Organophosphates are like the primary insecticide used worldwide. How do you replace it? I don't see anywhere where they propose an alternative.
Not all produce have a insect-resistant type however. So pesticides are still needed to protect certain plants.
We're talking about replacing pesticides. Monsanto is in the business of selling herbicides and pesticides, so of course they're not going to use the tech to neuter their profits. If anything they are benefiting from the negative press and comments like your own as it discourage the public from supporting the necessary government research. I doubt this will come from private corporations as the profit motive just isn't there.
Maybe you mean "RoundUp Ready?"
The actual real world of GMO, the stuff that is actually marketed and sold -- it's like 90% about herbicide resistance, nothing else.
Insecticides are also pesticides.
I have my Ontario sprayer's license in my wallet. I had to take a day long course on this topic to get it. Own a hobby farm.
Thanks.
In theory, GMOs don't need pesticides. I'm asking about practice. Most other comments support my skepticism.
> Bt corn is a variant of maize that has been genetically altered to express one or more proteins from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis[8] including Delta endotoxins. The protein is poisonous to certain insect pests. Spores of the bacillus are widely used in organic gardening[9], although GM corn is not considered organic. The European corn borer causes about a billion dollars in damage to corn crops each year.[10]
> In 2018 a study found that Bt-corn protected nearby fields of non-Bt corn and nearby vegetable crops, reducing the use of pesticides on those crops. Data from 1976-1996 (before Bt corn was widespread) was compared to data after it was adopted (1996-2016). They examined levels of the European corn borer and corn earworm. Their larvae eat a variety of crops, including peppers and green beans. Between 1992 and 2016, the amount of insecticide applied to New Jersey pepper fields decreased by 85 percent. Another factor was the introduction of more effective pesticides that were applied less often.[18]
So, GMO good (or allows for significant benefits), current products kind-of pretty bad. My 2c.
If this is the case then non GMOs sounds more appealing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_Ready
The crops are designed to withstand Roundup, while weeds are not, so farmers can use Roundup to control weeds with crops that would normally be killed by the herbicide.
Drift from 2,4d will wipe out plants (like your garden, or my vineyard, or like, endangered native plants) many kilometres away.
(I'm sort of in biotech.) This is one way to look at it. But I'm pretty sure one of the mechanisms that allow the plants to survive being covered in certain pesticides also allows them to effectively decontaminate / degrade the pesticide.
A plant engineered to express an enzyme capable of degrading organophosphates [0] could allow for both the plant to be protected from exposure to the toxin & even after harvesting still express low levels of the enzyme which should clean the plant.
That's the idea at least... From experience, it's not nearly that simple. E.g., the degradation products are also somewhat toxic.
It is important to know what is done and where the GMO is used: In some container or open air or open water.
Breeding poisonous crops has its own obvious disadvantages. Is it better to spray poison on your food that can be washed off, or is it better for the food to be naturally suffused with poison?
And in fact, the effort to breed naturally pest-resistant crops keeps running into the problem that pest-resistant crops are also human-resistant. It's all the same thing from the plant's perspective.
Living next door to this and trying to grow things that aren't corn or soy is "fun", let me tell you.
When you look at Roundup, GMOs are designed to resist pesticide, not the actual pest.
The one rare GMO plant engineered to require less poison spraying nearly always does that by producing the poison itself, and having it in large amounts on every tissue. I wouldn't want to eat that stuff pretending that it's an improvement, thank you.
There exist some odd research GMO that resist bugs or require less herbicides due to some effect that does not involve producing poison. I haven't heard of any that left the lab, but I imagine it's possible there is some commercial crop of something like that somewhere.
But we all know that Rattlesnake venom is 100% organic and all natural. So I'm personally not sure if the distinction between "synthetic" and "organic" is very appropriate. Nature can certainly mass-produce poisons that can be detrimental to humans.
The Pesticide problem is rather simple: we want to spray a poison onto our plants that kills insects, but doesn't harm humans (or the plants). Whether you use an "organic" pesticide or "synthetic" one, the fact remains that you are consistently spraying poisons. And these poisons haven't been very well tested for long-term low-level exposure levels. Be it organic or synthetic.
I know many organic farmers who follow practices similar to mine as well. The organic name is really more of an indicator of intent for a lot of people - you can get away with a lot of things and still be certified, but most of the growers I know actually do make a strong effort to find another way. So, the organic label does actually carry some weight with me despite the fact that it can be abused.
There is a big difference between organic and conventional pesticides.
Rotenone is a powerful insecticide that was used to control insects (LD50: 132 mg/kg). Despite the high toxicity of Rotenone to aquatic life and some links to Parkinson disease the compound is still allowed in organic farming as it is a naturally occurring compound
My point was that organic farmers don’t use organophosphates, which was a response to “Organophosphates are like the primary insecticide used worldwide. How do you replace it? I don't see anywhere where they propose an alternative.”