My main problem with GMO is that it usually means: loads of pesticides and abuse of monopolistic powers, especially in poorer countries.
I guess the same happened with the push for plastics recycling by industry which also turned out be pure deception.
https://pluralistic.net/2022/04/26/plastic-fatalistic/#recyc...
They have a tendency to link GMO detractors to global warming denial and antivaxxers also.
Some GMO crops can lead to less pesticide usage as the plants can sometimes be engineered to be resistant to the pests targeted.
Weed plants don't generally attack the crop plant directly, instead they merely grow nearby and compete for various resources that the crops would otherwise be able to use.
GMO crops can be engineered to be resistant to specific herbicides. This leads to more of that herbicide (generally glyphosate) being used, since more herbicide = fewer weeds, and amounts of glyphosate that would kill non-GMO crops are tolerated by GMO crops.
If you want your assertions to be taken seriously around here, providing your own citations for your claims would help.
"A steady, linear trend for increasing number of herbicide area-treatments over the last 25 years was observed for all crops except soybean. The linear trend was not statistically significant for soybean [...]"
Read the whole paragraph. Less herbicide if the crop is roundup ready.
> it leads to loads of herbicide usage (glyphosate). The process of desiccation also leads to loads of glyphosate being used just prior to harvest, on non ‘Roundup Ready’ (glyphosate resistant) crops
You replied "Ummm no, less herbicide actually".
The Nature study you claimed supported your assertion said herbicide usage was steadily up, and more was used on non-roundup-ready crops.
I don't know if you meant "no" to reply to one or the other of those claims or both, but it doesn't matter because they both agree with drewmal.
Have you considered a career in politics?
Later on, in the conclusion section, the researchers acknowledge that farming is generally a complex system with many reasons for doing things, but nevertheless point fingers at herbicide-resistant GM crops in general (not roundup-ready in particular) as a reason for increasing herbicide usage.
> Some researchers have blamed glyphosate-resistant crops and the resulting evolution of glyphosate-resistant weeds for increasing herbicide use in maize, soybean, and cotton2,6. While this explanation is plausible for these three glyphosate-resistant crops, it cannot explain the similar trends for increasing herbicide intensity in rice and wheat, since no glyphosate-resistant cultivars are commercially available for those crops. In fact, herbicide area-treatments increased at a faster rate in rice and wheat compared with the glyphosate-resistant crops, so the claim that glyphosate-resistant crops are the primary driver of increasing herbicide use is at odds with the empirical data. The broader problem of herbicide-resistant weeds (rather than the artificially narrow focus on glyphosate) may certainly have played a role in increasing herbicide use for all of the crops in this analysis. The most likely explanation, though, is probably a combination of inter-related factors and is far more complex than any single driver.
The alternatives to glyphosphate are quite a bit more concerning when it comes to human toxicity.
This bit about desiccation sounds like it isn’t very common at all, in a quick search I wasn’t able to find references to it from an ag university extension… and it would be quite expensive and hard to justify.
> Contrary to often-repeated claims that today’s genetically-engineered crops have, and are reducing pesticide use, the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds in herbicide-resistant weed management systems has brought about substantial increases in the number and volume of herbicides applied.
The linked paper does say insecticide use went down, but herbicide use went up.
> Overall, pesticide use increased by an estimated 183 million kgs (404 million pounds), or about 7%.
That said, I’d be surprised if GMO really has managed to reduce pesticide usage. I’m pretty skeptical of big-tobacco-like scientific studies. Do you know of a good study that shows this, and which isn’t funded by Bayer or some similarly motivated company?
Figuring out how to maintain some food production capacity without debt peonage in developing countries is a policy problem more than a technical problem.
AFAIK, this has never happened. Monsanto states they have policy against it ever happening. The infringement lawsuits I'm aware of, including the ones the anti-GMO crowd like to trot out, sure seem like pretty clear cases of wilful infringement.
I acknowledge that all of the Monsanto Infringement lawsuits have involved farmers who a) Purchased Roundup-Resistant seed from Monsanto b) under contract with Monsanto c) that included a provision not to replant the seed derived from those crops.
It is my opinion, as a political stance, that that provision c is against natural law as well as the laws of man, and is therefore null and void. Farmers, even big corporate ones, should be allowed to replant the seed of their crops, and it's unconscionable to restrict that.
Like you, I take the view toward that (potentially hypothetical?) case that the farmer's evident intent to infringe Monsanto's intellectual property is irrelevant because he hasn't done anything wrong. In that case, he is not even party to an agreement, though note that violating a patent doesn't require you to be party to an agreement.
Here's a source (with citation). The page also contains an audio version of the text.
I have to say, that author is slipping in some very questionable policy analysis under the heading of "just the facts, please".
The “against natural law” is an interesting claim to me. Where is the comprehensive list of all natural laws? How can we prove that there is no yet undiscovered law guaranteeing Monsanto/GMO seed patent holder such rights? Didn’t the US founding fathers assert that Natural Rights included private property rights, including of natural things like land? It seems to be more of an assertion of intuitive feeling to assert a claim of “natural law” than any concrete proof.
And the “against the laws of man” seems to be false based on case law that I’ve read about in the news. Is your opinion/assertion that seeds / engineered plants should not be patentable? Should they be patentable, but sold at a loss or smaller profit?
Those seeds exist because they were engineered to solve a need. Is there a legal requirement for a farm to use engineered seeds? How much do you think the engineer would have to charge for unlimited license of those engineered seeds? I imagine it would be 20x - 1000x of a single harvest limited license for the same number of seeds. Do you agree?
I actually think that farmers should be allowed to save those seeds and replanting them, as long as they don't sell them. So I'm in favor of changing the way patent law works there.