, R.I. and Moldenhauer, W.C.1995. " Crop Residue Management to Reduce Erosion and Improve Soil Quality ". USDA (United States Dpt. of Agriculture). Agric. Research Service. Conservation Research Report Nº 40.)

This No-Till method of farming is very widespread around the developed worlds farms. These are farms that were suffering from non-sustainable practices like over cultivation until they introduced No-till. So yes - in answer to your question - if No-Till was stopped there would be major catastrophic effects on farms. The farms would become non-sustainable. Ttguy 14:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

zero till and min till doesn't need to involve herbicides. Matsunobu Fukuoka has pioneered a very productive organic zero till method of farming. Also permaculture encourages zero till farming by switching from annual crops like cereals to perennials. Weeds can be effectively suppressed with mulches, organic matter, compost etc. Black plastic is widely used to suppress weeds, and there are plenty of recycled materials, such as paper, cardboard, old rags etc. that can be used. I recently visited an organic farm which was using old nylon advertising banners (abundantly available in the far east) to smother weeds. Another method is solarisation: in hot countries, clear plastic laid on the ground will "cook" any weeds underneath it. Ley arable rotations also reduce weeds because most arable weeds are plants of disturbed open land, and generally cannot thrive in a pasture, competing with grasses and being grazed by animals. 125.248.222.226 02:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)pignut

The use of zero till has been an improvement over the old abysmal, soil destroying methods of modern chemical farming. To quote Fukuoka "It is as though an idiot stamped all over the tiles on his roof, until it leaked and then took pride in his ability to repair it". Organic farms may cultivate to kill weeds (although some don't), but they also add animal manure and compost to the soil, rotate crops with green manures or ley (temporary grassland), all of which add organic matter to the soil. So farms which don't use herbicides are often increasing the organic matter in their soil. Over zealous weed control by any means, is a major threat to soil health. It's true that cultivation causes losses of soil organic matter, but killing all the weeds in a field by whatever means leaves the soil exposed to the wind and rain, resulting in losses of nutrients and organic matter. Stubble and dead plants on the soil surface provide some protection from erosion and leaching until they decay, but not as much as living growing plants (green manures, crops, weeds).

Making a comparison between a big cereal monoculture using zero till and herbicides and a big cereal monoculture controlling weeds with cultivation is misleading. Pignut 07:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way - what other sorts of herbicides are ther other than "synthetic" ones? Ttguy 14:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Concentrated vinegar is an example of a natural herbicide. It has however been banned by the FDA (I'll be pickling with atrazine from now on) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pignut (talk • contribs) 10:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

It is you Tsavage that is trying to paint everything as black and white. According to you all herbicides are the same - they are all black. So come on Tsavage answer the question "Now given the choice of chemicals shown in the table above which would you prefer to have seep into your ground water?" Ttguy 14:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Much is made about glyphosate resistant weeds. But by the very fact that RR crops are selling like hotcakes tells me that glyphosate resistant weeds are not yet a major problem for farmers. Because if they were then farmers would not waste good money on glyphosate and RR crops.Ttguy 11:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

"selling like hotcakes" Respectfully, here your common sense seems to have left you. If the RR system ramps up yield for, literally, a few years, and then the effectiveness collapses, leaving a bunch of resistant weeds, what good is that? -- Tsavage 16:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

What good is that? Well it is several years of increased food production and improved environment. That is what good it is. All resistant weeds mean is you can't kill them with glyphosate. At the end of the process we are no worse off than before we started to use RR technology. Except we have had increased yeilds and lower herbicide toxicity for the period where RR technology worked. We have had 10 years of RR technology and it does not look like dying yet. 10 years and counting of improved yields and low environmental impact looks good to me.Ttguy 12:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Does glyphosate use go up over several years of production on one farm? Is there a new-and-improved next generation RR product waiting to take over and maintain these great yields if and when RR begins to fail (I believe not)? -- Tsavage 16:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. There are improved generations of RR ready crops being bred all the time. Crop breeding goes on with improvments to yeild etc bred in by conventional breeding and Monsanto ensures that these improved lines are available in RR versions. For example see SeedQuest newsletter anouncing the release of 17 new RR varieties of Soybean for 2006 planting. Ttguy 14:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

If glyphosate resistant weeds were to become widespread, what would be needed would not be a next generation RR crop, but a next generation glyphosate. In this vein there are other herbicides to consider - eg Glufosinate-ammonium - sold as Liberty. But when you think about it what you appear to be trying to suggest is that roundup is really bad because of its toxicity etc and we should not be using it. But on the other hand you appear to be concerned that we might get glyphosate resistant weeds and we will have to stop using it. Surely if the former is true then the latter is a good outcome and we should be supporting RR ready crops because they will bring down the fall of the "toxic" glyposate sooner rather than later. You appear to be trying to have your cake and eat it too.Ttguy 12:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm getting less and less from your replies. If "RR versions" are being made available for the latest and greatest new hybrids, what advantage is that if RR effectiveness is failing? Liberty, huh? So one solution is to start substituing a different herbicide and its companion GE resistant crops? I don't think the rest, your cake-related comments, has anything directly to do with the topic? --Tsavage 23:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The cake comment has everything to do with your argument. You are saying glyphosate is so wonderful that if we can't use it because of resistant weeds then we will have a "food system security" problem. But on the other hand it is some deadly bullet like posion.

Yes one solution to resistance to one herbicide is to use a different one. If they are both safe then so what? Ttguy 14:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

And what is selling like hotcakes an indicator of, exactly? Crack sells like hotcakes, so that must mean that drug law enforcement isn't a major problem for drug dealers? When Vioxx sold like hotcakes, that must've meant that studies showing it could quite as well kill you as cure you weren't a major problem for the manufacturer, prescribing doctors, pharmacists or the public? Hmmm, I guess I get it... --Tsavage 16:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

My point about RR crops is that they are being purchased in increasing numbers. They cost farmers money to buy. I grew up on a farm and I know that after a farmer spends thousands of dollars spraying weeds on his crop he looks to see if the weeds have been killed. If they have not then next time he will not use that herbicide. Therefore, if roundup resistant weeds were a major problem in the real world, then RR crops would not be increasing the market share.Ttguy 12:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

RR crops is that they are being purchased in increasing numbers Really! I couldn't Google any instant sources. Do you have a reference for that...? --Tsavage 23:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Why has your argument now changed from accepting that RR crops were selling like hot cakes (27Dec2005) to disputing that RR crops are selling well(30Dec2005)? Anyway easily obtainable data verifys this as a fact. See PG Economics Study figure 3 and figure 4. Figure 3 shows rapid adoption of GM soybeans without any signs of a platueing of adoption rates. Figure 4 shows that the only GM trait in Soybeans is herbicide tolerance. The AGBIOS Database on approved GM crops indicates that the only other GM herbicide resistance trait in Soybean is PAT resistance. This is Bayers LibertyLink technology. My Yahooing of the web would suggest that LibertyLink Soybeans are not however in commercial production. Therfore I believe all the herbicide tolerant soybean data in these figures are due to RR crops. RR crops are increasing market share. See also [ISAAA report] which tells us that in 2004 Biotech soybean occupied 48.4 million hectares, up from 41.4 million hectares in 2003.Ttguy 14:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

One more comment... Sorry, I thought I'd finished with this thread, but this last point was really bothering me. Pulling the "I grew up on a farm" card to imply that "practical, down-to-earth farmers only support technology that works" is so bad. Farmers in the US and Canada farmers (at the very least) in the 70s and 80s, bought into the real estate bubble and slick ag tech marketing, and government pressure to "get big or get out", leveraged their properties to the hilt, bought tons of high farm tech, created massive increases in short term productivity, and basically bankrupted themselves. It really is sad, and probably disrespectful to your farming ancestors, to say that progress is adopting expensive technology that leads to losing your land, your business and your way of life. Maybe this was inevitable for any number of reasons, but to use the "I grew up on a farm" angle as some sort of homespun, practical inside knowledge thing doesn't wash, farmers are one of the biggest groups to get sucked in by overpriced unsustainable technological developments, and so can hardly be looked to for practical business sense or technological savvy. Today, they're just waiting for their latest CD-ROM software upgrades, like everyone else in the digital world (well, a slight, sadder exaggeration, only the biggest ones with the latest microprocessor controlled, GPS driven gear are, but anyhow...) Anymore... Thanks. It's all part of the discussion... --Tsavage 18:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

125.248.222.226 02:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Also note that US corn belt farmers regularly get successfully targeted by fraudsters offering free energy scams, water powered cars etc. so they aren't that sceptical about new technology.125.248.222.226 02:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)pignut

To the farmer RR crop is not high-tech. It is just a variety you can spray with a herbicide. My "I grew up on a farm" comment was just to note that farmers are willing to try something but they are always very sceptical. They will try it and then check to see that it is working for them. They will be out there checking what weed survived their spraying. And if some did they will think twice about buying the technolgy next year. But the technology is selling. So the Glyphosate resistant weeds have not had a major impact - yet. Ttguy 14:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Tsavage - what are the "other problems" with roundup and RR crops ? Ttguy 11:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, let's see. Here are some other problems, as expressed from various quarters. Personally, I don't know how valid they may be, but they certainly seem plausible, well-researched, significant...

• increased use of glyphosate and other herbicides Source: A new report from Dr. Charles Benbrook, director of the Northwest Science and Environmental Policy Center, Idaho, concludes that the 550 million acres of GM corn, soybeans and cotton planted in the US since 1996 has increased pesticide use (herbicides and insecticides) by about 50 million pounds. Benbrook is a respected agricultural economist and was Executive Director of the US National Academy of Sciences Board on Agriculture from 1984 to 1990.[7] Something like a 20% increase is noted. Reasons include the falling cost of glyphosate (particularly, after Monsanto's patent on glyphosate ran out in Sep 2000), and the increased resistance of weeds. --Tsavage 16:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes glyphosate use is increasing. At the expense of more dangerous herbicides. This is a good outcome. Along with this increase is an increase in the use of No-Till agriculture. This is also a good outcome - our soils will last longer. So with Dr Benbrooks analysis where he just looks at active ingredients it looks like things are bad. But a less simplistic analysis of the situation - taking into account the environmental effects of different herbicides - leads to a different conclusion. Such an analysis has been done by the USDA Economic Research Service. This report states:

Glyphosate binds to the soil rapidly, preventing leaching, and is biodegraded by soil bacteria (Malik et al., 1989). In fact, glyphosate has a half-life in the environment of 47 days (Wauchope et al., 1993),compared with 60-90 days for the herbicides it commonly replaces. In addition, glyphosate has extremely low toxicity to mammals, birds, and fish (Malik et al., 1989). The herbicides that glyphosate replaces are 3.4 to 16.8 times more toxic, according to a chronic risk indicator based on the EPA reference dose for humans. Thus, the substitution caused by the use of herbicide-tolerant soybeans results in glyphosate replacing other synthetic herbicides that are at least three times as toxic and that persist in the environment nearly twice as long.

I would not necessarly believe everything Dr Benbrook has to say. For example he claims that Soybean yeilds are "plateuing". However, on November 11, 2005, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported that the nationwide yield/acre for America's 2005 crop (i.e., when more than 90% of U.S. soybean acres were planted to biotech soybeans) was a record highest-ever.

I believe the US Dept of Ag is a more indpendant source than Dr Benbrook. He may have been on National Academy of Sciences Board on Agriculture in the past. But now he would appear to be in the paid employ of the Organic Food industry. He has been listed for at least a year and a half now as the science director or Chief Scientist of the Organic Center [8], which "works to accelerate the consumer switch from conventional to organic products" [9], which is a project of the Organic Trade Association. The OTA is a business association that focuses on the organic business community in North America, with a mission to promote the growth of organic trade [10]. Given that the organics industry has funded much of the criticism of GM crops, and funds Benbrook, it's hard to see that Benbrook is truly independent. Ttguy 12:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't have any particular belief invested in Dr. Benbrook. By saying he works for the organics industry, I suppose you're suggesting that he is essentially lying or spinning things completely out of sync with "reality". Oh well, that's not too original. (FYI, the OTA represents the organic arm of the major food industry in the US; while it may seem to "attack" conventional farming, it's not; members include Kraft, Dole and the like, and the focus is on larger-scale production and national/international trade, so using "in the employ of the OTA" isn't too damning for your purposes.) --Tsavage 23:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thankyou for making my point for me. The OTA is as you point out part of big business. And as a business they want to increase market share. And what is one good way to increase market share of organic foods? Scare people about GM. Thus, Chuck Benbrook is imployed by OTA to scare people about GM. I would add that the only reason I raise Benbrooks impariality was your attempt to swipe at the intregity of any research funded by biotech industry. In the end it does not matter who funds the research. What matters is the quality of the data on the methods used. And on this score Dr Benbrook does not do well.

Dr Benbrook has been widely critised because he is quite selective about what data he includes in his analysis. For example Benbrook quotes studies that compare crop yields in the absence of weeds. A valid comparison is to compare GM and non-GM in the presence of weeds that are controled in ways that a farmer would use. Such studies have been done and Benbrook could quote them. Eg Reddy and Whiting (Weed Technology 14: 204-211) found no significant difference in soybean yields between the best herbicide program (dimethenamid, imazaquin, acifluorfen and bentazon) for conventional soybeans compared to Roundup Ready with two applications of glyphosate, although the latter program yielded 9% higher. Culpepper et al. (Weed Technology 14: 77-88) found no significant difference in soybean yields between the best herbicide program for conventional soybeans (dimenthenamid, imazaquin and two applications of chlorsulfuron) and Roundup Ready with two applications of glyphosate. The latter program yielded 12% higher in the first year and 5% lower in the second year. Both studies reported better financial returns for the Roundup Ready compared to the conventional system. Shaw et al. (Weed Technology 15: 676-685) compared yields in conventional soybeans and Roundup Ready soybeans. The former had a variety of herbicide programs depending on site and year, whereas the latter had two applications of glyphosate at all sites in all years. At a dryland site there was no significant difference between yields of conventional and Roundup Ready soybeans, although the latter yielded between 4 and 13% lower depending on year. At one irrigated site, there was again no significant difference in one year where the Roundup Ready soybeans yielded 8% higher. At the other site, yields of Roundup Ready soybeans were significantly lower (by 40%) due to poor hemp sesbania control with glyphosate. These three examples simply illustrate that yield comparisons can be quite variable between sites and years depending on a number of factors including weed pressure and varietal tolerance to herbicides, but frequently the differences between conventional and Roundup Ready types are not significant.

And it seems kind of disingenuous to point to the USDA as a blanket "better" source. --Tsavage 23:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Well being a government funded body they don't have any commercial barrow to push so therefore they are more likely than Dr Benbrook to be indpendant.Ttguy 14:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Really, in the end, you haven't said anything more than you started with, which was: glyphosate is better because it's less toxic than, um, atrazine. This is not very interesting nor informative. I'll stop here (I did read your points below). Thanks again for the replies... --Tsavage 23:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

No my points are several. Glyphosate is less toxic than a lot of hebicides. It is cheaper than a lot of herbicides. It is more biodegradable than a lot of herbicices. RR crops allow increaded use of Zero-Till farming with major benefits to sustainablity.

• increasing complications with RR requiring other herbicides and additional cost In crop rotations, resistant volunteer crops are turning up where they're not wanted (like, RR corn appearing in an RR soy planting). This requires the use a second herbicide TO KILL THE GLYPHOSATE-RESISTANT CROP. While herbicide mixing is common, this is a bit absurd: crops have been turned into superweeds. Monsanto successfully applied for a patent, granted in 2001, for this sort of thing: "The present invention is directed to tank mixtures and premixtures of a glyphosate herbicide and a second herbicide to which a first species is susceptible and a second species is resistant."(US Patent no.6,239,072) Requiring complex new mixtures to deal with unannounce, possibly unforeseen side effects of RR, seems like a farming problem to me? --Tsavage

No doubt herbicide resistant volunteers could potentially be a problem. Surely however this is hardly an earth shattering problem. The only impact it has in on the farm. If a farmer is having issues with this and the benefits of the RR system don't outway this hassle then he can choose to switch to a different herbicide and drop RR. However, again I would suggest that the sales of RR crops suggest that herbicide resistant volunteers are not a major problem in the real world.Ttguy 12:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• overplanting of RR crops threatens food system security There is concern that, given the predominance of GM crops in major food systems (of soybeans, cotton, corn and canola, up to 80% in the US and Canada are GE RR/glyphosate-resistant), decline in effectiveness of the system, such as due to weed resistance, could have a serious effect on production. Basically, if these yields can't be maintained in a system configured to rely on them, it could spell food trouble.--Tsavage 16:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

All resistant weeds mean is you can't kill them with glyphosate. At the end of the process we are no worse off than before we started to use RR technology. Except we have had increased yeilds and lower herbicide toxicity for the period where RR technology worked.Ttguy 12:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

This kind of thing seems pretty obvious. And this is only RR. There are other closely realated issues, for example with GM Bt corn (like, how much pesticide are these plants producing?). A little bit of a thoughtful look, and the whole GM thing turns into a giant ball of confusion... You can't just chop out the bits and pieces you want and expect that everything is OK because it's been made to sound so... Everything seems quite uncertain and unstable to me... --Tsavage 17:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

There are hosts of cases of alledged immoral behaviour in the GM food industry, including the already mentioned bio piracy on indigenous and long-time cultured herbs and crop. The article already mentioned the "terminator" seeds, what it fails to mention is that they now try to introduce it in other coutries:

"We've continued right on with work on the Technology Protection System [Terminator]. We never really slowed down. We're on target, moving ahead to commercialize it. We never really backed off." - Delta & Pine Land

http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=107018

The terminator technology has exactly 0 worth for farmers or consumers .. must be something else behind the development. Maybe the possibility to finally introduce patents into a market that was thought to be unpatentable until GM food came along? Maybe the possibility to make more profit? When we look at GM food, we have to not only look at the plants, but at the whole package.

The contribution to farmers and consumers from "terminator" is that a company gets to profit from the research they put into to improving a crop and can thus afford to do more research to produce more improvements. Just as software companys imploy copy protection to stop people using their intelectual property illegally, terminator technology offers the same to protect intelectual property contained within crop plants. Ttguy 00:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

GM food is a way to oligolipolize or monolipolize a market which was thought immune to such machinations because of diversity. And profits from this development will _not_ go neither into farmer's nor into the consumer's coffer.--MKuschpel 21:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

As of 2004 Roundup was no longer patented - there are numerous companies producing glyphosate. Terminator technology is not currently used in any commerically available plant- so I don't really understand your argument - you are essentially saying that a comapny is bad for wanting to profit from its intellectual property, which is hardly a revelation, or an issue specific to this field.--nixie 00:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Removal of NPOV tag: 6-Dec-2005

The NPOV tag was apparently placed on July 1, 2005. (Revision as of 19:20, 1 July 2005 Spikehay (Talk | contribs) Biased to an anti-GM point of view. Quite blatant in "Controversies" and "Public Reaction."). I removed it for the following reasons:

• I could find no support for this tagging on the Talk page .
• The issues mentioned in the edit comment (above) seem to have been resolved; the sections mentioned either no longer exist, or have been rewritten.

Also, I read the version at that time, and the current version, and scanned the History. It seems sections which may well have been seen as POV have been significantly and specifically rewritten to address this. I also checked the NPOV section above: the discussion of Arpad Pusztai is not all that clear; in any case, the content in question about Pusztai, and also concerning the other separate points mentioned in that section, has been rewritten, so the Talk references no longer apply to the current version.

Basically, the article has been substantially rewritten, and seems "fine" to me. Given that, and the fact that the original complaint wasn't properly supported, the NPOV tag no longer applies. Any new challenge should start fresh... IMHO. :) --Tsavage 21:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Well it appears to me the removal of the tag was inappropriate. It is a one-sided argument and it mixes the scientific issues with political ones. It was obvious from the talk page that the POV of the remover was in favor of the slant of the article. All sides should be reflected so that the reader may discern for themselves what to believe, not be coerced into a belief. I have appropriately replaced the tag and it should not be removed until the article reflects the appropriate NPOV. --97.93.40.188 (talk) 09:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Controversy over risks and Pusztai rat data

TheTheB deleted discussion over the details of Pusztai's rat research. For neutral point of view (NPOV) purposes the claims of Pusztai can not be presented as fact. Details about the controversy surounding his data must be aired. I have restored the details. I have removed comment about how many papers Pustai has published and the comment that the papers were not in genetics in an effor to improve NPOV.Ttguy 22:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Tendentious and confusing presentation of statistics in Benefits and Risks

"This reduction results from decreased fuel use, about 1.8 billion litres in the past nine years, and additional soil carbon sequestration because of reduced ploughing or improved conservation tillage associated with biotech crops. In 2004, this reduction was equivalent to eliminating more than 10 billion kg of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, or removing 5 million cars — one-fifth of the cars registered in the United Kingdom — from the road for one year.[1]"

A reduction over nine years is compared with removing 1/5 of cars from UK roads for one year, instead of 1/45 of the cars for an identical nine-year period, which is the only meaningful comparison.

--Rob 11:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)